Democracy is absent

and so am I.

When we all get the picture that we are not being "spoonfed" material, but rather learning the material instead of having to question every other sentence that we read, I will return to class. I find it incomprehensible that for three weeks we haven't had one bad thing to say about Woodford, only about the way this text is being handled. And quite frankly, I do not enjoy thinking about being frustrated, nervous, and aggressive all day in the hopes that things will turn around. For the past three days, I have felt nothing but disgust for the way things were handled in our classroom on Tuesday. If one child did not understand a lesson on Ancient Greek music, or the terminology of "lyre" as opposed to using a word they might be more familiar with (i.e. harp), I would seek out a real life example, organize a field trip to a museum, set up a youtube video, or simply select another resource from which we can all understand together.

This ultimatum had me thinking as well. Are we really here for the grade? Are we here just to pass as Dr. Schmidt and Mr. Heckman presume? Are we here because this is the process by which hierarchy works (i.e. you pass c.p.1, you move on to c.p.2, etc.)? I am convinced after seeing most of your blogs and your work inside the classroom, outside the classroom, and through conversation that if you stuck each individual in a box alone, we would come out of that box learning something we did not know before. This is part of our generation. We have been taught as a class, from a very young age that knowledge is power (Thank you schoolhouse rock) and I feel that knowledge has taken a step back in the last three weeks for pointless arguments over how the class is to be run.

In conclusion, I ask you to tell all of your students in general music who do not understand "The Marriage of Figaro", impressionism, music theory or piano to get out of the classroom, skip assignments to see how they react. This is not about reactionary policy. This is about a classroom. This is about who we are now as students, as individuals and musicians. Our philosophies, as Ryan as pointed out, should be bubbling at the moment. But we will have difficulty with these philosophies considering we only work with children for three hours (at most) a day. Let's face it: most of our philosophies will be thrown out when our third year of teaching begins and revamped with new ideas of practicality. After asking a renowned teacher on their explanation of Postmodern theory and its influence on their teaching and the coagulation between the different art forms, I found out they barely knew anything about this term that philosophers have coined. It seems like a mere gimmick that puts money in the pockets of big name philosophers. And does it? You tell me who's running our classroom right now. Is it the students with the questions? Or the philosophers without answers to why postmodernism does not have a definition? Why in three weeks have we spent time arguing about the definition of postmodernism when the "enlightened thinkers" of our class have not mentioned Modernity or Modernism once? And why when it comes to practical sides of our teaching in postmodernism is democracy left out of our classroom?

When these questions can be answered with depth and thought by students, I will be happy to sleep peacefully. Until then, I will select alternative resources for you all to critically reflect on the weeks to come. Enjoy!

Ignore first blog title

Forget the title of my first blog. I ended somewhere different. Tee hee, oops. Love those tangents.

Big Words or Colossal Terminology?

I need to vent about an issue Ryan brought up for the past two classes. The idea what we need to use such heavy language to explain simple concepts drives me nuts. If you’ve ever had a conversation with me, I’m sure you’ve picked up that I tend to be relaxed and informal. I like to be this way when conversing with anyone- whether it is with my peers, the students in practicum, or my professors. The concepts and ideas being discussed should be more complex and intellectual, but I do not feel like the language I am using should change drastically. It should not make me any less intelligent because I choose not to use a large vocabulary. I feel that people should be able to express themselves using basic words that we have all learned. We can still be bright and educated without complicating things. And honestly, if I decided to create new concepts and thoughts that I wanted to be critiqued and expanded on, I would try to express these ideas as easily as possible. I would want it to be understood quickly and without misinterpretation.

When writing, I find myself using more complicated words then in my speech. Throughout our education, we are taught to keep improving our writing and the way in which we write out our thoughts. When following this idea, in my own experiences, I usually get bored after the first paragraph. I turn to the heading ‘Tools’ at the top bar of Word, click, and scroll down to ‘Thesaurus’ for help. I am more entertained by the funny sounding words I see for the first time and usually put them in my paper for amusement. What a harebrained scheme.

Big words are good, but I think they are used too often in contexts they should be left out of. Life is complex enough as it is, so why do we make language so difficult? As I mentioned in a previous blog post, we are expected to do and think so much in our lives as musicians, teachers, students, friends, siblings, mentors, children, etc.

There’s a quote I was exposed to that I connected with the second I heard it. No worries- it’s easy to comprehend. It goes a little something like this:

“Simplify, simplify, simplify!”

What about modernist...

In the Woodford text there is some dispute over abstract reason. In this case he states "reason, as defined herein, is a tool of understanding that intellectuals employ in their ongoing conversation as to the nature of truth, beauty, freedom, and love" (Woodford 39-40). He then goes on to explain that in this context, postmodern and other contemporary critics still have not settled on one firm definition of abstract reason. Reason in this instance is the tool to understanding.

Woodford uses the term intellectuals, but what determines someone as intellectual? Who has the authority to label the qualifications of an intellectual individual. Is he using intellectual as a synonym for higher educated individuals? my problem is what indicates an intellectual or non-intellectual being and how can Woodford use these words so comfortably as if he has the authority to label individuals as such. I was bothered by his word choice and phrasing so I wanted to blog. Enjoy.

Two Random Thoughts

As I was reading the Woodford, the thing that stuck with me is when he states, “Public schools and universities were blamed by the New Right for regional or national economics reverse because they failed to equip students with the requisite knowledge, skills, and attitudes to allow business to successfully compete in the global market place. Seldom , if ever, were those same institutions given credit when the economy was healthy” (Woodford 61). I think that this is a major problem in more than just the schools. It is so easy to criticize and complain, and there seems to be this large burden of complimenting. Why is it that the bad things are the things that stick out?
Another thing that stuck out to me was when Woodford was talking about the type of students the school are producing. The type of student that acts more mathematically and such. I can’t help but think that this is because of the day in age we are living in with all of the technology we have. The technology requires people to be able to be a “step ahead” of it all.

Who does Woodford think he is?

After our heated classroom discussion on Tuesday, I decided to delve back into the Woodford to try and make more sense of it all. In my re-reading of chapter two, one quote stuck out to me that I was actually surprised I did not highlight in my book the first time around.

 On page 22, Woodford states, “Relatively few people outside of academia have the luxury of devoting much time and energy to the pursuit of truth and understanding.” Now, not to sound all zen-like, but isn’t the pursuit of truth and understanding a lifelong goal for all individuals on this earth? Not everyone looks for truth in the way that Woodford probably would, but it seems to me that he is almost labeling the highly educated as the elite within society and as the only individuals capable of gaining true understanding.  I know plenty of people, myself being one of them, who are constantly in search of truth and understanding, whether that be in an academic context or not. Thomas Jefferson states that every man is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I truly feel that to be in a state of happiness, the “pursuit of understanding” is an inevitable part of that process. To be happy, one must first understand what it is that he/she feels will bring happiness. It is a process that is never-ending whether we are conscious of it or not. To say that this is a “luxury” seems like a rather arrogant assumption. I understand that Woodford probably did not mean to sound haughty when he wrote this statement, but perhaps his choice of wording was not optimal. 

I think I can...

So I think we all can all agree last class was a first for us all. But who knows, I came in two weeks late, ha. Anyway, I am going to say what I am going to say and I don't care if it makes me feel uninspired, dull or even weak-minded. I will admit, reading the Woodford has been a ego-crusher. My entire self-esteem runs away when I open that spiraling wordy sentence of doom. I just feel dumb, no other word to explain. I feel like I can't grasp the material or when I do get one four line sentence under my hands, I can't relate it anywhere.

This class period help me realize, hey we're all drowning and made me a little more comfortable. Schmidt believed that we could it because he thought we were smart. And as cheesy as it is, the next time I opened the book, it was like I have the cryptex from The Da Vinci Code. I was able to read so much and understand so much more. I still, like us all, lack time to delve deep. But when i can read and understand is phenomenal. I decided to test my newly "third day" confidence on the postmodernism chapter.

Woodford says, "the idea is that the individual is himself and is constructed from language or music...so as subject he does not exist...he then cannot be responsible for what is written. So basically this ties into the political struggle how history is what we want to remember it as. And it's so true: you read any American history book and they will edit "truth" and "lies" to accomodate popularity or distaste. I think about it every time I watch political news. I look at Barack Obama, and see him as an icon. Not even as a human. Is he real? What does he really stand for? How does Palin feel when she leaves the podium, does she have emotion. It was a shock to see Hilary cry, because let's face it, they're not supposed to. They need to sell, sell, sell it.

I mean this sentence, is a lot for me. It strikes me and I am still trying to figure it out. It seems like we can't control what people think about us and more over what we can become. It's scary to think that there is a cabinet of people controlling the world but what if. What if we thought this was the life we chose but really it was more complex than that. I'm sure I'm wrong, ha, but isn't blogging about trying out thoughts?

