The call for more
educational time for “the basics” in schools seems to be growing
louder. Of course, most of us agree with this view. But what is
considered “basic?” If the inclusion of instruction in music is to be
among the basic subjects taught in school, music instruction must be
shown to contribute to the general goals of education. Music in the
school day can only be justified if the outcomes of such instruction
form a part of the overall development sought for all students. What
might music education contribute to this development? I will describe
three of many possible reasons one might use to justify music’s role
in education. The first could be labeled cognitive, the second,
cultural, and the third, experiential.
In the last decade we have heard
much discussion about the benefits of music study to the development
of skills and knowledge in subjects other than music; to
spatial/temporal intelligence; to health and mental well being; and
even to creativity (whatever definition one might want to give to
this construct). I believe these reasons for music instruction in the
schools are somewhat specious. Even the argument of the ubiquity of
music in all societies does not convince me of the need for music
instruction in our schools. There are many activities ubiquitous to
all societies but we do not normally consider the study of them
important for the general educational curriculum. And creativity is
not limited to study in the arts. Creativity is coveted by all human
inquiry.
So what will serve as a catalyst
for enlightening the general public to consider the study of music
basic to the school curriculum? First and foremost, I believe music
study is basic to the curriculum because music is basic to the human
brain. Music teachers immediately embraced the research that became
known as the “Mozart Effect” as a means to show how important music
instruction is to education. But the research is mixed and the
rationale for music’s value to other subjects taught in schools is
misleading. Even the multiple intelligence theories so touted in
recent years (and in earlier decades, by the way) may not be the best
reasons for including music instruction as part of the basic
curriculum in our schools.
One way to justify the teaching of
music in schools (especially in the early years of schooling) is to
view music activity (listening/performing) as the Rosetta stone of
human communication. Both music and speech require the brain to
organize acoustic patterns. Cultures require the brain to construct
and interpret rules for using these patterns. Many of these
music/speech rules are implicit yet critical to successful musical
and linguistic communication.
There is a learning window for
certain aspects of language development that opens at birth (or even
before) and closes by around the age of ten. Most researchers agree
that important language rules are learned by age ten. If the same
learning window operates for music (which I believe is the case), the
important musical rules are learned by that same age. In speech,
practice begins soon after birth. For the human brain to learn music,
the practice window must be opened early in life (before the learning
window closes). Early music study provides the grounding for
meaningful brain pattern organization and problem solving.
Language develops as the newborn
child learns to organize abstract acoustic patterns. Language in the
infant quickly develops a need to become referential. Since music
does not need a referential component I have argued that it (music in
its most basic form) develops a capability in the brain prior to
language. By “music” I mean the human brain’s organization of
non-referential acoustic patterns. This brain activity begins shortly
after birth, and if it is reinforced (as language is reinforced) it
develops into a musical brain. But this musical brain is the same
brain that is required to deal with all sorts of complex problems.
Early training in musical “language,” then, helps the brain learn to
differentiate, organize, and order abstract acoustic patterns. The
musical brain’s ability to solve complex abstract problems
efficiently and elegantly contributes to a basic goal of education.
We expect our educational system to develop such cognitive processes.
This is especially so in the primary grades.
In grades 6 to 12 the study of
music takes on added dimensions. First, music study in the middle and
upper grades relates more to social and cultural constructs. An
important goal at this level is to develop skills and knowledge that
allow students to explore and to develop a perspective about great
accomplishments of men and women in society (past and present). This
includes, but is not limited to music. The curriculum at this level
includes studies in government, literature, sciences, mathematics,
and so forth. Knowledge in a wide variety of disciplines is a
hallmark of the educated person. Of course, music should be part of
this literacy.
Second, and perhaps more important
in the middle and high school years, is the value inherent in the
process of music making, both in individual and group settings. The
notion of “practice makes perfect” is valuable across the spectrum of
human endeavor, but nowhere is it more transparent than in the realm
of music. Teaching students that consistent application and concerted
effort leads to improvement and understanding is the stock-in-trade
of secondary school education. Further, in a group setting, the value
of working to perform together well, to function as a well-oiled
machine, to meet the goals of the individual and the group, is
enormous. In this way, music leads to great self-fulfillment, a very
important concept for schools to teach and students to learn by
doing.
Since all human activity requires
the ability to construct meaningful patterns in the brain, and since
music is an important way to develop such abilities, music
instruction should be basic to education. Music study can also
contribute to cultural literacy and meaningful participation. For
these reasons music education should be central to the school
curriculum.