Contributions to Music Education Vol. 45 (2020), pp. 31-45.

J. TERRY GATES
University at Buffalo

SPECIAL SEGMENT ON VISION 2020

AND THE FUTURE OF MUSIC EDUCATION

Some Views from the Middle:

Reflections on the Vision 2020 Project
American music educators in the 1990s were confronted with several challenges: quickly
advancing technology, reductions in support for arts in schools, and increased commit-
ment to large-scale assessments by policy makers. Add to that several curriculum changes,
especially a movement toward the individualization of classroom planning, expanding
multicultural music content, and the need for local and national advocacy. This article
comments on trends such as these from the perspective of the MENC’s Vision 2020 proj-
ect. The author, a music education historian and critic, and one of the seven Vision 2020
commission authors, reveals his perspective on these matters and identifies three over-
arching themes in the Vision 2020 publication: 1) placing music in personal and social life
rather than as an abstraction from life, 2) justifying music’s place in the school program on
social and personal grounds, and 3) reestablishing an intimate connection between music
in the school and music in everyday life.
Keywords: Vision 2020, music education policy, music curriculum, American music
education, lifelong music learning

Introduction
The Vision 2020 project was created by June Hinckley, then president of the
Music Educators National Conference—National Association for Music Educa-
tion (“MENC” in this paper, as teachers called it in the 1990s), in response to
several moving forces:
The constantly changing demography, the advanced information con-
cerning how students learn, and the explosion of technological advances

31
Contributions to Music Education

combined with the burgeoning choices within our society seemed

to be having profound influences on music education. [We must]
look at what these changes would necessitate and what we as music pro-
fessionals might do to insure that future generations would continue to
experience the deep joy that we know as practicing musicians. (Hinckley,
2000, p. 1)
Guided by an advisory group of professional leaders, she and Clifford K.
Madsen brought the Vision 2020 project to life. I was honored to participate as
one of seven commission leaders. My commission addressed the question, “Why
Study Music?”. Other commissions addressed other questions; see the Reference
List for details.
My tasks for this article are more narrow: 1) to recall what the profession was
like in the 1990s and why Vision 2020 was deemed necessary, and 2) to identify
themes that run through the Vision 2020 project as reflected in the publication
that emerged (MENC, 2000). These related but different tasks form the major
outline of this essay. A disclaimer: These are my turn-of-the-millennium views
focused by twenty years of limited involvement. However, 42 years of active work
in music education since 1958, with students from grade four through doctoral
programs in four states and internationally, give me access to a store of fond mem-
ories. These views are therefore idiosyncratic, but the length and breadth of my
experience supports what I write here.
I was then in the middle of the music education establishment, neither in
the same “trenches” as my graduate students nor in the same national leadership
positions to which the creators of the Vision 2020 project were elected. I therefore
found reasons to be vitally aware both of what music teachers were experiencing
and what their national leaders were doing to help.
The decade of the 1990s was certainly a time of flux. The impending new
millennium inspired urgent discussions about change. America was undergoing
an economic expansion that, coupled with good government, produced a balanced
federal budget by 2000. It seemed ironic to music teachers that financial support
for music programs was shrinking rather than growing.
America was also undergoing a social change, caused (some thought) by
the coming information age. Large corporations were being created or radically
expanded—Apple, Microsoft, Xerox, United Healthcare, and IBM’s new look
among them. Others were waning in importance—Kodak, coal mining, the
railroads, the steel industry. Jobs that the middle class could always count on
for their children were disappearing. As a consequence of economic and other
changes, social change was palpable going into 2000.

32
 J. Terry Gates

Music Teaching in the 1990s

In my historical research work, I found it beneficial to look past the practices
visible to observers to discern people’s motivations—not only at what was done
but at what was being reinforced and promoted. In the 1990s, just when developed
nations were entering a post-modern age and their economies were expanding,
music teachers who maintained modernist programs were reinforced. This was
a paradox. Inside and outside the profession, music teachers were encouraged to
maintain traditional (modernist) programs in a new, post-modern world. That is:
large performing ensembles and large-group presentations of elementary students’
musical skills were both expected and supported by American parents when
massive social changes were in the wind.

