EDUC5302G Curriculum Planning and Implementation Lorayne Robertson

Final Paper

Andrew Cohen (100412889)

Facing Impossibilities: Re-Imagining Intermediate Music Education

The existing model for delivery of the Instrumental Music curriculum in Ontario presents teachers with an impossible task, leading to poor learning, teacher stress, and negative perceptions of music education. In this paper, I will outline the shortcomings of the current model; present a new model; discuss the anticipated barriers to implementing the new model, and how they might be overcome; outline an implementation plan; and conclude with a vision of how a successful implementation of this plan could impact music education, ongoing music making, and schools in general.

The Current Impossibility

The current model has three major shortcomings: insufficient individual attention; less than ideal conditions for assessment; and unrealistic expectations of teachers own playing abilities. Learning an instrument is an individual pursuit. Each student learns at their own pace, and faces their own difficulties. These cannot be addressed collectively: the teacher must give individual attention to each student, evaluating posture, embouchure, tone, breathing and technique. For the beginner student, it is crucial to establish these fundamentals early. The teacher then sets attainable goals for each student, and seeks to motivate the student to practice between lessons. This individual attention is a feature of the traditional master-apprentice model of learning an instrument, but is entirely lacking in the current model of Instrumental Music education in most Ontario public schools. In a typical Instrumental Music class, there are up to (and sometimes more than) 30 students, learning up to 10 different instruments. With 30-90 minutes per cycle, each student receives only a few minutes of individual attention each week. For the vast majority of Intermediate students, this is inadequate for evaluating progress, correcting errors, and setting motivating targets. A students ability to play an instrument, compared to most skills in other subjects, cannot be assessed en masse; each student must be heard individually, in a quiet and relatively stress-free environment. This is an enormous challenge in most Intermediate classrooms. Some approaches that have been used in an attempt to overcome this problem include videotaping student performances (possibly in a separate nearby location) (Cohen, 2010); recording student performances at home and submitting them online (Burke, 2010); and performance tests, where students play on their own in front of the class for an assessment. However, while the use of technology offers some hope for new approaches, access and reliability remain significant obstacles. Also, students react poorly to the stress inherent in playing before ones peers. Furthermore, these approaches dont allow teachers to provide ongoing individualized feedback as part of every lesson. Instrumental music teachers are generally expected to teach (at least) flute, clarinet, bass clarinet, alto saxophone, tenor saxophone, trumpet, French horn, trombone, euphonium, tuba, drums, and bells, and possibly also stringed instruments, guitar, bass guitar, recorder, ukele and/or piano. They are wellversed in one instrument or family of instruments for example, a teacher who studied trumpet at a tertiary level will also be more than competent in most of the brass instruments. However, they will also be teaching instruments which they play only at a beginner level. This is enough to get students started, but once a student begins to advance beyond the beginner stage, they are often playing their instrument better than the teacher. Many fundamental errors can creep into a students technique, embouchure and tone generation which need an expert in that instrument to detect and correct. The current model does not support effective teaching and learning. Without adequate individual attention and support, students quickly lose enthusiasm, and engage in negative behaviours. This increases stress on teachers already struggling with these impossibilities. Students experiences of music leave them with little motivation to engage in music-making in the future. We need a way of teaching Instrumental Music which gives more time for focussed individual attention and more opportunity for 2

quality assessment, which provides students with teachers who are experts on their instruments and fosters positive learning experiences for all students.

General Music

A New Model
I am proposing a new model, which splits the current curriculum into two subjects: General Music, and Instrumental/Vocal Music (figure 1). General Music, a compulsory subject, would focus on appreciation of music, covering a range of styles, including music from diverse cultures, tied to extensive listening and the development of aural skills; creating music, including composing using a range of technology; and analysis of how music and society impact each other.

