Springfield vs. Dublin Coffman
Were you spotted tailgating?
Carlisle vs. North College Hill
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2005 > December > 29 > Entry
Flunked by the Beatles
Imagine this: your fourth grader flunks the state achievement test because she doesn’t know the difference between the Britney and the Beatles.
Ridiculous? It could happen in Florida, where lawmakers are seriously thinking about adding a music test to the state fourth grade assessment that, for now, would be voluntary.
So what kind of far out quack would propose such a wacky idea?
Would you believe music teachers?
If there was ever a subject that was ill suited for measurement with a standardized test, it’s music. And in fact, the proposed test does not measure student talents for singing, dancing or playing instruments. It does not measure if kids can read music.
What does it measure? The Miami Herald says:
“As part of the test, students would listen to music and then answer questions about the instruments, voices and style of music.”
To which I must ask, what will those test results tell us that will be of any value? Not much, I expect.
So why do music teachers want such a test? The simple answer: to maintain relevance.
This is actually very interesting. Having a state test in your specialty is a matter of self preservation. Because if a subject is not tested, guess what? Nobody cares about it. When it’s time to cut, the untested subjects are going to be at the front of the line.
So if music teachers want to assure that music stays in schools (and, by the way, that music teachers keep their jobs) the best way to do that is to make music more relevant and the one way administrators today judge relevance is by asking the question — is it tested?
So if this goes down in Florida, music will stay in school. And music teachers will spend hours of class time training kids to listen for the difference between reggae and funk, a cello and a violin, a baritone and a tenor. That’s time those teachers could have used to teach the kids to sing or play guitar.
But perhaps they’ll know Eleanor Rigby from Christina Aguilera.
Permalink | Comments (11) | Categories: Testing
Comments
By Scott Elliott
January 7, 2006 4:39 PM | Link to this
Thespis, While I never claimed to be an expert in music, I do know quite a bit about standardized testing. This post is not in any way critical of music or the teaching of music and arts in our schools. In fact, I personally very strongly favor music and arts instruction integrated into public schools and for my own children. I simply don’t think the kind of testing they are talking about in Florida is likely either to provide useful information about student music knowlege or skills or to drive music instruction in a helpful direction. Standardized tests are ill-suited for many subjects. Another excellent example is writing, which is very poorly measured. If, as you seem to argue, standardized tests ARE good for music instruction, why have music teachers never before proposed them? Because the tests are not about making music instruction better. It’s about self-preservation, period.By Thespis
January 7, 2006 3:38 PM | Link to this
Scott Elliot, education reporter for The Dayton Daily News, blogs regularly on the daily news website under the title, “Get On The Bus.” Recently, he blogged about a topic with all the expertise of a non-professional whose limited understanding and casual experience with music permitted him to speak on the standardized testing of music and the other arts. In fact, the headline of the article, “Flunked by the Beatles” reflects such commonly held misperceptions about the role of music in our schools and culture, that I pity the Dayton Daily News for having to put up with this amateurish employee. In one of the last vestiges of time-honored prejudice, anyone who likes music and has opinions about music, is deemed “qualifiedâ€? to comment upon the selection of music, the topics covered in the music curriculum, and now whether or not there are basic music concepts that could or should be tested. It is universally accepted that all performing arts teachers, and music instructors in particular, are the constant prey for these self-proclaimed critics. To Continue Reading: http://thespisjournal.blogspot.com/2006/01/erroneous-blogging-at-datyon-daily.htmlBy Sara
January 4, 2006 4:41 PM | Link to this
I am a former music teacher that just moved to Florida. I am a former music teacher simply because I could not find a job in music in a 90 mile radius of where I would be living. Music programs are being cut with a vengeance down here. Orchestra is gone in my area, choir is nearly non-existent. The only reason band hangs on is for the marching band season. The situation down here is getting to the desperate point. So, yes, maybe music classes become more music appreciation based rather than performance based. I don’t love the thought either, but I sincerely hate the thought of kids going through an entire K-12 education without any music at all.By Scott Elliott
December 30, 2005 12:58 AM | Link to this
Just to be clear, I am wholly in favor of music education integrated into K-12 schooling. I just find it amazing that the Florida music teachers feel the only way they can assure that music is valued it to get it into the testing program. And the particular type of test they are talking about does not encourage the type of music study I think most kids enjoy and benefit from. That is, actually learning how to make music themselves. Oh, and nice catch on cello!By Mary
December 29, 2005 11:58 PM | Link to this
As I was reading your narrative about the ability of students to read sheet music, I recall reading that Beatle Paul McCartney could not(still cannot?) read sheet music. The only emphasis on music in many schools seems to be music competitions (especially marching band) for a small percentage of students in after school activities. The music education for students, in general, seems to play “second fiddle” (with no school orchestra). The same can be said for physical education vis a vis varsity sports. After school activities receive more emphasis and limited financial resources for a small percentage of students than school day opportunities in music and physical fitness for the students at large.By Hillary
December 29, 2005 11:50 PM | Link to this
Standardized tests are useless. They stress students and teachers unnecessarily. Teachers who could be teaching valuable life lessons, spend a good portion (if not all) of the year literally teaching kids how to pass the test. In many cases they don’t teach the things the test is “testing” they teach you what answers are expected on the test and the proper way to word the answers and where to put your “notes” and where to write your answer. It’s ridiculous. As for adding a music category I think that’s a bad idea. I love music and I took choir for the last 6 years of my public education and actively participated in “music” class the prior 6. Once in choir (and I also happened to be in numerous non-class choir groups as well) we were tested on things such as styles of music, the various terminology, etc. Did I like being tested on it? Not really, but it was a part of the music curriculum. Most of the time however, the real test was if you could sing your part (and it often factored into your grade much higher). Anymore schools (especially those in financially troubled times) immediately jump to cut music and art when something needs to go from the budget. Which is sad because music and art are huge parts of a well-rounded education.By Matthew Brown
December 29, 2005 6:19 PM | Link to this
It’s odd that music, which was once the primary subject of education in 5th century Athens, and part of the trivium of the medieval universities of Europe, is now shuffled off to be a bunch showbiz trivia questions on a pencil-and-paper test! Cultured people enjoy art and music, but that enjoyment is no more accurately measured by a test than most of what is taught as academics.By A future music teacher
December 29, 2005 5:21 PM | Link to this
The fact that you can’t spell cello speaks volumes about the need for such a test. All the arguments you make would call for a revision of what the test assesses, not throwing it out completely. Perhaps music educators also advocate such a test because they understand how much the knowledge and skills obtained from studying music can enhance one’s life.By cornbread
December 29, 2005 1:49 PM | Link to this
will this include charter schools?will this really measure what they’ve learned from the music lesson, or what they saw on vh1?By Kathianne
December 29, 2005 1:22 PM | Link to this
Well I guess the music teachers have more ‘weight’ than social studies teachers. Many standardized tests are illiminating those subjects. Go figure.By Charlie
December 29, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this
I think this is a great idea. Children today are exposed to nothing remotely cultural, and alothough they might approach it with popular culture forms of music, it is still valid and needed. It would be sad to think eventually that all aspects of the arts might be removed from our school system. Let us remember, architecture, design, art, literature, mathematics, and music are all intertwined. Remove on piece of the composition, and the piece falls. Let’s not produce a furture that is uninspired, and is nothing more than industry fodder.