Loving my thirteen year old pedagogical self

So, things in class got pretty heated this past Tuesday. I know I walked away pretty fired up, but the cogs in my mind were churning faster than usual. Objectifying the situation, it was fascinating seeing how the dynamic of the classroom changed on Tuesday when we disagreed on something. I mean, up until this points, we as students have pretty much been dogs on a dash board, so to speak, just kinda going with the flow of things. Sure, this could be due to the fact that we all genuinely loved the Block, but maybe there's something more...

After class, I felt guilty about my conversation with Dr. Schmidt, so I, being the "brown-noser" some of you may think me to be, decided to write Dr. Schmidt an email. But i couldn't! So i went to his office and we proceeded to have a conversation for the better part of an hour about what happened in class. I just wish to clarify at this point, especially since I have revisited the Woodford to more or less prove to myself that I am trying, that my biggest qualm with the Woodford is not the Woodford itself. Rather, looking at the book from a pedagogical viewpoint, I do not believe it best meets the needs of our class. It is a book that requires a lot of time for reflection and processing, which it seems we all don't have. But, at the same time, we can't just have a no brainer, that's a disservice to our education... and I don't know about you, but I'm not paying as much as I do to have a bird course (don't even get me STARTED on Music in Special Ed). But thinking about the situation again from a pedagogical standpoint, that was quite an audacious thing we did in class on tuesday, to speak out so frankly and passionately. I think that says volumes about our class community and the level of respect we have for each other, our careers, and (at this point, most importantly) our education (all positive reflections, of course). But go with me for a sec!!! Since WHEN did i start thinking PEDAGOGICALLY?! I have never felt qualified to think in such a manner before, and now out of thin air, here I am challenging every move Schmidty makes. AND YOU ARE TOO!!! and the best part.... THAT'S OK!!! IT'S FABULOUS!!! 

I think this is in large part due to the fact that we have all started practicum this semester. So now, not only are we students being taught at WCC, but we are also teachers teaching in REAL schools with REAL students. Being on the other side of the spectrum completely flip-flops your views, or at least mine! I have such a radically different approach to education now that I'm actually out and about... it seems like I actually CARE lol. You know the old expression "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence"? I'm sure you do. and I'm sure that's what you've often thought about teaching, but now, in this unique experience called junior year, we are getting to play on both sides of the fence. so, when we're in class we're not only thinking "ok, this is how i learn," but also, "ok, this is how I would teach!" And i think this all came into fruition on Tuesday. 

I know I was pretty frustrated and turned off last class, but if we could all just take a step back and think what an awesome thing it is that we're doing, I think we could all rest easy. We're never going to get everything the first time (a lesson i still hate to admit is true), so let's try and look at this situation from a different perspective, not one that makes us feel like stupid students, but one that says "hey! you there! yeah, you with the fancy clothes! YOU look like a teacher! and you SOUND like a teacher!" 

An analogy I used with Dr. Schmidt is that I think of my pedagogical self as another person. And over the past three years I have moved from infant, to toddler, to child, and now I feel like I am in the "tween" phase. This is the point when I think my philosophy trumps all, and I challenge everyone's authority... I am in the middle school of my pedagogical self. No wonder this feels like hell! I think we are all in this weird transitioning phase, but now and again, there are glints of brilliance shining through in our class. it's very exciting stuff... i hope this wasn't a completely random tangent, and you all caught on to something from this. 

Best. 

"Worth remembering, too, is that professional musicians, music teachers, music education majors, and children all need to be prepared for a life beyond music."  This statement is on the last page of chapter 2 in the Woodford and I think a very important statement we should all be aware of.  In my Astronomy class in high school, the teacher taught a lot of astronomy, but also taught general knowledge.  Sometimes, an entire class would go by without even touching on the subject astronomy.  A lot of these lessons taught me many things about how the world works and what to expect after I graduate.  This influences my teaching philosophy to make sure that I don't hold the subject I teach to be the most important thing.  Students are living, breathing, ever changing human beings and it's important that they're well rounded in many subject areas.  As teachers, we must be prepared to handle the unexpected and to be willing to change our minds as to how a lesson should go.   Also we should consider this statement in our own lives.  We have to be prepared for a life beyond music.  

Progress

I would like to discuss the topic of advancing and progressing in a classroom. One group in class pointed out the quote on page 44 that says, "Students should be encouraged to question and challenge tradition and status quo, but if this is to be more than a nihilistic exercise they must have faith in the past and in the possibility of progress." This situation applies to a class I am taking right now at Westminster. Many of the students feel that our teacher is not doing enough to advance our learning because the teaching is stagnant and habitual. Our homework is usually the same, tedious work of reading and summarizing. The professor lectures throughout the class period but does not give us time to practice or do any of the material in class. None of the information is being transferred and absorbed into our brains. We have asked the teacher to give us different assignments, but the teacher is reluctant to change her ways. We want to challenge the status quo of the classroom, but the teacher is not encouraging the progress. We are not trying to deconstruct or change her teaching altogether, but we would like for the opportunity to learn differently. We recognize that her style of teaching works in some situations, but we need other ways to learn, and thus her teaching would progress and make a difference. As the article we read over the weekend says, "There you are in a classroom with kids who are real, living, breathing, dynamic, unique. And then these rationalizations become an expression of your values: following orders over taking this kid's needs seriously; using the boring teachers' guidelines above engaging kids in a project that grabs and propels them. To teach takes commitment, strength, struggle, a willingness to grow and develop." I know it must be hard to give up control and look towards focusing on the student's needs, but I hope to keep it in mind when I become a teacher in the future.

Girls Rule and Boys Drool!!

What a cute little expression I used to say… but it has a deeper meaning that I never thought of until now.

Going off of Katie's example/situation with gender bias I wanted to comment on my own experiences. In my praxis site, I see a split between boys and girls on a daily basis. When the class uses rhythm instruments, the teacher will always have the boys on one instrument and the girls on another. One gender will start off a round and the other will follow. If the class is too noisy or rowdy while moving around to the steady beat, the teacher will have the boys sit and the girls do the exercise, and then they will switch. No matter the activity, it seems like they are always divided by gender.

At the beginning of class, the students are expected to form a circle on the floor for warm-ups. I have noticed now that when the students enter the classroom, they tend to sit with half of the circle being boys and the other half girls. When they are asked to choose partners for group activities, all groups, except for maybe one or two, usually have students of the same gender. I feel like this idea of separating by gender is creating competition that may carry over into other areas besides music activities. The students do seem to be competitive when they are separated. Is this really teaching them equal rights or that boys and girls can work together well?

When asked why he approaches a division of the class based on gender, the teacher simply stated that it makes it easier. This way he does not have to waste class time counting the number of students and how to separate them. The classes (in terms of, for example, fourth grade) generally have the same number of boys as girls in them. The teacher also said the students get a kick out of being separated this way. I know it may be fun for the moment, but will it backfire later? Will these students always try to separate between genders and therefore become less worried about equality as a whole? Am I over-analyzing?

Maybe the expression should change to: Girls AND Boys Rule!!

What is equality and musical equality?

Responding from Dani’s blog, in my perspective, what Woodford brought up in the book, the meaning of “equality” is the freedom of right to do and to be a fair teacher who treats everyone equally. I think this is what “democracy” is about and what Woodford talks about in his book.

However, I thought that what Dani talked about “musical equality” is a pretty interesting topic. Dani stated, “Everyone should be able to appreciate all types of music in some way”. Everyone has their favor of different genre of music. In my case, I grew up listening to classical and opera music. I want the students to appreciate classical and opera music. However, I cannot force the students in elementary or middle school to listen to these genres of music and learn about it every single day. Like the Critical Pedagogy’s lesson, “Honoring their world” is the key. As a music educator, we should appreciate what the students listen to, even though; it is a totally opposite genre of music. In order to make that happen, in my opinion, we should appreciate their music first, and then, we can step by step introduce classical music. Therefore, maybe they will at least have a bit of open mind about classical genres.

Can We Handle Equality?

My thoughts lie in the idea of equality. I spoke a little about it in Tuesday's class. I feel that there are always people that are striving to make everyone equal. There are so many programs with time and money spent on ways to make everyone equal. My problem with that is the fact that we are not "ready" to be equal. If you think about it, the only ones that generally want to be equal are those that are the "under dog." If we all were really to be equal I think that we would have to change our nature as human beings. Naturally, people want at some point in their lives to feel like they are better than others. There is also the problem that if we all are equal than there is going to be someone that gives up something or does something for someone else. We all cannot do the same things as everyone else, I don't have to go into that, we've spoken extensively about that in class already. But to explain my point that there would have to be sacrifice on the part of some people to the benefit others I ask you think of two children with cups of juice. One of them has more than the other, but they want to be equal. The one with more juice has to give of what he has to the other. As people we all feel that what we work for is ours and ours alone, but if we ever want to live in a state that we all treat each other on the same level, then we need to realize that there will be things that we work for that does not necessarily mean that we ourselves will or even should reap the benefit of it. I'm not saying that we all need to simply do all the work for everyone else, everyone needs to do their part, but if someone else's best is far below another's than I would hope that there is a willingness to give. But I can't help but feel uneasy every time the Woodford or I guess the concept of democracy brings up the need for equality, when I really don't think we realize what that really means.