Music Educators Struggle for School Music

Music education therefore had an ambiguous place in American schools.
Although most US states required that music be taught to all students in elementary
and middle schools, few required that it be taught by teachers certified in music. In
some states, a course in music teaching was required in the certification programs
of pre-service elementary classroom teachers.
However, no American state mandated large music ensembles in middle and
high school. Yet nearly every American school district supported large ensemble
programs. Music teachers in the 1990s were doing what was expected locally when
they concentrated their students’ efforts on activities their parents thought valuable.
Professional leaders, however, knew that trouble was on the horizon. A wan-
ing percentage of new music teachers was hired at the turn of the millennium
compared with a decade before: In 1987-88, 5.3% of the new hires in American
K-12 schools were in music. In 1999-2000, 4.3% of the new hires were in music,
a 20% drop. By contrast, percentages of new hires in all other subject fields, except
for Art/arts and crafts and general elementary, were markedly higher at the turn
of the millennium (Warner-Griffin, Hoel, & Tadler, 2016, p. 25).
Administrators caught the drift. One of my in-service graduate students
reported that she went to her principal for increased funding so she could buy
a suite of Orff instruments for the elementary music classroom. Denied the first
time, she went again with a better argument. Denied the second time, she pressed
her case. Finally, the principal closed the discussion with this: “Look! You and the
art teacher are nothing more than potty breaks for the real teachers. You’re lucky
their contract requires one and you’re really lucky to have a job here. Don’t ask
again.” This extreme statement was characteristic of the shocking disregard for
classroom music teachers.

33
Contributions to Music Education

Several trends finally captured music education leaders’ attention: dwindling

resources for arts education programs, shrinking percentages of music teachers in
K-12 schools, larger music teaching loads, and outright disrespect from adminis-
trators. These required attention to advocacy. “Parent power,” it was called. Public
relations, it was thought, could turn the tide. National music education leaders
sensed this in the middle of the 1990s, and one of the reasons for the Vision 2020
project was to support local advocacy. Michael Mark opened the Vision 2020 re-
port with a historical survey in which he stated, “The need for public relations in-
creased in the early 1970s when the declining global economy directly threatened
school music programs with severe budget cuts” (Mark, 2000, p.13). The need for
advocacy was a familiar problem to music educators.

Leaders, Alliances, and Organizations

One strategy was to forge alliances between the MENC and other, better
funded groups, principally the National Association of Music Merchants
(NAMM) and the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS).
NARAS sponsors the annual awards given to recording artists and technicians
called the “Grammys,” and Americans interested in the popular arts follow them.
NARAS leaders were instrumental in getting the arts included in the Goals 2000
federal legislation. The follow-up to that legislation, the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act of 2002, included the arts.
NAMM promoted Frances Rauscher’s research finding that supported music
listening and piano lessons for preschool students to temporarily enhance their
spatial-mathematical abilities. At the time, I talked with both Rauscher and
members of the NAMM board about the defects in the research project with
preschool students and the gap between Rauscher’s findings and the public case
NAMM was making when they disseminated it (see also Jenkins, 2001). Arts
educators, however, latched on to NAMM’s narrative to help their local case for
funding. As critic Alex Ross (1994) pointed out at the time, “The neurobiologists
[Rauscher et al.] also suggest that their work will contribute to the demarginaliza-
tion of classical music in American arts education” (p. 23).
The leaders of both NAMM and NARAS were vocal and helpful in publicizing
the need for music educators in the schools. Don Campbell’s book The Mozart
Effect (1997) and his successful marketing campaign extended Rauscher’s finding
into general self-therapeutic uses of classical music. Music teachers shrugged:
“It can’t hurt,” they seemed to say. Rauscher agreed when she walked back her
promoters’ fixation with her findings (Goode, 1999).

34
 J. Terry Gates

Other well-meaning attempts at advocacy were not so effective or helpful.

