Music Education and the Knowledge
Economy: Developing Creativity,
Strengthening Communities
PATRICK M. JONES
Improving the state’s competitiveness means
. . . creating an environment that encourages
entrepreneurialism and innovation.
—Bruce Katz et al., Back to Prosperity
You can’t have high-tech innovation without
art and music.
—Richard Florida, The Rise of the
Creative Class
he Brookings Institution’s re-
port Back to Prosperity: A
Competitive Agenda for Re-
newing Pennsylvania
1
studied
the Commonwealth of Penn-
sylvania’s economic and civic health
through factors including population
demographics, development and land
use, industry focuses and trends, and its
residents’ educational attainment. The
report’s authors say that the future of
Pennsylvania depends on revitalizing its
communities, curbing problems of urban
sprawl and abandonment, stopping the
“brain drain” of highly educated work-
ers, growing the knowledge industry sec-
tor of the state’s economy, and creating
an environment conducive to entrepre-
neurialism. One indicator of the impact
of this report is that it was used to shape
portions of the governor’s fiscal year
2004–05 budget proposal.
2
The key issue identified in the Brook-
ings report is Pennsylvania’s “brain
drain” of young educated professionals
who are instrumental in today’s “knowl-
edge economy.”
3
Pennsylvania had the
“5th largest net out-migration of any
state between 1995 and 2000,” with “no
state [having] lost more young workers”
during the 1990s.
4
The findings indicate
that Pennsylvania’s inability to retain
such workers inhibits the state from
attracting high paying jobs and promot-
ing entrepreneurialism.
A major reason cited for Pennsylva-
nia’s inability to retain young workers is
that its communities lack the types of
lifestyle amenities to which they are
attracted. Knowledge economy workers
want to live in vibrant and diverse com-
munities with lively arts scenes that are
too rarely found in Pennsylvania.
5
Other
research regarding attracting such work-
ers has also indicated that arts, culture,
and lifestyle issues are critical factors in
attracting what Richard Florida has
labeled “creative workers.”
6
Thus, arts
and culture are key factors in attracting
and retaining knowledge economy
workers.
7
Arts and culture not only attract cre-
ative workers but also have a positive
impact on the community. Researchers
at the University of Pennsylvania’s
Social Impact of the Arts Project found
that the presence of arts and culture
offerings in a neighborhood has a mea-
surable impact on the strength of the
community. The authors state further
that “cultural participation has a clear
and significant relationship to the
indexes of social well-being” and that
“higher levels of [arts] participation
change the social environment by fos-
tering a sense of ‘collective efficacy.’”
8
They found that the presence of arts and
culture in a neighborhood was one of
the key elements related to a block
group’s chance of undergoing revital-
ization.
9
Thus, residents’ participation
in the arts is good for the neighborhood.
Florida found a vibrant musical life
to be one of the key components
attracting creative workers to relocate
and settle in a community. They gravi-
tate to communities with active and
cutting-edge music scenes because
they see it as “one of the last areas of
social life where a modicum of authen-
ticity can be found.”
10
Taken together, one can draw the fol-
lowing four conclusions from this grow-
ing body of research:
? Pennsylvania suffers from losing
young educated “creative workers.”
? Creative workers move to communi-
ties that are vibrant.
? Arts and culture are key components
of vibrant communities.
? A community’s music scene is one of
the key arts and cultural elements that
attracts and retains “creative workers.”
Vol. 106, No. 4, March/April 2005 5
T
The Questions for Music Education
Knowing that music plays such a
vital role in the knowledge economy
and the lives of creative workers reveals
two questions that require consideration
by music educators. First, What role can
school-based music education play in
fostering the types of vibrant communi-
ties where creative workers want to
live? And second, What role can school-
based music educators play in helping
their own students develop into creative
workers?
To answer those questions one must
identify the traits of creative workers
and the types of communities to which
they are attracted. In this article, I will
review the research already mentioned,
which has been generated from three
different perspectives: public policy,
regional economic development, and
social work. My goal is to gain insight
into defining creative workers, their
traits, musical interests, and what
attracts them to certain communities. In
addition, intellectual, curricular, and
pedagogical movements in music edu-
cation, and the Pennsylvania Academic
Standards for the Arts and Humanities
11
will also be analyzed to determine if
points of convergence exist to help steer
music education toward aiding Pennsyl-
vania’s renewal.