Gender

So, today in my praxis class, I became VERY aware of being "gender bias". First let me just put it out there that I do not have a problem, nor do I think it is a big deal when a teacher refers to the group as "guys", or when I am called am in a group that is called "guys". Although I try to watch myself very closing while using this term, I think that these days the term guys has a different definition. When I looked up the definition in my Mac computer, the term (guys) came up as a group of people of either sex. Anyway, what I wanted to really talk about, was my 5th grade class this morning. I am normally very aware of the children I pick to come up and and help me out, or to play the instruments. I make sure that there are an equal amount of boys and girls especially at that age where they might think I'm picking one over the other. Today, I had a lot planned for my lesson and so as I was going through it, all that was really on my mind was okay make sure you have enough time to put the Orff instruments together with the song. I didn't realize that most of the people I was picking to come help me out were girls. At one point I heard a boy in my class say, she's picking all girls. That is when I realized and started switching it up. I felt really awful that it had slipped my mind, but I'm glad it happened because now I can be more aware of it, and I also know how much it can impact the students.

I don't know.

I was sitting in my secondary practicum class today and before Britt, Ryan and I went up to teach, the students played youTube videos for the class. It is something that they have been doing since the beginning of the semester and the whole point is to play a video of the student’s choosing, have it play with the original music, and then play a different musical recording along with that same video. The musical recording usually contrasts the original music and changes the whole feel of the video.

The student who played his video today showed a scene from the Matrix. It was a pretty violent shooting scene. While I was watching it, I was sort of surprised that our co-op would allow such a violent clip to be played.  No one seemed phased by it and I actually felt silly to have such uptight thoughts. On one hand, I thought that allowing such a clip to be played was sort of inappropriate due to its graphic nature and could almost be seen as the glorification of guns and violence. On the other hand I thought to myself, “C’mon Korey, it’s just a video and the kids don’t see it as anything more than just a cool scene with heavy metal music playing in the background. They’ve all probably already seen it anyway and this is just a way to connect their world to the classroom.” I had such conflicting ideas about the whole video because I do believe that it was a way to pull the students in to the class (music appreciation), but I also felt like maybe there should have been more limitations on the types of videos that could be chosen. In our discussion about being politically correct and the creation of an ultra sensitive society, I wondered if my thoughts were valid or just an example of me being an ultra sensitive educator.  Thoughts? By the way, the video on youTube is called “Matrix (new sound shooting scene). Check it out and tell me what you think.

The Power or Beauty of Language? or both?

Language I believe should primarily be used to communicate and facilitate group/classroom order. I mean it can be used for other reasons. Language can be used to express emotion like poetry. We use language to get what we want. Like Ryan said, "we want to appropriate our words and terminology to our audience."

Does that mean we should dumb ourselves down when writing a paper? Trust me, I don't like the readings either. But we must understand, writing should not be confused with conversation. Conversation has two sides, two view points and a correlation between the two or more objects. Writing is a one sided view of language and it is filled with expression, grammatical and literature motifs. Writing is an art form.

My concern: is Woodford's book written for his peers? Something so wonderful and ground-breaking might be more eloquent, passionate and more emotional. And it should not be so much one plus one. Remember abstract topics are all about how you phrase them. Perhaps Woodford is deliberately being vague and wordy.

Does this mean it should be used for classroom cirriculum: the answer is no. We're getting practically nowhere. We soaked up the Block book: transformations and sparking revelations. Woodford is more like "ok so what is he saying here" and "not what are you saying to this."

So are we hating on someone's art and blaming Woodford for being a hypocrite because he does not speak to his peers in a comphrehendable language? If language is primarily about communication and facilitation and working alongside with the audience, we should give Woodford a call and have him stop by for class on cyberspace. Let's see if he can write the write and talk the talk

blargh

An interesting topic Woodford brought up in the book was about this thing called musical equality.  This brought up a lot questions for me that really had nothing to do with the statement.  I thought of my high school experience and the social role that music played.  People forming groups of friends they would keep through-out high school based a lot on the type of music they listened to.  What would musical equality mean in this format?  If you look at it from this point of view you can't really have musical equality.  How has music you listened to shaped your life?  Did you think the music you chose to listen to was equal to other music around you?  What makes these differences?  There are a lot of questions that come up when you think about this sort of stuff and it's one of my goals as a music educator to blur the differences between the genres of music.  I think everyone should be able to appreciate all types of music in some way and not be turned off of a song just because of the genre.  

A new kind of blog and a new kind of understanding

Ok, so I realize we just had class like ten minutes ago, but I have a free hour, so i figured I'd blog quickly. I am so glad to hear that PJ wants to see these blogs actually look like blogs, and sort of break them down, so here goes:

As I was leaving class today, PJ and I had a brief conversation about the language of the materials we are reading. Now, I don't want it to come across that I am a lazy student, because that is not the case, but I feel that the language of the materials we are reading is far superior to the language that we are capable of thoroughly learning at. Between reading the Woodford and the Gould article, I felt as though I was slammed back to second grade for my lack of understanding. And not to sound arrogant, but I know I am a strong competent student and reading comprehension is not an issue for me. However, and feel free to disagree, but it is my understanding that we cannot comfortably approach all these materials without the Webster's Dictionary at arm's reach.

Now, I'm fully aware that it sounds as though I am just complaining, and Dr. Schmidt would probably say something along the lines of "there goes LaBoy running his mouth again," so allow me to try and bring this back to what we've learned... In the Block, a reading that I was very fond of, we explored the importance of language in an educational setting. Language, I believe has a large part to do with the receptiveness of students, and the willingness of students to participate in the class. This is to say, age appropriate language is key to garnering a high retention and responsiveness rate in students. We would never dream of going into an elementary music classroom and talking about the ideé fixe in Liszt's symphonie fantastique and how the composer manipulates and elaborates upon said melodic fragment to create a cyclic work and how the ideé fixe allows us to continuously identify a motif within a large-scale symphonic/orchestral work, thus maintaing a sense of congruity and continuity throughout the piece. We would probably go in and play something along the lines of Mozart's variations on a theme and use twinkle twinkle little star as an example of theme and variation. This is not to belittle the students at hand, however it is taking into consideration age appropriateness of the lesson and language. If we were to go into a classroom presenting the former, something tells me the students would feel a) disserviced and b) flat out stupid, much as I am feeling in reading the Woodford and related articles. Granted I chose to read the Gould, but the Woodford text I believe is too scholarly to meet our needs. I told PJ, I just feel like I'm talking out of my ass when we discuss Woodford, and in stressing so much about my competency and understanding of the material, I end up walking away from the readings learning next to nothing. Even this blog is a testament to that b/c I am relating this all back to Block.

I understand that we have to push ourselves and strive for higher understandings and educational excellence, but to what extent are we expected to do this? Until we break? We are learning that language is key in presenting to our students, but as students are we being presented materials that are appropriate? Can it be that Woodford (like some theory teachers on campus) is too scholarly for us to possibly comprehend at the undergraduate level? Does this establish him as an elitist, believing his word to be superior to ours? Why fluff up the facts? Just say what you need to say... My eighth grade social studies teacher, Mr. Rule (who was shortly after fired from the district, BUT regardless) taught us KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid. I think Woodford could use a KISS or two. Perhaps he's so caught up in the advocacy of music education and sort of fluffing our feathers as music educators, so to speak, that he does not realize the negative affects of his writing style. But is he really to blame? They say when you write, you should write to an audience of your peers... Is that then to say that we are understood to be Woodford's peers? I would hope not! I don't believe I have anywhere near the comprehension of music and education that he possesses.

Are we, in our CP III class, being taught in a manner directly in opposition of how we are being taught to teach? Are we a bunch of phonies and hypocrites? You decide... I'm curious to hear back!

Yours,
Disgruntled.

Dalsnooze.

What could be different about the way the current ed lab is being taught?

More than a Teacher

I am responding to Dave's blog called "Coke or Mountain Dew." Dave says that the role model is a title we give to teachers when they are in the classroom. They are most likely knowledgeable, wise, fair, and exemplary people. However, he implies that we forget that teachers are human beings who are vulnerable and susceptible to mistakes, wrongdoings, and unjust acts. No one is perfect and that doesn't make him or her a less respectable or worthy person. Therefore as he says, "students run to a person who has been in their shoes before." Students can connect to their teachers, because they see that the teacher has had experiences simliar to theirs. Teachers and students can engage in personal conversations. This is because the teacher cares about the student at a deeper level and the student is allowed to see the teacher as a human being.