Compulsory Appreciation Listening Composing and creating Music in society

Instrumental Vocal Music

Optional 30 min/week, 'pullouts' Expert teachers Instrument/Voice Performance craft Theory, History, Aural Ensembles

Figure 1: The new model

Instrumental/Vocal Music would be an optional subject. It would be taught by qualified music teachers, employed by the School Board, who are experts in a family of instruments (strings, woodwind, brass, keyboard, percussion or voice), and who are shared between local schools according to student demand. Students leave their regular classes to receive a 30-minute lesson in a small group (2-4 students) each week, in a separate practice room or studio located at the school. In these lessons, students would learn how to play their instruments or sing; how to prepare and deliver a performance; theory and history as needed to perform the music they are learning; and aural skills. Students taking this subject would also participate in bands, choirs and other ensembles, which would be directed by the Instrumental Music teachers. Innovations often undergo adaptation (Fullan & Pomfret, 1977), and innovations need to adapt to local circumstances (Altrichter, 2005). One variation on this model has students choosing either General Music or Instrumental/Vocal Music. Instrumental/Vocal music students would still be pulled out of other classes for lessons, but would also have ensemble rehearsals (Band/Choir) during class time. This model allows expert Instrumental and Vocal teachers to work intensively with students, providing specific expert advice and differentiating their teaching according to the students ability and interests. In General Music, without the need to teach instruments, the teacher can focus on meaningful and accessible lessons which engage students in a variety of musical experiences. General Music has long been a wasteland for this kind of learning; almost 30 years ago, Patricia Shand argued for improvements in this area, and the separation of music into different subjects similar to the proposed model: In the elementary and secondary schools, there is a need for a wider variety of music courses... There is a need for more emphasis on listening, creating, and analysing in order to raise the general level of musical literacy and aesthetic sensitivity. The comprehensive musicianship approach should be used more extensively. At the elementary school level where music is compulsory, strong general music programs should be offered for those without special talent or interest in performance (1982, 30-31). 3

Overcoming Barriers to Implementation

Anticipated barriers to implementation fall into five categories (figure 2). Music teachers will object to having to change teaching styles and use new content in General Music. The implementers will need to prepare high quality teaching resources for General Music especially, as well as locating existing resources used by instrumental and vocal teachers, and provide training for teachers moving into both streams. Teachers moving from the classroom to become Instrumental/Vocal teachers need to be aware of the change in role relationships they will experience, working in a coach-like role with small groups rather than with a whole class. Fullan and Pomfret (1977) highlight changing role relationships as a key reason why innovations fail.
MUSIC TEACHERS: PRACTICAL OBJECTIONS Different ways of teaching - change in role relationships Different content RESOURCES Teachers, facilities, management, materials, time, energy! MUSIC TEACHERS: CONCEPTUAL OBJECTIONS Instrumental/vocal music not for everyone? Separates facets of music TEACHER EDUCATORS New structure: two subjects/streams New resources

OTHER TEACHERS Interruptions to classes

Pullouts affect academic achievement Resentment

Figure 2: Anticipated barriers to implementation

Users need to agree with the conceptual quality of an innovation before they will adopt, let alone implement an innovation (Altrichter, 2005). This model may be challenged on two conceptual points: first, it implies that instrumental music is not for everyone; and second, it appears to separate aspects of music education from each other. Because Instrumental/Vocal Music would be optional, the new model seems to undermine the instrumental music for all policy championed by music education advocates. But under the new model, instrumental music is still available for all: students simply have the option to choose not to take this subject. In effect, this is providing more music for those students (and parents) who want it. The reality today is that instrumental music is only available in those schools lucky enough to have a qualified instrumental music teacher; in Ontario, thats true less than half the time (Whyte & Mould, 2011). Under the new model, schools without existing music programs would be able to share Instrumental Music teachers, possibly addressing a lack of music education in remote areas (Shand, 1982). This model would also allow schools to offer both instrumental and vocal training; many schools currently focus on one or the other. With improved resources and training, General Music would become more meaningful than the lessons provided by under-resourced, under-trained non-specialists currently. Rather than restricting music, this new model could increase access to meaningful music education for students. Many music teachers advocate an integrated approach to teaching music, where each aspect of music playing, creating and listening is connected. The new model appears to split music education into 4