The Arts in Education organization had a high profile then and still enjoys project
funding from the federal government, but their solution is what I call “bungee-
teaching”—drop professional artists into school programs for a few days “to save
the arts in our schools,” then pull them out. Local Arts in Education leaders were
well connected with school board members and administrators and had ready
supporters as a result. From music teachers’ perspectives, these were top-down
infusions of “help” from outside.
Two feature films, Mr. Holland’s Opus (1995) and Music of the Heart (1999), did
more damage than good to budget support for music education. Both championed
off-the-books solutions to the problem of funding for music programs. In the
1995 movie, one of Mr. Holland’s former students, who had become governor of
their state, returns to play clarinet in his farewell concert. Even she could not save
the funding for Mr. Holland’s music program. What message did that send? Non-
tax-based funding was key to saving music in the schools.
The movie, Music of the Heart, was a dramatized documentary account of the
work of Roberta Guaspari, who talks her way into an East Harlem high school
with a largely self-supporting program of violin instruction. Some famous violinists
(Isaac Stern, Itzhak Perlman, Arnold Steinhardt) collaborated with Guaspari
so that her students could perform with them at Carnegie Hall. Gradually, the
school finds some money, but snatches it back after ten years of noble work by Ms.
Guaspari. The message: Want music in the schools? Get outside funding.
That said, outside funding for some music programs was already the norm in
some parts of the US. Especially in the American southeast, music booster groups
quietly raised impressive amounts of money and paid large stipends over teachers’
salaries to support such co-curricular programs as marching bands and school
productions of Broadway musicals. Sometimes, in-school music teachers’ salaries
were subsidized, in part or in total, by outside groups such as youth orchestras and
community theater companies.

Fragmentation in Music Education

Nationally, the music education teaching force in the 1990s was fragmented.
At a time when professional unity was required, there seemed to be a proud or-
ganization for every type of music education program, not only nationally but
also at every level of government—regional, state, local. Sandy Feldstein (2000)
commented that the profession had too many specialized organizations: “In
[music] education we have a profession with more splinter groups than any pro-
fession I have ever seen. It is mind-boggling” (p. 188). The MENC response

35
Contributions to Music Education

was to act as a ‘big tent’ for this “mind-boggling” jungle of national and state
organizations.
This fragmentation extended to the ivory tower: the research community
collected around Special Research Interest Groups (SRIGs) coordinated in
the MENC by the Music Education Research Council (MERC) through its
Executive Committee, of which I was a member during the 1990s. There were
about a half dozen SRIGs at the beginning of that decade. Today there are fifteen
SRIGs.
The older rationales for music in the schools were wearing thin. Early in
the 1990s there was felt a need to revisit the profession’s philosophical narrative.
Music education theorists at the time became dissatisfied with the use of aesthetic
philosophy as a theoretical grounding for music education policy and practice.
The principal exponent of music education as aesthetic education (MEAE) was
Bennett Reimer, whose views and writings were shaped by Charles Leonhard and
Harry Broudy. David Elliott, one of Reimer’s doctoral graduates, published Music
Matters (1995) in which he argued against MEAE and established praxialist
groundings for music teaching and learning. Thomas Regelski weighed in as
well with important books and other publications touting praxialism as a better
foundation for music education. The MayDay Group (MDG), founded in 1993
by me and Thomas Regelski, sought to critically explore alternatives to aesthetic
philosophy as foundational, to expand the range of grounding theories for practice,
and to connect music education theorists with each other across the world. Elliott,
then at the University of Toronto, was a key member of the MDG at the time.
Two professional organizations emerged from this interest in collective ac-
tion on philosophy and policy critique. One was the MDG, mentioned above.
The other grew out of meetings during the 1990s and a decade later became
the International Society for Philosophy in Music Education (ISPME). ISPME
was led at the time by Estelle Jorgensen from Indiana University. Both ISPME
and The MDG are international organizations. The ISPME meets biennially or
triennially and The MDG meets annually. The key difference between the two
is that The MDG developed a point of view on music education policy that they
disseminate in a document they call “Action for Change.” Their meetings iden-
tify one of that document’s main positions as a focus for the meeting agenda.
The MDG produced book-length presentations of their views. Both maintain
web sites and other outlets for their reports. The ISPME supports the journal,
Philosophy of Music Education Review (PMER). The peer-reviewed PMER fea-
tures philosophical research in music education; other items of interest to music
education philosophers also appear. The MDG has two free-access online fully
refereed journals, Action, Criticism and Theory for Music Education (ACT) and

36
 J. Terry Gates

Themes, Opinion, Practices, Innovation, Curriculum, Strategies (TOPICS). ACT is

focused on philosophical research in music education and similar theoretical writ-
ing. TOPICS includes writing of broader interest, including criticism, curriculum
proposals, and policy recommendations.
Researchers outside the community of theorists saw a place for music edu-
cation philosophy. Empirical research expert Cornelia Yarbrough (1996) wrote,
“The function of philosophical inquiry in the future will be to do what science
cannot. Its purpose will be to provide a sense of the big questions, a framework
within which small hypotheses and topics lie” (p. 768).