I just started picked up a translation of "The Dhammapada" by Gil Fronsdal, which is a Buddhist scripture of the Buddhist path of life. I found some passages that describe how a sage or role model is certainly not perfect, but is always bettering himself through his life.

1) Irrigators guide water;
Fletchers shape arrows;
Carpenters fashion wood;
Sages tame themselves.

2) Greater in combat
Than a person who conquers
A thousand times a thousand people
Is the person who conquers herself.

3) As one instructs others,
So should one do oneself:
Only the self-controlled should restrain others.
Truly, it's hard to restrain oneself.

I have recently had an experience where I was able to connect to a professor at a more personal level. I was having a difficult time within the class, but she gave me the opportunity to call her at home and have a long conversation with her about what was wrong and how I was feeling towards the situation. I was very appreciative that she was open to talking to me on an emotional and personal level, and she could understand and relate to my experience. Although I wasn't having a problem that dealt outside the classroom, it is not everyday that I can approach a teacher with my concerns and expect support and sympathy in return. I have a stronger admiration and apprecation for this professor, because of the deeper student and teacher relationship.

the child and the "mature" adult

In reading both the Stauffer article this week and the Woodford, I must admit I am slightly disheartened by the view that we, as educators and “adults,” frequently have of students. In the Woodford, and I wished I had highlighted where I spotted this… regardless, on numerous occasions he referred to Dewey’s idea of creating a “mature” individual, or something to that affect. Also, in the Stauffer, she makes mention of current scholarship, in which many professionals see the compositional works of children to be futile, basic, and of little creative scope.
I suppose I am so frustrated with the fact that so many people, despite what we at WCC may think, still view children as empty vessels waiting to be filled. I would not be surprised if this thought even occurred to recent Westminster grads. The fact of the matter is: children are not empty vessels and piles of clay for us to mold. They are individuals with their own ideas and likes and dislikes. Certainly, children may be conditioned by society, but so can adults or anyone for that matter, at any time. I also believe there are many children that are more brilliant than some “adults.”
Which brings me to my next question, what qualifies a “mature adult”? Is it an age limit? Is it a certain salary? Is it a physical appearance? Is it the amount of knowledge one has obtained? Is it someone who has a driver’s license? Someone who doesn’t live with mom and dad? What makes an adult an adult? I think we, as college students, are currently in transition, but when you think about it, are we not acting in a very adult way right now? Which raises some more questions: are we just acting? Is that why we’re not considered to be adults yet, because we’re “acting”? And is there a difference between “acting adult” and “being adult”? Who’s to say when we’ve arrived? Maybe it’s on our 21 birthday, the first shot of tequila we have!
To drive the point home, one has to wonder, also, what is maturity, and how does one obtain it? According to Dewey, the goal of education is to cultivate “mature” individuals and ready them for society, but can one really teach someone to be mature, or is it something one has to learn on their own? Again, is there a difference between “acting mature” and “being mature”? Perhaps we all get so caught up in acting a certain way that is untrue to our young self that we trick ourselves into believing this ghost of a person, this mature self, is the best thing we have to offer our democracy and is the real “me.” God forbid a mature adult have energy and wear bright colors, and refuse to wear ties and skirts (not at the same time, but then again why not?!).
I feel as though you know you’re an adult when you wake up in the morning, waaay before you feel you should, get up, read the Wall Street Journal while eating a heaping bowl of bran flakes drowning in ultra low-fat, extra skim milk and sipping on black coffee (sweetened with one splenda… depending on the morning), grab your briefcase and mindlessly go to work, earn your paycheck, come home, watch CNN, check your emails, tidy the house, get ready for bed, go to bed before 11:00, and repeat. Sounds lame to me. I guess I just really have a strong opposition to teaching students to act mature and grown up when they are less than 20 years old. At the same time, I feel it is a huge disservice to the students to consider them children and kids and treat them as though they know nothing of the world. When push comes to shove, we all are living in the same world; we just have different views of it. None are wrong, but I feel like some are considered to be inferior compared to the “adult,” “mature,” cookie-cutter way. I think adults are the ones who need to step back and learn something from kids

Resonse

“The point that I wanted to make is that I think we have a very specific idea about what well roundedness is in today’s day and age. Maybe it is our job as individuals to not buy in to what the typical well-rounded individual needs to be and, rather, figure out for ourselves what life experiences we want and can take on.” This is a quote from Korey Terranova’s blog on being well rounded. I think that this brings up a great point. Now that people have put a certain definition to what being well rounded means, it is difficult for people to really do what they want with concerns to their future.

As Korey stated in her blog, these days it’s harder for kids to get into college. For example a college like Yale does not only want a student that has great grades, but a student that is “well rounded” as well. This meaning, a student who participates in extra curricular activities. This includes being involved in sports, academic clubs, music, student government, and volunteer activities. I guess it is possible for people to do these things, considering people are going to these schools that have these requirements. But, I don’t see how it could be very possible; it must take up all of the person’s time leaving them with no room to really be specific on one topic.

I think that it is better for someone to choose one specific career because then they can focus on one thing and try to become the best they can at that subject. When people start picking many different careers, I don’t think that they have as much knowledge in the subject as they could. College is the time where someone can choose what they want to do with their future. This is what it means in “education” to be well rounded.

There are other meanings for being well rounded as well. I think that just life in general there someone can be considered well rounded. This might mean someone who participates in a lot of activities. Someone who can do many different things, but when you think about it, you may be great in many different things, but how much can you really know on that matter when you have so many other things to worry about?

Two Thoughts

It is an interesting concept to say that a student needs to be well rounded to be more “valuable” to society. It is a concept of which I am torn on. Part of me agrees that a student or a person cannot merely be good in one thing. It would be like only exercising your right arm and not any other muscle. Working the right arm is a great thing, but it alone can’t accomplish as many things as if the whole body was exercised. On the other hand, a person can over work and burn themselves out in trying to be well rounded, which ultimately doesn’t accomplish anything.
To completely change focus I wish to share something I cannot get my thoughts around. In my practicum, my co-op said that once the students enter into the school they lose many of their rights. I can’t help but ask why. The rights were not specified in our discussion, but the idea that rights are taken away does not sit well with me, and does not seem to fit with the idea of democracy. If the schooling system is truly supposed to be a catalyst for the future society that the students will be a part of, then students rights must not change simply because they are in a building. I understand part of the reason why this is the case is for safety reasons in the case of taking away a student’s right to bare arms, but when freedom of speech is taken away, there is a problem. It makes sense that there are things that a student cannot say to one another or to a teacher for the sake of allowing things to flow, but there also comes along a restriction with this. If a student is always worried about how they are going to word things, then there is an unneeded obstacle for that student to participate. Rather than simply saying that a student may or may not say certain things, I think that it is the teacher’s job to allow the students to speak as they will but then show them what type of speech is the most productive for society. Society needs to not change within the walls of a school. Again, if a school is supposed to be educating students for the “real world,” this idea of taking away student’s rights is creating a fake environment. This is a concept that I would love to hear what you all have to say about.

Teaching in other country

From attending Bradley’s drumming workshop, I felt that it was a real “multiculturalism lesson”. I think in order to teach multiculturalism and to understand different cultures; it would be best, if we traveled around the world and have real cultural experiences. However, Prof. Bradley provided us a great opportunity that we could experience Ghanaian culture without traveling there.
From reading Dave’s blog, “teaching music in other country” got my attention. What can we do as a music educator? I believe, before we even try to take action of changing something, we should try to adapt, learn and understand their culture. Without learning and understanding their culture, it would be nonsense to educate people in another country. Therefore, it would be hard for them to accept the new idea from someone, especially, foreigners who does not understand their culture. Like what Dave said, “How do we go to another country and tell people how to live?” If it makes a positive influence to others, I believe, it is necessary to help them. I think “help them” contains more of a positive meaning than “educate them”.
An issue like gender bias in Ghana is a serious problem. It is not just about woman’s right or human right issue. This issue reminds me of the TV show, “American next top model”. There was a probable winner who came from Ghana. She shared her story about her terrible experiences at Ghana. There she got sexually abused by several men that caused her to become sterility. She said there are so many victims who went through this terrible situation.
For us to do as a music educator is we should help them as another human being instead of educating them and to make changes in a view of another foreigner’s eyes. I think if we connect these concepts of teaching music in other countries, then it will be much easier to make a difference. We are all human beings and so in order to understand others better we should see people from other countries as another human being.

Faux Democracy

Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves. Yet the power of the democratic idea has also evoked some of history's most profound and moving expressions of human will and intellect: from Pericles in ancient Athens to Vaclav Havel in the modern Czech Republic, from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Andrei Sakharov's last speeches in 1989.