Fostering Vibrant Communities
The first question to be answered is,
What role can school-based music edu-
cation play in fostering the types of
vibrant communities where creative
workers want to live?
According to the authors of the
Brookings report, “talented workers are
looking for more than just a good place
to work. . . . [They want] vibrant down-
towns, a diversity of people, ethnic
neighborhoods, lots of restaurants and
stores, and a lively arts scene . . . when
choosing where to settle.”
12
Stern and Seifert’s findings (n.d.)
provide guidance for school-based
music education to address community
vitality in two ways: community-based
cultural offerings and cultural participa-
tion by a community’s residents.
Community-based cultural offerings.
Community cultural activity “can have
as dramatic an influence on a neighbor-
hood as a planned cultural district or
major arts institution.”
13
Stern and
Seifert discovered that communities that
offered multiple opportunities for cul-
tural participation increased their popu-
lation, income levels, and economic and
ethnic diversity.
14
The authors conclud-
ed that “arts and cultural institutions
provide one means of moving a neigh-
borhood from ‘accidental’ diversity to
‘intentional’ diversity.”
15
School-based music programs can
help foster vibrant communities in at
least three ways. First, school buildings
could serve as community centers for
the arts after school hours and on week-
ends. Many have excellent facilities for
music composition, rehearsal, and per-
formance that can be made available to
the community. Second, school districts
employ expert musicians who could be
made available to guide, mentor, and
organize musical activities for commu-
nity members. Third, and most impor-
tant, school music curricula should pro-
vide a bridge for students to participate
in musical offerings in the community
and should focus on developing inde-
pendent musicianship among students
so they can create their own musical
opportunities within the community,
both during and after their school years.
Cultural participation. Participation
in cultural activities by residents posi-
tively changes the social environment of
the community, causing residents to
view their neighborhoods positively and
engage in other forms of community
involvement.
16
As noted above, this
strengthens the community in many
ways, such as lowering rates of delin-
quency and truancy among students,
17
increasing population and income lev-
els,
18
and promoting economic and eth-
nic diversity.
19
School music programs can promote
cultural participation by making their
main goal life-long musical involve-
ment of their current students and of
community residents at large. School
music programs should graduate alumni
who are capable of independently con-
tinuing to make music in whatever
forms they choose. The instruments and
ensembles offered should be ones peo-
ple can and will choose to continue to
perform on their own and in social set-
tings throughout their lives.
Developing Creative Workers
The second question to answer is,
What role can school-based music edu-
cators play in helping their own students
develop into creative workers?
The authors of the Brookings report
advocate that Pennsylvania invest in a
“high road economy”
20
by focusing on
education and training, promoting devel-
opment in key select industries, and
focusing on industries that promote re-
vitalization of older communities. They
note that education and skills are crucial
in today’s changing economy (Katz, et
al. 2003, 12), but provide no specific
guidance as to how schools can develop
creative workers. Therefore, a review of
what makes someone a creative worker
is necessary to identify the knowledge,
skills, traits, and modus operandi that
our students should develop.
Although creative workers are a
diverse group, they do possess general-
izable traits and practices that can pro-
vide direction for K–12 music offerings.
According to Florida, creative workers
21
embody and embrace the following
characteristics and approaches: individ-
uality; creativity; technology and inno-
vation; participation; project orienta-
tion; and eclecticism and authenticity.
Each of these traits and practices
holds implications for music education.
A careful review of how they might be
nurtured and developed in school music
settings reveals the types of curricular
offerings school music programs should
provide to develop creative workers.
Individuality. Creative workers
favor “individuality, self-statement,
acceptance of difference” and desire
“multidimensional experiences.”
22
They define themselves not by the
company that they work for but, rather,
by the kind of work that they do, their
profession, lifestyle, and the kind of
community in which they live (Florida
2002b, 135). School music programs
can promote individuality by including
a wide variety of musical styles in
their programs—including emerging
styles with which their music teachers
6 Arts Education Policy Review
may not be familiar—that allow stu-
dents to express their individuality.