performance and the rest, but the demarcation between the two subjects may not be as complete as first appears. For example, Instrumental and Vocal students will learn about the composers of the music they are playing and singing, and General Music students will apply music listening skills when composing and analysing music. Both streams will incorporate all aspects of music education, albeit with different emphases. Teachers of other subjects will object to the pullout lessons, on several grounds: first, that students academic performance will suffer. The literature, however, indicates that pullout lessons have no negative impact at all on student academic performance, as measured by standardized test scores (Hash, 2004, 2011): no significant difference was found between the academic achievement of students who left class for instrumental study, and those who did not (Hash, 2004, page 8). The second objection to pullout lessons is that it interrupts lessons. This cannot be denied; however, disruption can be minimized if instrumental teachers consult other teachers when creating schedules for instrumental lessons; finish lessons punctually; and show flexibility when special events or tests impact the schedule (Hash, 2004). Clear policies for example, expected travel times for students returning to class will also be helpful. Underlying this objection may be a sense of resentment: why should music be special? There is the perceived implication that music is more important than the subjects students are pulled out of. Music teachers need to work hard to establish strong collegial bonds with other teachers, but also should point out that teaching and assessment of instrumental and vocal music requires individual attention to each students sound (NAfME, 2008), which is not possible in large classes. Teaching music is different to teaching math, and requires a different teaching approach. Training of music teachers would need to be restructured into two subjects or streams, which may lead to resistance among teacher education faculty and existing music education students. This may be minimized by phasing in training for the new model, so that existing students are able to complete their training as planned, or switch to being trained in the new model. Underlying many of these concerns is the issue of resources: money, time and energy. This model employs more music teachers. It will take significant time and energy to implement. The key to pushing through this barrier is motivation (Fullan, 2006). This innovation comes from a perceived need (Altrichter, 2005), as it will be driven by music teachers who have become convinced that under the current system, meaningful teaching and learning is an impossibility. As all the key players see the benefits, they will see that this change large and demanding as it is is worth it. Music teachers will value better teaching and reduced stress. Students will value choice, access to better teaching, and quicker progress on their instrument or voice. Parents will value more meaningful learning. Other teachers and administration will see the benefit of greater student engagement and motivation which will spill over into other aspects of school life. Any complex and significant implementation requires leadership (Altrichter, 2005) from school administrators and at the Board and Ministry levels (Fullan, 2006). Specifically, key actors in these roles would need to provide resources, set clear policies, and direct music teachers, other teachers, students, 5

parents and music teacher educators to follow them. Without this leadership, these groups will feel empowered to resist or undermine the implementation for example, other teachers may refuse to let students leave for instrumental lessons. Potential adopters of an innovation ask, Does it work? Is it practical? (Altrichter, 2005). This model is similar to the predominant model for instrumental and vocal music education in the U.S. (Hash, 2004); and aspects of the model are followed in most states in Australia, albeit with variations and inconsistent implementation (Pascoe et al, 2005). Advocates of the new model would draw lessons from these users, and compare the learning outcomes of these systems with those of the current model in Ontario. While such a comparison is beyond the scope of this paper, I suggest that Grade 8 students in the U.S. who follow this model are ahead of their Canadian counterparts. Instrumental Music students in Grades 6-8 in the Mifflin County School District in Central Pennsylvania work through books 1-3 of the Standard of Excellence band method; few Intermediate students in Ontario use book 3 (the audition standard for entry into the Grade 9 Instrumental Music Program at ONeill Collegiate, an arts specialist high school in Oshawa, Ontario, is the final piece from book 2). However, this question needs further research before any convincing conclusions can be drawn.

A 7-Year Implementation Plan

An innovation on this scale will require a great deal of preparation and carefully staged implementation. What follows are the broad brush-strokes of a 7-year implementation plan (figure 3).