In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles ABOUT freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. For this reason, it is possible to identify the time-tested fundamentals of constitutional government, human rights, and equality before the law that any society must possess to be properly called democratic.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm

I could not have stated what Democracy isn't any better. Democracy is not freedom. I completely agree with my first quoted paragraph in saying democracy is not what it used to be. The Bush administration has flip flopped my view of democracy by backing their decisions with military and political muscle. I feel like the Bush Administration has used Democracy as a weapon to fight so called 'terrorism'.

"Democracy" by Langston Hughes

Democracy will not come
Today, this year
Nor ever
Through compromise and fear.

I have as much right
As the other fellow has
To stand
On my own two feet
And own the land.

I tire so of hearing people say,
Let things take their course.
Tomorrow is another day.
I do not need my freedom when I'm dead.
I cannot live on tomorrow's bread.

Freedom
Is a strong seed
Planted
In a great need.

I live here, too.
I want freedom
Just as you.

Wyncoop,moriah(2008). Langston Hughes.

Moriah's choice of poem as a blog is brilliant. Langston Hughes captures the very essence of freedom and the difference between democracy and the later. Do not penalize her for lack of words, I beg you. Occam's Razor- the simplest answer is usually the right one.

Blog Ripper

We live in the information age where we have a plethora of music available to us, at our fingertips. (4) There is no doubt that technology and the internet shapes not only how we teach but also what we do in our everyday lives. (4) Who is to blame for things happening? (1) A leader takes all the blame. (2) All too often music teachers are led to believe that performance encompasses the only priority by which we teach. (11) Unfortunately for most of our secondary or elementary aged students, they could not care less about performance in our society. Rather than having one leader to follow, each person within the community holds a sense of accountability. (11) In a society where today’s students are preparing for 11 careers, how is it necessarily possible for them to be great in a particular field if it is expected that they dabble in so many others? (6) I am still not at closure with this idea of there being a difference and/or a similarity between being prepared and being well rounded. (7) Specifics come in once a student is in college. (5)

There is no definite structure to a well rounded student only general guidelines.(1) Focusing until the students become an expert on a certain subject and finally, we can focus on other things.(3) There are influences that higher education systems have that require students to be in so many activities or they will not get into a 'good' school. (1) This brings me to something that has been bothering me for quite a while. music ed. majors at Westminster are required to be well rounded individuals who go into the world to mold the minds of future America. (1) There is no definite structure to a well rounded student (1), there is a foundation of morals and ethics. (2) Unfortunately, the reality is many communities do calculate success based on the dollar sign attached to the front of a figure. (9) It starts with money but how much money people do or do not have causes them to live a particular way which in turn creates a different culture and way of life for each group. (4) There is a sense of trust between people, and thus people are willing to support one another. (8)
While I do feel that there are a number of different factors that contribute to its success, I also believe that the relationships that make up that community are what drive it forward, (6) characterized by an ethical commitment. (10)




Andrew - 1
Brittany - 2
Jai - 3
John - 4
Katie - 5
Korey - 6
Moriah - 7
Nancy - 8
Ryan - 9
Schmidt -10
Tuna - 11

As you can see, I wrote this in the style of Girl Talk or Woodford.  Thanks everyone :D

Food for Thought

Dave’s blog is the blog that I have decided to focus upon this week.  I was interested in responding to his thoughts because they made me think a lot about topics such as women’s rights, the authenticity of interdisciplinary education, and the role of the educator as a teacher of morals.

I do not specifically remember what Professor Bradley said regarding women’s rights in Ghana, but I do remember her mentioning that women were very rarely, if ever, master drummers. While this might seem like an act of oppression on women’s rights, perhaps we do not have to look at it as something that runs that deep. While this might be an example of women being viewed as inferior in Ghana, maybe women are never master drummers because it is merely tradition. Maybe women do not opt to be drummers because it is such a physically taxing experience.  Professor Bradley did mention how the drummers would play for hours on end with only a twenty-minute break.  In the United States, the construction business is a predominantly male field.  Is it because women are not capable of doing construction work? No. The truth of the matter is that construction is something that tends to be a male profession due to its physical demands.  That’s not to say that women are not capable or allowed to be part of that field, but it just happens to be a job that is chiefly male.  This is not something that we, as Americans, are up in arms about.  It is something that we see as being normal.  Now, if someone were to say that women are not allowed to be construction workers because they are incapable of such a job, then I could understand being upset about such a close-minded statement.  I do not recall, however, whether or not the culture in Ghana purposely keeps women from becoming drummers or if it is just a tradition that is considered normal amongst the general population. While it is a definite possibility that the lack of women drummers is a result of a female inferiority mindset, I do not know if that is a conclusion that we should be so quick to make.

As far as the idea of learning and teaching Ghanian drumming in a way that is authentic and that stays true to the culture, I do believe that as educators we should know exactly how their music is carried out.  That meaning that we not only learn the music itself, but the context in which it is taught and performed as well.  As far as the transference into the classroom, however, I do not know if it is necessary to maintain authenticity in every aspect. While it is ideal to keep the experience as authentic as possible, it is also our job as educators to teach in a way that is most appropriate for own classroom community and in a way that allows everyone to experience what is being taught.  Women might not be drummers in Ghana, but that should not mean that we exclude them from learning how to drum.  Being aware that the Ghanian culture teaches and performs in a very specific way is something that we might want to mention to students, but the heart of what we are teaching is music and everyone should have an equal opportunity to experience that.

Lastly, Dave’s mention of “moral teachers” is one that got me thinking a lot about morals in the classroom and how far educators should go when teaching morals and values rather than strictly sticking to the curriculum.  I honestly do not know where exactly to draw the line. I do think, however, that the teaching of morals is inevitable if you have a human being teaching you.  There is no way that one’s morals or values will not be displayed in the way he/she teaches, but as educators, we should try to be as un-biased as possible, despite our own personal beliefs.  Presenting more than one side to every argument or situation not only encourages students to think outside the box, but it encourages them to think for themselves. Yes, we are supposed to be teachers, but our ultimate goal should be promote a greater sense of individual thought.  They will not always be students in our classrooms and when they are gone, we hope that they carry what we teach into the real world; the world beyond the classroom.  If this is so, then teaching only the values and morals that we hold will never achieve this goal. 

"Democracy by Hughes

"Democracy" by Langston Hughes

Democracy will not come
Today, this year
Nor ever
Through compromise and fear.

I have as much right
As the other fellow has
To stand
On my own two feet
And own the land.

I tire so of hearing people say,
Let things take their course.
Tomorrow is another day.
I do not need my freedom when I'm dead.
I cannot live on tomorrow's bread.

Freedom
Is a strong seed
Planted
In a great need.

I live here, too.
I want freedom
Just as you.

Cops and Robbers and Facilitators

Brittany Godfrey brings up the idea of rules and why they are created. This ties so much into my praxis site and how the teacher is very structured. Godfrey states, "The actions that are not allowed to take place are those that take away from the freedoms of others, or in other words are those actions that will take away a right of another." My practicum coop strives for structure and ordinance and on Wednesdays, his classes are at another school. It totally throws him off that he is in the band room and does not have a smart board or has the same structure as the other school. Although he tries to adapt lesson plans, he does not personalize lessons for the new environment. There are so many instruments in the band room and even at his usual site that he does not use. It is because he is afraid of discourse.

It's interesting that at Westminster, we are all about changing the classroom, reforming lessons, and transforming the way students learn. But when we get out and teach, we see the "cook book" lesson plans from method books, smartboard activities and interactive movies. Are we robbing children of their freedom to learn by sitting in front of a smart board to learn staff notes. Or are we robbing from our freedom to teach students our way. The freedom to teach students through conscientization. The responsibility to teach students and for students to teach themselves.

Now I am not docking on my coop teacher for using cook book lesson plans. He is not bad at all, but I am know there are teachers everywhere that do this. Godfrey goes on to say, "It is against the law because there is an underlying moral and ethic that you do not take from others what they don’t give to you." What are your morals and how do your aesthetics affect you will teach a class. As for Dewey, "Democracy is a moral obligation. It is an obligation to have social equality so that there are not a select few people that are the mere dictators taking away from a person’s right to freedom," (Godfrey). Are we robbing our students of their freedom to learn?

It is my sole duty as a practicum students to give every child at my site a membranophone and give it hell's storm. I am ready for discourse and so are my students and it will be something they will remember. Of course there will be structure but not created solely by me. The new structure will become an example of how team work can create and facilitate progress. Most importantly it display the antithesis of discourse and chaos. I am focused on helping create a community in each of my classes. Each student will have a task whether it's playing the ostinate, being a back up singer or prima ballerina. Everyone will learn to cooperate as a whole. I just have a feeling this won't come around until I'm probably done with praxis, but it isn't about just me anymore.