National Goals and the Assessment Movement

The standards and assessment movements were on the rise. The Goals 2000:
Educate America Act of 1994 provided funding for large standards development
projects. The MENC was ahead of the game with documents such as The School
Music Program: Description and Standards (1985), and Opportunity-to-Learn
Standards for Music Instruction: Grades PreK-12 (1994), but the rank-and-file
unaccountably weren’t buying it.
Assessment followed on the heels of standards. Teachers resisted the findings
of the 1997 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) music
examination, that American music education programs were producing poor
achievement levels on a variety of measures. Performance teachers with ensemble
programs asserted they already had long-standing assessment programs through
“competition-festivals.” Nevertheless, some state music coordinators pushed for
new assessments. New York State, for example, won large Goals 2000 grants for
assessment development projects in the arts. Unlike our colleagues in other fields
whose programs are dominated by assessment-based curriculums, music teachers
were little affected by standards and assessment development projects pushed on
them, they grumbled, from above.

Themes in the Vision 2020 Publication

The Vision 2020 publication was timely. The views of the Vision 2020 authors
revealed that a fragmented profession was in need of more effective advocacy.
Music educators in both the public and the education hierarchies were fearful
of music’s place in K-12 schools, resistant to standards-based assessments, and
in flux as to its grounding theories. Earlier attempts to guide practice such as
the Yale Seminar, The Tanglewood Symposium, and seminars growing out of
Tanglewood, wonderful as they were, gained little professional traction beyond

37
Contributions to Music Education

a nod to multicultural music education. Merely piling more attractive music into
the curriculum was not an answer. Harry Broudy (1988), arguably the founder of
aesthetic education, quipped, “In sum, the doubts about making arts education in
general and music education in particular an integral part of general education in
the public schools cannot be solved by prescribing Marie Antoinette’s advice to
the starving peasants of France” (p. 43). The Vision 2020 project set out to provide
better advice.
What embedded themes, then, did Vision 2020 authors see as problematic?
What was outdated? What values and policy positions needed to be reframed?
What professional trends needed to be abandoned? What trends needed to be
embraced and emphasized?
If Michael Mark was right in his masterful review of professional develop-
ments in the last half of the 20th century, there would seem to be little else the
project could do.
Symbolically, the new millennium would seem an appropriate time for
professional introspection and planning, but it, in itself, does not suf-
ficiently justify a second major event of this type. The new societal order,
however, does. . . . We have come to accept that what is effective and ap-
propriate now [using technology, embracing a multi-cultural approach to
content, accommodating a more diverse student body] probably will be
outdated in a very short time. (Mark, 2000, p. 17)

Music is Human Behavior, Not an Abstraction

First, the authors locate music in human life and culture rather than as some-
thing separate and abstract, uniquely valuable by itself. This is a shift from the
connoisseurship justification common since the 1950s to something more cultural
and humane. In a sense, it returns the musical grounds of our work to the human-
izing ideals of James Mursell from the 1930s and 40s, when music elitism was
in its heyday (see especially Mursell, 1934). Mursell railed against musical elit-
ism, especially in the selection of content for music programs in schools. Reimer
(2000) echoes Mursell when he notes, “That music so powerfully fulfills values at
each level of the human condition is testament to its necessity as a factor in the
living of a humane life” (p. 37).
To realize this value, many Vision 2020 authors call for (or assume the devel-
opment of ) programs the major outcome of which is lifelong music participation,
what Judith Jellison terms “transition-based music education.” She wrote, “Tran-
sition, defined earlier as the movement of individuals across a variety of school and
non-school environments throughout life, is a valuable principle that can guide

38
 J. Terry Gates

curricular and instructional decisions and increase the probability that meaningful
school experiences will continue in adulthood” ( Jellison, 2000, p. 121).
Paul Lehman reflected the ambivalence of the 1990s with respect to its foun-
dations. As a grounding principle, the cultural identity movement, growing stron-
ger since the 1960s, seemed to ride the fence. By grouping students culturally,
teachers can have it both ways: music as personal and human as well as music
embedded in a more generalized socio-cultural life. Lehman wrote, “The student
population will be more diverse than ever before in many respects, particularly in
the ethnic and cultural backgrounds represented. Each of these groups will seek
to ensure that its own cultural traditions, including its own music, have a place in
the school curriculum” (Lehman, 2000, p. 92).
Carlesta Spearman (2000) translated the socio-cultural view into classroom
policy:
Effective music teachers will have to devise appropriate classroom strat-
egies for defusing tensions that normally arise from social differences.
Teachers will have to work harder at treating all students equally and
respectfully, bearing in mind the vital importance of consistent verbal and
nonverbal behaviors in the acculturation process. (p. 168)
Growing out of Tanglewood and reflecting on the 1990s, the general trend
toward the person as the center of educational planning and pedagogy was slowly
gaining strength in music education. However, in the 1990s, it seemed stuck in
the middle of its development. We were at a kind of intermediate grouping phase
at the time the Vision 2020 report was published: multiculturalism had yet to give
way to the individual learner as the starting point of planning, instruction, and
assessment. Identity grouping is still grouping.