Figure 3: Implementation timeline

As the drive for this innovation will come from music teachers, that is the place to begin. The first three years will focus on promoting the innovation in the music teachers community through journal articles, conference sessions, professional development, and extensive dialogue. During this period, a leading group of music teachers will be formed. This group will have three goals: to promote the innovation among other music teachers; to gain Ministry and Board approval for the new model; and to prepare for a pilot project which will run in years 4 and 5 of the plan. Preparation for the pilot project will include developing procedures and policies; revising curriculum documents; developing resources; and extensive consultation with all key players. 6

During the third year, after gaining Ministry and Board approval, construction of the studio practice rooms will begin at the pilot project schools. There will also be Professional Development for music teachers involved in the pilot project during this year and throughout the pilot project; these sessions will include opportunities for feedback from everyone involved in the pilot project. Simultaneously, revision of music teacher education will begin; these changes will be phased in over several years, as teacher candidates studying under the current model move through their training and graduate. Formal revisions to the curriculum documents will be completed in the second year of the pilot project, so as to allow inclusion of ideas generated from the pilot. Towards the end of the pilot project, the model will be extended to all schools, including hiring and training of teachers, and construction of studios, followed by a gradual roll-out, with ongoing training and continuous adaptation of the model.

The Look of New Possibilities

What would successful implementation of this innovation look like and how could success be measured? Fundamentally, there would be better teaching and better learning. Instrumental and Vocal Music teachers would express enthusiasm over being able Access to really help students advance in their playing and singing. Students would be excited about music; they would join bands and choirs in greater numbers. Levels of playing and singing would be higher, as measured by completion
Longer learning

Better teaching, better learning

of levelled resources and participation in adjudicated competitions and festivals. General Music teachers would be better equipped to deliver a high-quality, Schoolwide engaging program; student impact motivation would improve, and misbehaviours in General Music classes would diminish.
Figure 4: Outcomes of successful implementation

Support

It would create greater access to music education, especially for students in smaller schools and in more isolated locations. The number of schools in Ontario offering vocal and instrumental lessons would rise. It would lead to more students learning music for longer. The number of students taking music in high school would rise. Over time, more graduates would participate in community music making. It would have the support of and cooperation from all the key players: music teachers, students, parents, other teachers, administration, music teacher educators, and the wider music community. Finally, there would be a positive impact on schools, as students renewed excitement from making music spilled over into other aspects of school life.

With persistence, flexibility (Fullan, 2006) and effective dialogue, this model for Intermediate music education could be successfully implemented, transforming todays impossibility into exciting new possibilities.

Sources
Altrichter, H. (2005). Curriculum implementation limiting and facilitating factors. Paper presented at the Second University of York-IPN Conference on Science Education, Kiel, Germany. Burke, M. (2010). Pull Out Lessons - No longer the lone solution for instrumental music instruction. Blog, August 12, 2010. Accessed December 3, 2011 from http://blog.viaacademies.com/2010/08/pull-outlessons-no-longer-lone.html. Cohen, A. (2010). Using Recording in Assessment. Workshop presented at the UOIT Arts & Technology Conference, April 2010. Fullan, M. (2006). Change Theory: A Force for School Improvement, Centre for Strategic Education Seminar Series 157, 1-15. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 335-397. Hash, P. (2004). Literature Review: Pullout Lessons in Instrumental Music Education. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Winter, 159, 1-9. Hash, P. (2011). Effect of Pullout Lessons on the Academic Achievement of Eighth-Grade Band Students, Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 30(1), 16-22. doi: 10.1177/8755123311418482. Mifflin County School District website: Middle School Instrumental Music Planned Instruction Accessed December 4, 2011 from http://www2.mcsdk12.org/music/muscurriculum/music_68band.htm. NAfME (National Association for Music Education) (2008). Pullout Lesson Rationale. Discussion forum. Accessed December 4, 2011 from http://www.menc.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=1027. Pascoe, R. et al, (2005). National Review of School Music Education Final Report: Augmenting the diminished. Australian Government. Accessed December 3, 2011 from http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/C9AFAE54-6D72-44CC-A3463CAF235CB268/8944/music_review_reportfinal.pdf. Shand, P. (1982). Music Education in Canada. Part II: The Need for Change. The Canadian Music Educator, 24(1), 29-34. Whyte, I. & Mould, N. (2011). Can Music in Schools Live Up to its Promise? Canada Education, 51(5). Downloaded November 26, 2011, from http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-canada/article/can-musicschools-live-its-promise