What has your moral obligation, as a teacher, done for their learning?

A real blog

This what our group came up with in that short time, feel free to add on to it, I don't think it matters what group you were in we're all in the same class.

Blog

•  Conversation between students; not a 500 word paper; good practice for papers, but not good blogging.
  
• aimed quote on Mon/Wed for blogs
• others should be encouraged to comment
• Scholarly?
• we want to be short and to the point

Misc.

• readings are thick
• Not really learning CP; general interests
• Final paper vs final project
• Journal articles as busy work

Women's rights in Africa: demoralizing or disloyal

Professor Bradley came to our Practicum class Friday morning to teach Ghanaian drumming. She gave a fabulous presentation and taught us all well. She explained how gender bias was part of the music life (as it probably is in every other aspect of their lives) and how women very few times are drummers, and even fewer or rarely is there a woman master drummer. In fact I don't think she mentioned that could be a possibility. However she said she and her group educated the schools about equality and woman's rights. But was she polluting the minds of the Ghanaians? I understand it's another view point, but was it suggested because it's different and not practiced in America? How do we go to another country and tell people how to live? I'm sure she didn't do that, but in some way, she did. She found something wrong with what was going on, because if she didn't she probably wouldn't have taught it. Don't get me wrong I am not against woman's right, nor am I dissing Bradley, I am just exploring the idea of this. How do we, as music educators teach in another country. Should we, like ethnomusicologists, adapt and learn as the natives. Or should all our fourth graders, have a chance to play the djembe?

I read a book in high school that is also used for a course taught here. It is called, Things fall apart, by Achebe. I cannot remember if this story is false or true but according Block isn't every story false? Regardless, this story was based on true happenings that occured when Christians began to pilgrimage Africa. It revolves around the main character, Okonkwo who is this mighty, powerful wrestler. When I read this in high school, I was shocked to read that he beat his wife and children and even killed family-friends. Their mindset was very different than my own. He was most feared and most powerful in his village. He was a model citizen. But when England began to colonize and change their lifestyles, he was the first person frowned upon. So instead of giving into defeat and letting go of his culture, he hanged himself.

Of course, there is a lot more plot but those were points that would turn off readers if they did not know what they were getting themselves into. So now what do we do as music educators; how do we teach music without everything else. Or should we teach just music and not everything else. Are we being moral teachers by giving the drums to boys and the napkin sheets to the girls. What is our concept of fair versus their own. How can we guide students to make decisions for themselves and not tell them. How do you honor their world when it becomes too much of a moral issue for your world. Who are we to say woman's right is appropriate especially in countries that are hundreds of years older. How can we suggest many issues including woman's right in a non-hostile way without pushing it on them.

How can we be educators and not crusaders.

Dave

A Renewed Sense of Courage, Thank you Dewey!

In reading the first part of Democracy and Music Education I have found that many of my ideals are reinforced and supported by the words of Paul Woodford. When thinking about music education, I know that I, personally, am reluctant and even afraid at times to let myself think of my role in education as one that comes with a great deal of power and possibility for change in a “worldly” sense. I guess, in short, I am afraid to think too ideally about being a music educator. I feel as though it is very easy to drift away in that regard, and ultimately, set one’s self up for disappointment. I find, however, a sense of confidence, courage and reassurance in the readings of Paul Woodford thus far. He speaks so eloquently with regard to the ideals of Dewey, and the push on both parties of music as a social apparatus for change is something I identify strongly with.
This all makes me think WAY back to my freshman year, when I was writing my Philosophy of Music Education. I remember writing it thinking, “I have no idea what the hell I am talking about, but this sounds good!” And, reminiscing at the present, I am proud to say that I was an ill-informed freshman when writing my philosophy. But, however ill-informed I may have been in a "textbook" way, I find now that my views with regard to music education, and its purpose, have always been instinctual and consistent throughout my years at Westminster. I guess what I am really trying to say here is that it is very reassuring to see, looking back a few years, that I believed music to function as a catalyst to society and as a democratic vehicle just as I do now. Certainly, I may not have been able to identify this though as clearly my freshman year, but it is a thought that I know was there, and now, having gone through several years of intensive training, is an idea that I have carefully cultivated and still hold in high regard.
I find it is so easy at Westminster, or perhaps at college in general, to lose sight of what one is doing. We all get so caught up in the daily grind and living in the “now” that we seldom are given the opportunity to take a step back and meditate on our thoughts. At present, I have found some respite and outlet for contemplation in Woodford's. I know I stated that I was reluctant to think of music education to idealistically, but identifying others out there who think in the same vein as I do helps to alleviates that fear. What’s spectacular to think is that if I am thinking along these lines, and Dewey and Woodford are thinking along these lines, then there must be many other educators with the same ideals. And perhaps, given the tempestuous state of our country right now with regards to economics and our tainted pursuit of global democracy, perhaps an educational revolution is on the wing. Perhaps music education will lead the way. They say that music is a universal language, and if that’s true maybe world peace, whatever that may be, is on the horizon. And perhaps, most excitingly, it begins with me.

Politics: The Structure of Morals and Ethics

In class on Tuesday, PJ listed three concepts to keep in mind as we read the Woodford book, politics, morals, and ethics. I couldn’t help but think that all of these concepts, although on the outside look different, are truly synonymous. If you think of what the purpose of politics are, and how this purpose originated, the other two concepts come into play.

Woodford defines politics as “the ways people engage in collective decision making” (Woodford xii). I would agree that this is part of the definition, however, I feel there is more to it. To state my point, I wish to substitute the word “ways” in Woodford’s definition with structure. I wish to use the word structure because this indicates that there is a system built, a framework made to hold up something. What is it that politics are trying to hold up? I would say that the thing(s) being held up by the structure of politics are in fact laws.

I now ask two questions: why were / are laws even created, and why is it important to uphold them? Laws are set forth to prevent and allow actions to take place. The actions that are not allowed to take place are those that take away from the freedoms of others, or in other words are those actions that will take away a right of another. It is a law to not steal, or in other words to not take that which is not yours because it is against the law. It is against the law because there is an underlying moral and ethic that you do not take from others what they don’t give to you.

All of the laws that politics uphold, or rather are supposed to uphold, are there because there is a foundation of morals and ethics. To back up my point I wish to quote what Woodford explained to be Dewey’s beliefs, “the pursuit of democracy was an expression of love and moral obligation to one’s fellow men and women” (Woodford xiii). Democracy is a moral obligation. It is an obligation to have social equality so that there are not a select few people that are the mere dictators taking away from a person’s right to freedom.

Spread too thin??

As future music educators in the 21st century society it is extremely easy to be involved in too many activities. In high school there are almost too many activities in which students can be a part. How many is too many?? Zero would obviously be not enough and therefore, is there a minimum middle ground? I believe that the choice of how many activities is too many is not up to the school but is up to the student. This is a personal preference issue in which the responsibilities of the students school work must be maintained and if the school work has been compromised, the student is spread too thin.
There are influences that higher education systems have that require students to be in so many activities or they will not get into a 'good' school. The schools wants the student to be 'well rounded'. What does well rounded mean? Do the schools want a student that is the captain of the football team and the captain of the chess club? There is no definite structure to a well rounded student only general guidelines. This leaves room for multitudes of activities but can also cause too many activities and not enough time. In creating a well rounded student, the wide range of activities are also the cause of creating a system overload for the students. Not to mention the added stress placed upon high school students of whether or not they will get into a great university or college because of the extracurricular activities required by higher education systems. A students well roundedness is not necessarily going to help a student get into great university or college because all schools are different. Westminster Choir College would not care about an all star football player, but if the same football player was the president of their choir and great musician, he would get in without a doubt.

It seems these days that in order to get a well paying job with health benefits, one needs a minimum of a masters degree. I know that is not the truth but with the growing requirements, it might as well be. With today's economy dropping faster than a sky diver at terminal velocity, a masters degree seems almost unfair to family's who do not own an oil company. Schools need to stop looking at degrees to find out if a teacher is qualified. Today's world is too worried with certification as a means for distinguishing a qualified professional, and I agree it provides a means of comfort, but there are plenty of qualified professionals that just cannot afford the higher degrees.
This brings me to something that has been bothering me for quite a while. music ed. majors at Westminster are required to be well rounded individuals who go into the world to mold the minds of future america, and the B/A degree means you are well rounded in the area of music. So if both are required to be well rounded degrees, then why have the separate degrees? If I blow two bubbles of equal size and they mix together they either pop, which would be bad for both degrees, or they join to create a larger bubble. Now if the two degrees at Westminster are combined like the bubbles, hypothetically we will then have a larger better learning bubble??

