Music Education

Most people would be surprised if a world inventory of music education excluded any of these examples. People would be even more surprised if such an inventory did not list dozens more. It seems, therefore, that although it can take many forms, there is nothing about music education that invites or demands thoughtful concern. People everywhere find music rewarding, and everywhere we find people engaged in formal and nonformal efforts to teach and learn music. It should be plain to everyone what music education is. And it should be obvious that it is good; the proof lies in the fact that people find it so. How could anything as clear-cut become problematic, let alone a focus for philosophy?

Eight problems come to mind straightaway. First, although we might glean a basic sense of what music education is (or ought to be) by observing what music teachers do, observations alone are incomplete. A sampling of approaches offers no assurance that what we select is comprehensive, let alone acceptable in form and content. To determine the nature of music education requires systematic thinking about a host of related issues that cannot be settled entirely by observations and experiments.

Second, we often hear music teachers claim that music is a good thing, or that music education offers something that other school subjects do not. But what could these goods or values be? Good for what and whom? And when and how?

consider that the conceptual foundations of music education have already been laid. A field of inquiry called music education philosophy already exists. Our profession owes a large debt to a small group of scholars in this field, including Peter Dykema, Karl Gehrkens, James Mursell, Lilla Belle Pitts, Charles Leonhard, Harry Broudy, Abraham Schwadron, Bennett Reimer, and Keith Swanwick. But to suppose that all thinking that falls under the heading "music education philosophy" is equally valid is probably to assume too much. Systematic thinking about our philosophical inheritance is therefore imperative if professional practice intends to avoid misdirection and atrophy.

Indeed, a closer look reveals that while music education philosophy is well established, it is not well developed. At the time of this writing, philosophical thinking about music education consists in a small number of variations on one set of beliefs that has dominated the efforts of many scholars and teachers for more than fifty years. This set of beliefs is commonly known as the philosophy of "music education as aesthetic education," or MEA, for short. Unfortunately, there are compelling reasons to believe that the MEA philosophy is theoretically and practically unsound, as several philosophers now argue .

Seventh, and more broadly, although every culture we know has something people would reasonably call music, many policymakers continue to deny music education a secure place in public schooling. Some claim that music is only important for a few "talented" children. Others claim that music has no real importance in human life and should therefore have no place in general education. These claims provide further incentives to think carefully about the nature and significance of music education.

Eighth, the questions raised by music teaching and learning form a kind of philosophical hub at the center of practical life. Like the spokes of a wheel, they take us to the heart of what it means to be human. They raise complex issues of knowing, meaning, thinking, feeling, teaching, earning, acting, and believing. Aristotle emphasized centuries ago: "It is not easy to determine the nature of music, or why anyone should have a knowledge of it." Accordingly, whatever people ultimately decide to say about human nature itself must make an important place for what people decide to say about music education.