Creativity. Creativity is essential to
creative workers.
23
They pursue pas-
times and cultural forms that allow them
to nurture and express it (Florida 2002b,
171) and seek multiple creative outlets
(160–61). School music programs can
foster creativity by focusing on its
development through multiple means
such as composition, performance, and
sound engineering.
Technology and innovation. The cre-
ative economy is built upon a blurring of
lines between traditional disciplines:
drawing technology, business, and cul-
ture into one another “in more intimate
and more powerful combinations than
ever before” (Florida 2002b, 201).
According to Florida, computer geeks
“reconnect with their artistic creativity
through technology” (209). School
music programs can provide opportuni-
ties for the creative use of technology in
the myriad of musicianly roles that it
facilitates. Music studies can provide a
venue for students to blend technological
and artistic creativity through fusing gen-
res, performing on electronic instru-
ments, and learning digital/audio tech-
niques (208).
Participation. Creative workers favor
active, authentic, and participatory
recreation over being spectators (Flor-
ida 2002b, 166–67). They prefer experi-
ences they can have a hand in structur-
ing (166–67), setting their own pace,
and creating their own rules (175). They
try to live several “lives” simultaneous-
ly by combining their careers with avo-
cations to feed their creativity, and
design unique personal identities such
as “programmer-rock climber-rock
musician” (160–61). School music pro-
grams can provide participatory experi-
ences in which students are actively
engaged in making music, designing
projects and criteria, and making musi-
cal decisions.
Project orientation. The creative
workplace “mobilizes talent around cre-
ative projects and integrates elements of
the flexible, open, interactive model of
the scientist’s lab or artist’s studio more
than the machine model of the factory
or the traditional corporate office”
Vol. 106, No. 4, March/April 2005 7
ture (166) that is eclectic, social and
interactive (185). They find their cre-
ativity fed by “meeting and talking
informally, by chance, with a diverse
range of creative-minded others”
(186). They want to experience the
creators along with the event and pre-
fer frequenting venues where it is hard
to draw the line between participant
and observer or between creativity and
its creators (166) to attending muse-
ums or concert halls where they are
placed in the role of spectators who are
separated from the creators (183).
School music programs can include
a diverse offering of authentic musics
and utilize a variety of performance
venues that provide authenticity of
context for the musical genres being
performed, particularly those that fos-
ter interaction between performers and
audience, such as a student-songwriter
open-microphone night at a local
venue.
Table 1 is a composite listing of the
aforementioned implications of the
knowledge economy for school music
programs.
(Florida 2002b, 117, 121). According to
Florida, creativity flourishes best in an
environment that is stable enough to
allow for continuity of effort, yet
diverse and broad-minded enough to
nourish creativity in all its subversive
forms (35, 55). It comes from individu-
als working in small groups that empha-
size exploration and discovery (41).
School music programs can offer pro-
ject-based musical experiences that
allow students the flexibility to set their
own schedules and timelines, form their
own small groups, set their own rules,
and work to accomplish projects such as
a student-produced compact disc or a
Web site with downloadable MP3s of
student compositions performed and
recorded by students.
Eclecticism and authenticity. Mem-
bers of the creative class prefer
authenticity to “generica,” and active,
informal, organic, and indigenous cul-
tural activities to major sports teams,
symphonies (Florida 2002b, 260),
opera, ballet, or large art exhibits
(182). They want a variety of musical
genres (227) and like a street-level cul-
TABLE 1. Implications of the Knowledge Economy and School Music Programs
The “knowledge economy” has implications for school music programs. School music
programs should:
? focus on developing creativity;
? help students develop the skills that they need to make musical creativity a lifelong
pursuit;
? engage students in multiple musicianly roles such as composing, performing,
digital recording, and so forth;
? be built around small group projects such as creating downloadable MP3s and/or CDs
of student compositions performed, recorded, and edited by students;
? provide a venue for blending technological and musical creativity;
? teach a variety of instruments, including electronic, that people can/will choose to
perform socially throughout life;
? offer genres and ensembles that nurture student creativity and its expression;
? provide a variety of musical styles, including emerging styles with which music
teachers might not be familiar but which students can or will choose to perform on
their own socially;
? be based on small ensembles led by students performing student compositions and
arrangements;
? utilize a variety of venues to create authentic context;
? create a curriculum that serves as a bridge for students to participate in community
musical offerings;
? inspire music teachers, who can also guide, mentor, and organize community music
making; and
? use school buildings to serve as community music centers.