The Place of Music in General Education

Second, most of the authors tackle the question of music’s place in the general
education of American children and youth. As Robert Glidden (2000) put it,
“The question ‘Why do humans value music?’ is probably less pertinent here than
the question ‘Do we value music enough to teach it to our young?’” (p. 52). This,
of course, is the key advocacy question and most of the authors dwell on it in some
way.
Without having seen Glidden’s response to Reimer before our report was
written, my commission’s contribution addresses the core of Glidden’s question:
“Why Study Music?” In my report, I asked and responded to several questions
that nag at the issue: Famous performers learn “by ear,” so why complicate music

39
Contributions to Music Education

learning by placing it in schools?; What are the desirable and likely outcomes of
music study vs. learning on one’s own?; Should everyone in general education
study the same music content and strive for the same outcomes?
If one boils it down, I wrote, “. . . [music] study improves the range and
subtlety of meaning we can derive from musical experiences” (Gates, 2000, p. 58).
Put another way: “The best reason to study music is that it gives people a reliable,
thorough, and efficient way of becoming expert at creating, communicating, and
deriving meaning musically in the world of humans” (Gates, 2000, p. 62). The
commission I chaired, and the report that resulted, placed the individual learner at
the core of the conversation, a then-nascent trend in music education policy. This
hope—that the individual would eventually become foundational to educational
planning—was reflected in most of the Vision 2020 reports.

Music in Schools and Music in Life

Third, it was clear in the writing that music education was too isolated from
the musical worlds of people. Curriculum policy and music resource assumptions
were overdue for a revision. One prediction vis-a-vis music’s traditional isolation
was made by Paul Lehman: “Although music must maintain its integrity and be
taught primarily for its own sake, there will be an emphasis on interdisciplinary
relationships and upon the unique usefulness of music in providing a framework
within which to teach a wide array of skills and knowledge, especially in language
arts and social studies” (Lehman, 2000, p. 96). Cross-disciplinary planning within
school buildings, then, was one revision music educators needed to make. Breaking
through school walls was another.
Resources for music learning must not be (and are not) imprisoned in schools.
Several authors asked us to link our programs with out-of-school resources. Vision
2020 writers, of course, called for adaptions of music learning to digital resources
and networks. But Cornelia Yarbrough led us beyond that: “The issues of most
importance for music education and the schools in the twenty-first century are:
wider choices for schooling, ethnic and music diversity, the impact of technol-
ogy and the digital revolution, and new approaches to teaching and learning”
(Yarbrough, 2000, 193). Spearman agreed: “Community partnerships with music
education to provide for people of all ages may cause a relocation of ‘where mu-
sic teaching happens’ and the forms it will take” (Spearman, 2000, p. 181). Jane
Walters (2000) discussed several growing alternatives to conventional brick-and-
mortar schools as venues for music teaching and learning.
Richard Bell stated it directly: “Today and in the future, music specialists will
be expected to use technology and hands-on professional development to connect

40
 J. Terry Gates

students, classroom teachers, and the cultural community to the study of music,
and to improve teaching and learning across the curriculum” (Bell, 2000, p. 213).
Carrying this notion one step further, Warrick Carter reflected his discomfort
with the one-size-fits-all assumption of published music for school use: “It is only
in the study of music that specific kinds of music are known as ‘school music,’ sepa-
rate from other music with which students may participate as adults. . . . In other
words, school music experiences have frequently neglected large areas of music
making and music expression” (Carter, 2000, p. 140). And again: “There should
be no separation between music and school music. Perhaps by the year 2020 we’ll all get
there” (Carter, 2000, p. 151; italics in original).

