At the turn of the century, many music educators came together at the Housewright
Symposium to discuss the future of music education. They came up with 12 recommendations
that were to be reexamined at a later date (namely 2020). We are passed 2020 now, but the time
has come to look back on what was said and to see how the climate of education in America has
changed.
Statement 2: The integrity of music study must be preserved. Music educators must lead the
development of meaningful music instruction and experience.
STEM is changing this for everyone but that does not mean that music teachers should
shift their focus. If music’s only function in schools is to “make the students smarter” than they
diminish the value of having a music program for its own merits
Statement 3: Time must be allotted for formal music study at all levels of instruction such that a
comprehensive, sequential and standards-based program of music instruction is made available.
Music teachers are pressed for time (especially with marching band) and there is no right
answer to how to approach this dilemma. The other problem is focusing on only teaching the
music for competitions and not learning more about theory or history. The answers may be
alternate ensemble options.
Statement 4: All music has a place in the curriculum. Not only does the Western art tradition need to
be preserved and disseminated, music educators also need to be aware of other music that people
experience and be able to integrate it into class- room music instruction.
It mentions towards the end of this analysis that there is no real barrier except for
(essentially) stubbornness. Inclusion of different genres is as easy as finding the music for it.
That or the over-emphasis (I call it elitism) of some directors only choosing Western Classical
Cannon.
Statement 7: The currently defined role of the music educator will expand as set- tings for music
instruction proliferate. Professional music educators must provide a leadership role in coordinating
music activities beyond the school setting to insure formal and informal curricular integration.
The biggest addition seems to be that the line between educators and performers seems to
be blurring. There are more and more performers being paid to teach as part of their orchestra
gig. It really shows that more than just teachers are seeing the need for an increase in music
education. But it seems that even universities are starting to increase (or should) both teaching
requirements for performers and performing requirements for teachers.
Statement 8: Recruiting prospective music teachers is a responsibility of many, including music
educators. Potential teachers need to be drawn from diverse back- grounds, identified early, led to
develop both teaching and musical abilities, and sustained through ongoing professional development.
Also, alternative licensing should be explored in order to expand the number and variety of teachers
available to those seeking music instruction.
Basically this goes into looking for alternative licensure for teachers of music. However,
the author worries that this will devalue the subject as the curriculum is based off the teacher.
Having less studied teachers can lead to decline in the level of music education.
Statement 9: Continuing research addressing all aspects of music activity needs to be supported
including intellectual, emotional, and physical responses to music. Ancil- lary social results of music
study also need exploration as well as specific studies to increase meaningful music listening.
Music should not follow suit with the other subjects that are currently going with the
trend (fitting into STEM). As music would function in this system, it would only be to aid the
other “core subjects” by making “the students smarter.” This means as long as music is simply a
boost to other subjects, it has no function if that were to fail. Music and art has a lot of value
outside of how it boosts test scores.