Ideas from Movements in
Music Education and
Music Education Theorists
The implications for music education
discussed above resonate positively with
curricular reforms that have been advo-
cated by music education theorists for at
least the last forty years. Giving greater
emphasis to developing creativity and
musicianship has been espoused at a
series of colloquia, such as the Yale Sem-
inar, and the Tanglewood and House-
wright Symposia; curricular movements
such as the Young Composers Project,
Contemporary Music Project, Compre-
hensive Musicianship Project, Manhat-
tanville Music Curriculum Program, and
Arts PROPEL;
24
and various pedagogi-
cal approaches incorporated into U.S.
schools from theorists such as Dalcroze,
Kodály, Orff, Suzuki, and Gordon;
25
as
well as the implications of greater con-
textual understandings of music and its
roles in society and life
26
and the devel-
opment of contemporary philosophical
foundations of music education.
27
When
viewed in tandem, the ideas from these
various movements represent the founda-
tional beliefs of the United States music
education profession regarding the
nature of music and school-based musi-
cal instruction. The benefit of hindsight
allows one to distill them down to their
core beliefs, as listed in Table 2.
Academic Standards for Music
Much of this near half-century of dia-
logue and debate in music education
theory and practice is currently embod-
ied in government standards for music
education.
28
Although the national stan-
dards are voluntary, the resultant Penn-
sylvania Academic Standards for the
Arts and Humanities
29
are legally man-
dated requirements. Table 3 contains the
Pennsylvania Academic Standards for
the Arts and Humanities and some of
the musicianship skills and musicianly
roles required of all K–12 students in
Pennsylvania.
30
The Pennsylvania Academic Stan-
dards require students to develop inde-
pendent musicianship in a variety of
musical genres and roles, such as com-
poser, arranger, performer, and critic.
They also foster using technology,
expressing an understanding of the con-
text of musical practices, and develop-
ing philosophical and sociological per-
spectives on the arts. The standards are
curriculum mandates articulated as
musical actions and roles. They do not
prescribe specific courses and ensem-
8 Arts Education Policy Review
TABLE 2. A Composite List of Ideas Generated in Late Twentieth-century Music
Education Movements
1. School music exists to help students develop musical skills for use throughout life.
2. Creativity/musicality and performance are the essence of music and should define
musical learning.
3. Improvisation and composition are indispensable for developing musical creativity.
4. Students should fulfill a multitude of musical roles, such as composer, performer,
director, critic, recording engineer, and so on.
5. Musical learning should be natural and based on how students learn at their stages
of development.
6. Instruction should focus on developing musical creativity and musicianship skills.
7. Music used in the classroom should be authentic and of high quality.
8. Music of the child’s indigenous culture is the natural starting place for musical
learning.
9. Different kinds of music of various periods and multiple cultures should be used
and performed authentically.
10. Contemporary music fosters creativity.
11. Student compositions and improvisations should form the core of classroom reper-
toire.
12. Students should develop contextual understanding of music from historical, theoret-
ical, sociological, and philosophical perspectives.
13. Success of musical instruction is determined by the ability of individual students to
perform successfully various musicianly roles throughout life.
TABLE 3. Pennsylvania’s Academic Standards for the Arts and Humanities
9.1. Production, performance, and exhibition of dance, music, theatre, and the visual
arts:
Students will notate, compose, arrange, read, perform, improvise, use appropriate
vocabulary, produce or perform a variety of styles; delineate a unifying theme
through the production of a work; analyze works influenced by experiences or
historical/cultural events; analyze the effects of rehearsal and practice sessions; and
use traditional and contemporary technologies such as MIDI and studio recording
and editing equipment for production and performance of works.
9.2. Historical and cultural contexts:
Students will explain and analyze works from historical and cultural perspectives
and explain social contexts; relate works chronologically to historical events and
varying styles and genres in which they were created; analyze how historical events
and culture impact forms, techniques, and purposes of works; relate works to geo-
graphic regions of the globe; and identify, describe, and analyze the works of Penn-
sylvania musicians and philosophical beliefs, cultural differences, and traditions as
they relate to musical works.
