There's a lot going on in my music teacher friend feed the past couple of days.  Primarily, there are a lot of reposts of this, posted by someone on the American Choral Directors Association page:
--------------------
Dear colleagues,

I've just read yet another FB post by a well-meaning music educator, trumpeting a study that says music boosts concentration. With all due respect to my learned colleagues, we need to stop this.

Every time we support our school music programs by saying "Music boosts test scores/increases concentration and focus/helps students learn math, etc." we sell ourselves short. Music does not exist to support other disciplines, and every time we sell it that way, we perpetuate the myth that we are "specials" rather than core academic classes.

Music pre-dates the development of mathematics, written language, even civilization itself. Unless we put forth the idea that music is one of the fundamental elements of humanity's very existence, we will forever be relegated to the budgetary back burner. If we don't start treating music like it should be front and center, no one else will.

ARS GRATIA ARTIS!
----------------------

Though arguments about music education promoting things like IQ and math scores are thrown around all the time, I would speculate this is in response to a recent article from the WSJ that has also been making its way around (about which I have mixed feelings for another day).

I think this guy has got a lot right.   Promoting music education to improve math scores is wrong.  More math is much more effective at making math scores go up.  And until math teachers are asked to try to incorporate and improve music skills in their classes, the balance of power is unfair and demeaning.  

A couple things about this are less right, I think.  First, music as one of the "fundamental elements of humanity's very existence" is well and good.  But being compulsorily herded into a school building for hours every day where you're forced to sit with people born in the same year as you, and participate in activities that often lack big meaning and relevancy is not exactly a place where I expect humanity's fundamental existence to be too deeply considered.

More importantly and less rogue, the conflation of improving math skills with focus/concentration is what I perceive as a dangerous one.  Saying music education improves math scores is wrong (and also correlational/speculative).  Saying music education improves focus (also correlational/speculative) is another story.  That is not legitimizing for some other discipline's purpose, that's calling attention to a broad way of thinking that is present in music-making activities.  No one can prove that transfers to other situations yet (because few, if any, have tried) but anyone who plays an instrument or considers deeply all that such an act entails quickly comes to the conclusion that there's a lot going on in that process and it must require focus.  And focus is a good thing in and of itself.  If it transfers outside of music, that's even better.  But I don't see how it hurts the argument for music or demeans it as a discipline.  It's simply a part of what we already do.  

If we don't argue for big, broad skills/thinking in authentic arts contexts, what do we argue for?  Pitch matching and mallet technique is not going to get us far.  

A few months ago, I read this short NPR article  , which boasts that music should be taught for creativity over test scores.  

The NAfME spokesperson quoted in the article cites Broader Minded, which is NAfME's new advocacy tool that stresses a more "complete argument for music education", including sections about areas like improving collaboration and communication, as well as emphasis on grit and emotional intelligence, among others.  I'm excited at the potential of a perspective like that of Broader Minded for NAfME, as it is based in advocating the arts for their intrinsic qualities--things we already do in music classrooms--not on external, roundabout measures, like reading scores.  

While I am happy about the perspective of Broader Minded, I very much hope this is a stepping stone to more substantially-supported arguments and that it encourages future research.  Currently, each 21st-century skill or area of brain development cited is supported only by short narratives from music teachers, students, and parents.  While these are undoubtedly valuable, they do not provide a substantial, research-based argument.  In some cases, research does not exist--a great reason for more research on these cognitive habits.

I have to take some issue with the NPR article title's reference to creativity.  Nowhere in the article to we hear creative acts referenced--what we do hear about is children learning Wade in the Water by rote.  If we mentioned rote learning in any other subject, it would be labeled as the antithesis of creativity.  Yet by being musical, we somehow get a pass on using that word...

Shortly after my initial discovery, I purchased The Arts and the Creation of the Mind, and I have to admit it has sat on my shelf for a long while, because, well, my reading list is rather long.  And I have a feeling that is a really unfortunate thing, so it's moved to the start of the list.  I'm excited to start it up after I finish Paul Bloom's latest book.  Does anyone want to read it with me at the same time?  I'm sure it would make for great discussion!

There's been an awful lot of publicity on the USA network, but it looks like we won't be able to watch It Takes a Choir for a few more months. 

While glued to Law and Order: SVU marathons on USA, I've been noticing ads for It Takes A Choir, a new show airing in November.  

Will I watch this show?  Sure, I will.  I'm going to try it.  
Is it possible that the unrealistic expectations placed upon the "spellbinding power of music," and the be all-end all emphasis on the culminating public performance will drive me crazy and I'll stop?  Yes, entirely.

I have some concerns about what the episodes show (or don't show), about what aspects of the rehearsal process are emphasized, and the general tone the series could take.  I'll write about them after watching an episode or two, because maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised..  Will you be watching, also?

I remember in 2010 when New York City hosted some street pianos.  Because I am a pessimist, I wasn't all that impressed.  The artist part of me knew there was something cool about making instruments accessible in public, and that the unexpected placement of those pianos would be whimsical and fun.  But a greater part of me was not all that excited.

This is because my gut reaction was not to envision the best.  I envisioned obnoxious high schoolers making a nonsensical racket, adults rudely using it as a flat space to rest their soda can, and small children plunking out Jingle Bells incessantly while I tried to read.  So I wasn't holding my breath for them to come to Boston. 