Summarizing Thoughts and Experiences

To the extent the changes outlined above take place, music teachers will
assume the lead role in overseeing and improving the public musical health of
the communities where they teach. Within their workplaces, music teachers at all
levels have the means, the motivation, and the authority to take leadership of and
responsibility for the musical health of their communities. In contrast with all other
musicians in their regions, elementary and secondary level music teachers have
access to the whole local population of people through the students they teach.
Their students take with them the musical dispositions, skills, and understandings
they have developed during their childhood and adolescence, much of it as a result
of guided musical experiences in the school. Music teachers in tertiary schools have
a duty to help their students understand and embrace this responsibility through
example, guided explorations, and widened awareness of resources.
The Vision 2020 project invited American music educators at all levels to think
more deeply about their practice in light of our rapidly changing society at the turn
of the millennium. Sam Hope cautioned us to remain courageous in the face of
our detractors: “There are hundreds of non-substantive agendas [that attempt to
hijack music for narrow political or economic purposes]. We satisfy these agendas
at the peril of our cause and our professional lives and honor” (Hope, 2000, p.
85). Vision 2020 was a timely attempt to focus the agenda and to strengthen the
profession for leading roles in the effort to help students and their communities
to create effective personal and communal musical lives in the early decades of the
21st century. The Vision 2020 report charged the profession with a call to action
embodied in The Housewright Declaration (MENC, 2000, 219-220).
The 1990s was a challenging time to be a music educator. And it was also
full of promise. As I noted in an address to the Desert Skies Symposium in 1999:

41
Contributions to Music Education

“[Because of new technological resources] we can bring more music to even more
kids, and bring them more deeply into musical contact with each other and with
themselves. We have the tools to open the world to our students. To maximize
these advantages, we have a lot of catching up to do” (Gates, 1999).
To develop the Vision 2020 report the seven commission authors met with
their members extensively in person and online. Conversations were challeng-
ing, intelligent, knowledgeable, creative, experience-based, and lively. This kept
the Vision 2020 report from being a “musty” book: teachers must do this; policy
makers must do that; music education (whatever that is) must be more the other
thing. But the seven commissions of in-the-trenches teachers, teacher educators,
and industry people kept the “mustiness” to a minimum in their discussions and
their reviews of commission authors’ drafts. What emerged was a book still worth
reading.

References
Bell, Richard. (2000). Response to Cornelia Yarbrough’s “What should be the
relationship between schools and other sources of music learning?” In Clifford
K. Madsen, Ed. Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music
Education (p. 209-217). Reston, VA: MENC—The National Association for
Music Education.
Broudy, Harry S. (1988). Arts education—praise may not be enough. In Charles
Fowler, ed., The Crane Symposium: Toward an Understanding of the Teaching and
Learning of Music Performance (p. 37-43). Potsdam, NY: Potsdam College of the
State University of New York.
Campbell, Don. (1997). The Mozart Effect. New York: Avon Books.
Carter, Warrick L. (2000). Response to Judith A. Jellison’s “How can all people
continue to be involved in meaningful music participation?” In Clifford K.
Madsen, Ed. Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music
Education (p. 139-152). Reston, VA: MENC—The National Association for
Music Education.
Choate, Robert A. (1967). Music in American Society: Documentary Report of the
Tanglewood Symposium. New Jersey: Alliance for Arts Education.
Feldstein, Sandy. (2000). Response to Carlesta Spearman’s “How will societal and
technological changes affect the teaching of music?” In Clifford K. Madsen, Ed.
Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music Education (p. 185-
190). Reston, VA: MENC—The National Association for Music Education.