A well rounded person versus an expert

As a teacher, do we want the students to be well-rounded or to be an expert? What is being well-rounded? Is it just providing them a taste of everything or expecting them to achieve a certain level of everything? For instance, children do not always follow what the teachers expect from them. Especially, when you want them to achieve everything that has too much information; the children will only get lost and it would only be an ineffective learning. Like the old proverb saying, “Less is the best”. I think in order to successfully approach a certain goal, we need to focus on one thing at a time; step by step. Focusing until the students become an expert on a certain subject and finally, we can focus on other things and so on… Therefore at the same time, it is possible to teach the students to be well-rounded and be an expert.

However, as we discussed in class, in reality, we often face on choosing between a well-rounded person versus an expert. We have to sacrifice between one of them because being an expert requires an immense amount of concentration and time. When there it comes to time it is limited, how much time you spend on a certain subject can make tremendous differences. In our society, it is a competition we cannot survive if you are not an expert of certain subject. If you are an expert on a certain area, you would have a better chance of being successful as that profession then, someone who does not have a specialized area; a well-rounded person.

Being an expert also means he or she has characteristics that are different than others and provides personal identity. For example, there are two different students, let’s say Mike and Peter. Mike is a student who is doing well on everything and Peter is not doing well as Mike but he is exceptionally good at a certain subject. Maybe, we can say Mike is well-rounded and a successful student in the school. However, when we see their future, does Mike seem more successful than Peter? In the real-world, we cannot say Mike is going to have a success life than Peter. Mike seems to have no specific characteristics. He is just one of hundred-millions of people who are doing fairly a good job on everything. Then, do you want your students to be just one of hundred- millions of people or be an expert who is different than others?

The Popular Notion

Tuesday’s class brought up a variety of very interesting and important conversations. One conversation that really resonated with me was the notion of technology and how it affects our teaching. The fact that PJ even used a video from the internet as an aid for teaching the class is huge. He jokingly said something along the lines of, “it’s not good teaching these days unless you use a youtube video.” I some ways this statement is true. The first video he showed conveyed such a unique message about the internet and the age of information, that I think could not have been conveyed without that very video. Even as I am writing this blog, I am sitting in the computer lab in the library watching an English teacher teach his class using the internet. There is no doubt that technology and the internet shapes not only how we teach but also what we do in our everyday lives.
I chose to read Democratic Conversations in Music Education: An Introduction by David Lines this week. As I read this article I couldn’t help but think of this idea of technology and how it has affected the ways in which educators teach. Lines talks about the change in a lot of the Western educational institutions. He observes that these educational systems went from being “more liberal-humanist to a more economically driven neoliberal global oriented educational agenda.” With this shift came the notion of producing as many great candidates for professions incorporating math and science. Another result of this shift is a continuously diminishing interest in music programs. Lines also tells of music programs in the United Kingdom and New Zealand where schools are resorting to hiring private and community musicians to teach the music programs. Another point Lines makes is that music programs use too much institutional music. We live in the information age where we have a plethora of music available to us, at our fingertips. Because of this music is a big part of everyone’s life. The average person’s life is almost completely shaped by music. Music can affect someone’s culture, style even the friends that they make. Using institutional music in our programs does not spark any interest in our students and because of this, our students may not learn as much about music as we would like them to. If we used more popular music in the classroom students would be hooked. I think that this could solve the problem that the UK and New Zealand are having. Opening the classroom up to the student’s world would create more interest and with more interest I think there will come more music teachers. If we let the advancement of technology shape how we teach, why not let the advancement of music to do the same?

Being Well Rounded

            This week’s discussion about well roundedness and preparedness was one that really peaked my interest. It is something that I feel is important to discuss because while being well rounded and prepared are characteristics that are expected of individuals, the requirements for both are rather hazy.

            I could not help but to think about college admissions when the word well rounded came up in class on Tuesday.  In high school, you worry so much about what schools to apply to and which of those are your “reach,” “attainable,” and “safe” schools.  For most of us who applied to “reach” schools, there were a number of requirements that had to be met if you even wanted to be considered as a candidate. The one thing that my guidance counselor always emphasized was that schools were looking for a well-rounded individual.  For example, Harvard wanted someone who not only scored incredibly high on his/her SAT’s and had a high GPA, but they also wanted to see that that individual was involved with sports, academic clubs, music, student government, volunteer activities, and maybe even have a job.  I never understood what super human could ever accomplish all of these things but, apparently, it has been done. 

            With all this in mind, it makes me wonder whether or not quality or quantity is valued when it comes to being a well rounded person and, in turn, a prepared person.  While being involved in a lot of things can be wonderful and fulfilling, it is not necessarily what everyone is interested in doing. What about the people who have an extreme love for science and immerse themselves in that field.  While they might not be the most “well rounded,” they might be the ones who are heading NASA or constructing new technologies that we all benefit from.  Is it wrong, nowadays, to focus on one craft? Or does the lack of “well roundedness” equal ill preparedness?

            In a society where today’s students are preparing for 11 careers, how is it necessarily possible for them to be great in a particular field if it is expected that they dabble in so many others? I feel that society sees well roundedness as something that prepares an individual for all the obstacles the world has to offer. And, in a way, it does make sense because I suppose the logic is that the greater variety of experiences you have, the more tools you have to face the world.  But, as Ryan mentioned in class the other day, how thin are we spreading ourselves? If we are part of so many things, how can we become experts in the one field that interests us most? I think it is amusing that while being well rounded is highly regarded, within one particular field, one is also expected to be at the top. If you’re not one of the best, then you are not as successful as someone who lives and breathes that one particular craft.

            I do not want to give the impression that being well rounded always means that you must sacrifice something else or that you could never be great in one particular field. The point that I wanted to make is that I think we have a very specific idea about what well roundedness is in today’s day and age.  Maybe it is our job as individuals to not buy in to what the typical well rounded individual needs to be and, rather, figure out for ourselves what life experiences we want and can take on.  This will lead to our own personal design of what it means to be well rounded and prepared for our own lives.

Music and Democracy

Music is related to many aspects of the human life. Music is not an isolated identity and it affects many people not only music teachers. It is entwined in our culture and society, including politics and democracy. I have an example of where music has become part of the presidential race. The presidential candidate John McCain has used the song "My Hero" by the Foo Fighters to represent his campaign. Subsequently, the Foo Fighters have blasted him for using the song without consent and for misinterpreting the original sentiment or meaning of the song. As Paul Woodford says, "If, as is now commonly believed, music is a badge of identity and form of cultural representation, then it is strongly implicated in politics and cultural wars" (xiii). In the article I read by David Lines, he writes that "music is intrinsically entwined with human affairs, with the aims and desires of cultural expression, and with instances of human power, freedom, dominance, control and resistance." Music has a strong impact on many parts of our society, and its realm of influence goes beyond the classroom.

Therefore, I think that this leads to the idea that music is not above politics and music teachers are not above politics and democracy. If music affects so many other aspects of life, we as music teachers cannot ignore the facets of society that affect us. Woodford defines politics as the way we engage and deal with the collective decision-making process. Democracy as Dewey defines it is the need for every citizen, in this case music teachers, to participate in the formation of social values regulating the lives of people. Thus individuals need to be involved with the institutions that govern them. Dewey in Woodford's book has another point that reminds me of Block's writing. Dewey believes that individuals have the power to contribute to the community in accordance to his or her abilities in the spirit of service to others. All of these writings emphasize the concept that music teachers have the responsibility to engage in democracy and politics to shape the way that the school and community function.

Specifically, Woodford sees that if teachers are engaged in the democratic environment, they have the power to influence the planning and implementation of curriculum. He says if teachers learned to exert a degree of increased control over their school and classroom environments, teaching would improve. I agree that teachers cannot be passive when it comes to issues such as deciding the curriculum in the music classroom. If we want our music classes to have an impact on our students, then we need to ensure that what they are learning is purposeful, beneficial, has substance, and most of all is enjoyable. Music teachers are leaders in the school, we have to make sure that we are involved in the process of change and transformation in the school and community.

Plate Getting Too Full?

I am still not at closure with this idea of there being a difference and/or a similarity between being prepared and being well rounded. I have occasionally used the words interchangeably, but generally separate the two from being exactly the same. According to the dictionary used within a Macbook Pro, prepared is described as a verb (prepare) and reads: Make oneself ready to do or deal with something; be willing to do something. When I searched well rounded, it came up only as an adjective and was defined as: pleasingly varied or balanced; (of a person) having a personality that is fully developed in all aspects.

Our idea of well rounded has changed over time. Previously, these two words could have been used interchangeably. Now, as evident in the dictionary, the two words mean different things. Well rounded is describing something as having a good balance in many areas whereas being prepared is dealing with situations and agreeing to step in if need be. From these definitions, I get the sense that a person who is well rounded enjoys being that way and has probably tried to get there. Someone who is prepared may not always want to handle a situation but feels obligated to do their part because they have the knowledge.