Recently, and lasting until mid-October, they arrived, and have been decorated by local artists.  Given that I'm out an about in Boston quite a bit, I've seen several, including the ones in Harvard Square Plaza, outside Sullivan's on Castle Island in South Boston, and near the Berklee Bookstore on Boylston Street. 

The pessimist in me has been squashed.  I have not witnessed any of the scenes above.  I've only witnessed delighted elderly men dusting off songs from long ago, children plunking out pieces of pop songs to happy audiences, and a presumably homeless woman smiling and improv'ing while her belongings sat nearby and a group of her friends listened.  

People, perhaps, can be trusted more than I generally envision.
Music, perhaps, has a power to make people see only good possibilities.
This was, perhaps, a really great idea.

There are many great things to think about in the responses to the questions the New York Times posed to students here.  Prompted by several questions about creativity in school, their personal lives, and society, students (and presumably some adults) responded in predictably varied ways.  

The first thing that struck me as I read through the responses was a good feeling that students (although most of them seemed to be from an arts-centered high school, perhaps to complete an assignment) were being forced to think about creativity, its place in the world, and to question its place in their school days.  What a great question for the increasingly bored student population to think about, and perhaps helped give some of them words to articulate part or all of what is missing from their day.

The second point that stuck out to me was the various definitions of being creative.  Nearly all responses clung to the traditional fine and performing arts to describe creativity, though the prompt mentioned scientific and technologic endeavors.  Use of the word "creativity" is a constant pet peeve for me, as anything in the artistic realm seems to be confused for a creative act.  Hand a kid a crayon, that's creative.  Let them run around how they want, and that's just like dance.  In the comments, students relate basketball, cheerleading, soccer, knitting, and computers to opportunities for creativity.  While I do not question the ability to infuse creativity into cheerleading (or any other) pedagogy, or to approach soccer playing creatively as a student, I do question them being labeled as creative, presumably just because they are enjoyable.  Creative does not equal enjoyable. 

Creativity also does not necessarily equal music or art class.  As Penny writes in comment 27, "Art, music and band, the only separate creative classes in elementary school, follow the guidelines of the projects the teachers provide. Art more so than music will allow a little creativity from the student as long as they follow the main instructions of the project. In Music class you sing what you are told and in Band you usually play what you are told. Only at home is where the band members are allowed to be creative."  Many superintendents, parents, and, as shown here, students, rest on their laurels by the offering of arts classes.  However, many ensemble settings or cookie-cutter art projects offer very little authentic, genuine opportunities for creative, inventive acts.   This disconnect between creativity and the arts is also evident to Shayla in comment 2, " the only creative outlets we were given were music and art, but we didn’t have any freedom in what we did. Everything in art was an assignment with a tight criteria. In music we only learned how to read music and play specific notes. That’s all we did all year long."

In the prompt, the NYT asks how they are inspired "to design, invent, and imagine new ideas."  I think this is a great definition of actively creating, and it spans all disciplines.  I (realizing the controversy of such a statement) don't find many arts education experiences necessarily creative by this definition, and perhaps that's okay for the sake of other skills.  But if so, it's important to embrace the spirit of the NYT "creativity" in all areas of schooling.  

In August, the newly forming democratic Joan Rubin School was lucky enough to get some front page publicity in The Metro.  It has boosted interest in the project tremendously, though I feel the article leaves quite a bit of room for questions and confusion.  

As I've been speaking with people, a point of confusion about schools like these is about rules and structure.  There are plenty of rules, and those create a structure for members of the community in a democratic school.  The difference is that rules are determined authentically and out of necessity, and by those whom they effect, as opposed to by those "above" them (a concept that can be appreciated by students AND teachers in today's world..)  The Judicial Committee and School Assembly processes in this model allow students to exercise their rights to both make choices for themselves provided that they aren't infringing upon the rights of others, and also a consistent and predictable forum for presenting issues they have with others who they believe are infringing on their rights.  

When I think about the so-called "soft" skills that innately exist in interacting with others regarding allowed and disallowed behaviors are ones that I always wished I could address with more time, attention, and consistency in my classrooms.  Isn't this a more real-world, relevant skill than many in the Common Core?

I was recently in a situation where I needed to weigh the benefits of children having time in some sort of planned activity, where they had chosen the topic, versus having nothing scheduled and needing to come up with plans on the fly.  

I had mixed feelings for this particular situation, but I kept thinking about my initial reactions when I read this BBC article recently, advocating for enough unstructured time for children to become bored..  For me, one of the biggest obstacles I can face is the procrastination before starting a project.  Though I don't know I get bored very often, I do sometimes get stuck, overwhelmed by all the things that could be done, and that lack of a plan very much resembles boredom..  

I can't help but think that the long Saturday afternoons at my childhood house, with no plans, allowed me practice at getting started and at overcoming boredom.  I think the time spent staring at my bedroom wall, until the brilliant plan to create a Barbie doll play or draw a neighborhood with my crayons emerged., was extremely valuable for me.  

The extracurricular competition so many students seem to be in makes this free time impossible.  I'm wondering how we can societally return to a time of better balance?  Where is the tipping point for this?