42
 J. Terry Gates

Gates, J. Terry. (1999). Music education research at the dawn of the third
mediamorphosis. Unpublished address to the Desert Skies Symposium, Tucson,
Arizona; Feb. 15-18, 1999.
Gates, J. Terry. (2000). Why study music? In Clifford K. Madsen, Ed. Vision 2020:
The Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music Education (p. 57-82). Reston,
VA: MENC—The National Association for Music Education.
Glidden, Robert. (2000). Response to Bennett Reimer’s “Why do humans value
music?” In Clifford K. Madsen, Ed. Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on
the Future of Music Education (p. 49-54). Reston, VA: MENC—The National
Association for Music Education.
Goode, Erica. (1999). Mozart for baby? Some say, maybe not. The New York Times,
1999-08-03 p. f1.
Hinckley, June. (2000). Introduction. In Clifford K. Madsen, Ed. Vision 2020: The
Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music Education (p. 1-3). Reston, VA:
MENC—The National Association for Music Education.
Hope, Samuel. (2000). Response to Terry Gates’ “Why study music?” In Clifford
K. Madsen, Ed. Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music
Education (p. 83-86). Reston, VA: MENC—The National Association for
Music Education.
Jellison, Judith A. (2000). How can all people continue to be involved in meaningful
music participation? In Clifford K. Madsen, Ed. Vision 2020: The Housewright
Symposium on the Future of Music Education (p. 111-137). Reston, VA: MENC—
The National Association for Music Education.
Jenkins, J. S. (2001, April). The Mozart effect. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine,
94(4), 170-172. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1281386/
(Accessed 26 November 2019.)
Lehman, Paul. (2000). How can the skills and knowledge called for in the National
Standards best be taught? In Clifford K. Madsen, Ed. Vision 2020: The
Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music Education (p. 89-101). Reston,
VA: MENC—The National Association for Music Education.
Madsen, Clifford K. (2000). Preface. In Clifford K. Madsen, Ed. Vision 2020: The
Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music Education (p. ix-x). Reston, VA:
MENC—The National Association for Music Education.

43
Contributions to Music Education

Mark, Michael L. (2000). MENC: from Tanglewood to the present. In Clifford K.

Madsen, Ed. Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music
Education (p. 5-22). Reston, VA: MENC—The National Association for Music
Education.
MENC. (2000). Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music
Education, Clifford K. Madsen, Ed. Reston, VA: MENC—The National
Association for Music Education.
Mursell, James. (1934). Human Values in Music Education. New York: Silver Burdett.
Reimer, Bennett. (2000). In Clifford K. Madsen, Ed. Vision 2020: The Housewright
Symposium on the Future of Music Education (p. 25-48). Reston, VA: MENC—
The National Association for Music Education.
Ross, Alex. (1994, August 28). Classical View: Listening to Prozac…er, Mozart.
The New York Times, Section 2, p. 23. https://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/28/
arts/classical-view-listening-to-prozac-er-mozart.html (Accessed 26 November
2019.)
Spearman, Carlesta Elliott. (2000). How will societal and technological changes
affect the teaching of music? In Clifford K. Madsen, Ed. Vision 2020: The
Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music Education (p. 155-184). Reston,
VA: MENC—The National Association for Music Education.
Walters, Jane. (2000). Response to Paul Lehman’s “How can the skills and
knowledge called for in the National Standards best be taught?” In Clifford K.
Madsen, Ed. Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music
Education (p. 103-107). Reston, VA: MENC—The National Association for
Music Education.
Warner-Griffin, C., A. Hoel, & C. Tadler. (2016). Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in
the United States: Results from the Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88 to 2011-12
(NCES 2016-876). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Retrieved 18 September 2019 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
Yarbrough, Cornelia. (1996). “The future of scholarly inquiry in music education”:
1996 Senior Researcher Award acceptance address. J. of Research in Music
Education, 44(3), 190-203. Reprinted in Harry Price, Ed. 1996. Music Education
Research: An Anthology from the Journal of Research in Music Education (p. 759-
772). Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.2
Yarbrough, Cornelia. (2000). What should be the relationship between schools and
other sources of music learning? In Clifford K. Madsen, Ed. Vision 2020: The
Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music Education (p. 193-208). Reston,
VA: MENC—The National Association for Music Education.

44
 J. Terry Gates

Endnotes
1
Mark refers here to Tanglewood Symposium of 1967 as the first major event of
similar scope, convened by the MENC to define and clarify the place of music
in American society, to expand the content of music education programs, and to
improve music instruction. Several follow-on conferences were organized to focus
on special aspects of the report, encapsuled in The Tanglewood Declation. A major
effect was the growth of multicultural music education content and practices. See
Choate, 1967 for a report.
2
An index of the Journal of Research in Music Education (JRME) from its founding
in 1953 through 1997 appears at the end of this compilation. Its editors used an
elaborate selection process characterized by numbers of times cited and frequency
of authors’ contributions to the literature, including published articles in such
research periodicals as the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education
(CRME). See the compilation’s Introduction for a full description of the criteria
used in the selection of the content. A scan of the table of contents reveals that the
heyday of cited research was in the decades of the 1980s and 90s. Articles on special
populations research and multicultural music education showed new life in the
decade of the 90s. Note that the compilation sources ended in 1996, just halfway
through that decade.

45