This brings me to the next question I have been pondering: How much is too much for a person to handle? I have found ways to answer this using my own experiences throughout high school and at Westminster. Especially at this institution, we are expected to know and master several different areas within the broad subject of music. We also have additional choirs, clubs, jobs, and activities to participate in. This is not even taking into consideration being a son/daughter, significant other, friend, or any other role students take outside the classroom.

There are several times I have felt like I am dealing with too much for one person. When having a “full plate”, one tends to lose focus in things. It becomes impossible to do everything at one hundred percent so there are things that end up getting done just to have it be completed. Many times, it is easy to forget why an activity was started in the first place. There is no longer that original connection to the reasons of why something was added to an already hectic schedule. A person in this situation can feel like a machine, just doing things because they feel obligated. The activities are no longer fun, and become chores or burdens. Also, having too much to do limits personal time and may even cause none at all.

What are the downfalls of spreading oneself too thin? I have found that having too much of too many things to do can lead to no interest in anything. A person just gets to that point where they do not feel like doing a thing because they spent so much time working on what feels like everything. Another aspect of spreading oneself too thin is that it leaves more room for disappointment. When a person is unable to give his/her all to everything, they are setting themselves up for failure by not putting in one hundred percent effort. This idea, along with striving to be the best can lead to constant stress and self-esteem issues.

How can we change this perception of having to excel in everything? A change in the conversation would be a great place to start. If we, as a community, discuss ways to pinpoint our assets and focus our energy on them, we can change this need to be perfect at everything. If a person is good at several different things, they need to choose specific areas to focus on, not to limit themselves, but to make life more manageable. A focus on gifts will help alleviate pressure. Also, if we all find our roles within a community or a classroom, we know where to focus our attention to so that we can benefit those around us. We are not trying to overdo anything but know that we have a definite place to use our talents.

Discuss

My first impressions of this book are that it is Peter Block with bigger words and more Deweyey. Woodford’s ideas are almost identical to Block’s. They share the concept of people bringing their gifts to community, or so says Dewey. Some of the ideas Woodford brings to the table though are quite thought provoking. “No one had a monopoly on truth or value.” Woodford is talking about the ideal democracy where that statement is true. It is an interesting statement as well. No one having a democracy on those things means that the opinion people have on what is truth and what should be valued is shared. I’d like to take this moment to talk about a band called Girl Talk. Girl Talk is not like other bands though where they write original music. The experience of Girl Talk is a collaboration of tons of genre’s of popular music mixed together in an extremely complex and talented way. Girl Talk in my opinion is a very high level of DJ for this reason. There is a reason that I’m talking about Girl Talk in regards to Woodford’s book. On page 4 and 5, and after skimming through some of the later chapters, without even reading it I noticed something: a whole lot of numbers, one at the end of almost every paragraph. And in the section labeled Notes, each of the numbers just refers to a citation. This collection of citations gives me the impression that this book is a just a huge collaboration of popular music education thinkers. They’ve been gathered together in a particular way that connects them and turns them into a different way of thinking about these old ideas. This is almost exactly what Girl Talk does.
In the article I read this week, Reconnecting Music Education with Society
Thomas A. Regelski, Editor, the second paragraph opens with a very heavy statement: What students ultimately can do or actually do with their learning later in life is most often not a question teachers or curriculum designers ask. I’ve actually been thinking of this a lot lately in terms of our current education. And what exactly are we learning? What I’ve gathered from these books is that education works best as a conversation where the environment allows for positive change. But what does this mean for this statement Regelski makes? What can we do, actually do, with what we’re learning in classes today? It is interesting that the CP classes we take today don’t really feel like they take place in a CP style. The conversation is usually between a small group of people in the class. It’s an example of how CP depends not only on the teacher, but the students as well. There is a huge responsibly placed on the student to be a part of the conversations that take place in a democratic classroom. The traditions of classrooms we are used to are echoing in our learning now. We wait until the teacher asks a direct question, raise our hand, and give a direct answer. And none of these skills or methods has a thing to do with music. Haltmeier once said the most rewarding experiences of college for him were discussions he had about music education with his peers outside of class. Why not bring that into the classroom? I have discussions like these often and they really get me thinking. What about a classroom makes it so difficult to have discussions? Just a thought.

Bloggody blog blog blog

What upsets me most about this course is the fact that every time I pick up a book, I have a mental argument with the author. I tossed and turned as I read through the first couple pages objecting to everything that this author cites. At the top of page 2, Woodford claims that Dewey believed that "Ultimately freedom of mind was a means of pursuing and maximizing the public good. It was a form of social and cultural critique. Like the utilitarians, Dewey believed that society's institutions should be subjected to continual scrutiny and critique. but whereas the utilitarians defined good in terms of the pain, pleasure or happiness of existing individuals, Dewey conceived of it as the releasing of human capacity for communal action." This paragraph disturbed me because I felt Woodford took a very general idea of Dewey's and stated it in a way that takes away individuality. One person's view (in this case, Dewey's) should be accepted as a community view. The idea of defining good from this perspective and this early in the book really set me off. The author put me down a narrow path that sought Dewey's way as "The Way". What I think is hilarious about Dewey is that he lived in a time when he could have put his great fundamental ideas into action in the public school system to break down the barriers and restore education to a "good" sense (in his view). Yet public school systems have remained the same. We still sit rows, still watch the clock and still exert a behavior that goes through the motions as opposed to simply learning. While I'm in love with the fact of Dewey's ideas, goals and views in the classroom, they were incapable in the past, so why would they work in the present? Later on in the page, Woodford references students of Dewey's time stating that "individuals might not be especially wise or talented, but they were positioned to reflect on and to act intelligently to improve, the quality of their own lives and those around them." From the last book that we read on community, I thought the goal was to find each individual's gifts and make them work in the community? I thought the goal was to enable each student or person to grow based on their own intelligence, not necessarily based on the intelligence level that we hold as a standard. I thought the goal was to thrive through individuality as a quality, not the qulaity of individuality that others set for us? My next qualm with Woodford comes on page 4. "Intolerance, abuse, calling of names because of difference of opinion about religion or politics or business, as well as because of differences of race or color, wealth, or degree of culture are treason to the democratic way of life." As a direct quote from Dewey, this is another poor example of depicting a current life situation. Anywhere you go these days, one is bound to run into intolerance. Instead of pretending that this treason is forbidden in life, we need to find a way as teachers to embrace the situation and find ways to deal with it. There will always be issues with money, pride and opinion. How we deal with each of these intolerances is what makes us stronger humans. My last issue came on page 5 before I finally had to stop reading because I felt like throwing up. If any of you remember back to the pyramid task that Korey and Ryan had us do, I imagined a community pyramid with support of the members at the bottom to form a foundation and a strong set of values at the very top. Woodford analyzes Dewey on page 5 and says that, "society as a whole should learn to overcome the limitations of past experience, received dogmas, the stirring of self-interest, the arousing of passion, sheer mental laziness, a false social environment steeped in biased traditions or animated by false expectations, and so on." I think I screamed a little bit. First, past experience is how we as a society learn to move on with life. If we never looked at past experiences, we would be like fish, swimming around with memory losses and only focusing on what we can do in the present. The past gives us clues to the future. Second, received dogmas for some people could develop into communities that support these principles. When I hear the word dogma, the intention I feel is a negative relgion. However, in this context, I feel that Wordford is putting down any sense of purpose or group that a person may devote themself to. Third, self interest in the 21st century has become the only motivating factor that keeps some of us as students going through the day. In all honesty, our educational lives may not be the easiest or the best, but if you end up surviving at a school like Westminster Choir College, then you can consider that degree well worth it. In a society like our school offers, one can look at self-interest and see that this is a positive outlook. When you graduate there is a tremendous sense of accomplishment as well as confidence that is established. I feel that confidence is attained primarily out of self-interest. Moving on, how can the arousing of passion be viewed in a negative light? My goodness, if each of my adult choir members aroused some sort of passion, (be it in music or any interest outside for that matter), I would throw a party. People have lost zest for life and wish it away for that one day of retirement. But because of the shape of the American economy, one is left forsaken when it comes to dreams of travel due to increases in foreign currencies. Also left forsaken is social security as a reliable source of income, but we won't go there right now. Next, a false social environment is what each and every one of us has fallen into as 21st century musicians! If I had a dime every time I passed a football player in the hallway and someone referred to them as a jock, I would be a millio--check that---billionaire. Viewed as a chorus geek my whole life, I lived up to the so-called false social environment and found a gift that I wouldn't have had if I were to chase my original dream as a sports commentator. The false social environment backfires for most of us in the other direction. The smart snoody richass cheerleaders become selfless moms and teachers that invigerate their students with the same passion that they left on the football field or basketball court years ago. I'm sure there are many more examples. When Dewey says "so on.", this is when I had my knockout punch with Dewey and Woodford. I closed the book and picked up a critique. Did I mention I hate Dewey?