9.3. Critical response:
Students will compare and contrast, analyze, interpret, form and test hypotheses;
evaluate and form judgments, determine and apply criteria to works; identify and
classify styles, forms, types and genres; analyze and interpret works from different
societies using culturally specific vocabulary; apply contextual, formal and intuitive
criticism; and compare and contrast critical positions or opinions about works.
9.4. Aesthetic response:
Students will compare and contrast examples of philosophical meanings of works;
describe and analyze the effects that works have on groups, individuals and the cul-
ture; describe how audience environment influences aesthetic response; and
describe to what purpose philosophical ideas generated by artists can be conveyed
through works.
bles, leaving flexibility to schools and
teachers to develop programs organic to
their communities that will best help all
students achieve the standards.
Current Situation in Music
Education
Current state policy and statutes con-
cerning school music, music teacher
preparation programs, certification, and
assignment of teachers clearly call for
school music programs to be developing
the traits and skills of creative workers in
all students and for music teachers to be
capable of delivering such instruction in
a multitude of settings.
31
Yet many
schools continue to offer the same short
list of large ensembles that they have
offered since the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries in spite of such regu-
lations.
32
The emphasis of most middle
and secondary school music programs
continues to be on the large ensembles of
band, choir, and orchestra
33
modeled
after professional ensembles centered on
the teacher as maestro/conductor who
makes the musical decisions with stu-
dents merely reacting to teacher direc-
tion. There is little to no room for student
creativity. This model is in direct opposi-
tion to the traits of knowledge workers,
the intellectual heritage of the music edu-
cation profession as manifested in the
various movements of the twentieth cen-
tury, and may actually work against most
students achieving the voluntary national
and mandatory state standards for music
education.
In short, growth of school music may
be hamstrung by the very traditions that
it has developed. Our history of teacher-
led large performing ensembles as the
basis of music programs at the middle
and secondary levels has created gener-
ations of music teachers who view
themselves as conductors, not generalist
music teachers, and has barred entry of
musicians into the profession who do
not fit that mold.
34
Many school admin-
istrators and school board members
have also long recognized the positive
public relations value that such ensem-
bles provide and do not want to relin-
quish it. Thus, we have an ingrained
paradigm that school music consists of
selected “settings” rather than curricu-
lum, that school music equals band,
choir, orchestra, and elementary general
music. The end result is a lack of
emphasis on the types of skills and
modus operandi of creative workers, a
limited number of students involved in
music programs in the upper grades,
35
and a disconnect between school music
and the music in the students’ lives out-
side of school.
36
The result is little if any
impact on the musical life of the com-
munity. Therefore, reforming music
education to meet the needs of the
knowledge economy will require a par-
adigm shift to change the expectations
of administrators and music teachers
from the historical traditions of the past
to offering music programs that focus
on developing student creativity and
fostering a vibrant local community.
37
Model Music Program
The first step in changing the current
paradigm is to provide a model that
describes what music programs sub-
scribe to the needs of creative workers,
are true to the intellectual foundations
of music education, and are in compli-
ance with mandated standards would
look like. Such a model would provide a
guide for schools to reorient music edu-
cation toward developing creative work-
ers and strengthening their communi-
ties. To that end, the following model,
based on the research reviewed in this
article, is presented. The recommenda-
tions are divided into curriculum, cours-
es, ensembles, pedagogical approach,
and facilities.
Curriculum. Music educators should
design music curricula and musical
offerings that connect students to the
musical lives of the communities in
which they live so they can be active
musical participants in their own com-
munities throughout their lives.
38
There-
fore, schools must remain autonomous
in determining the types of courses,
musical genres, and ensembles offered
in their curricula. Such an approach to
curriculum design is consistent with the
needs of invigorating the musical life of
communities, with developing students
into creative knowledge workers, and
with state and national standards in
music that emphasize musician-related
roles and musicianship skills as the con-
tent of school music curricula, not spe-
cific ensembles or courses.
The research reviewed in this article
does, however, indicate a generalizable
set of skills that should form the core of
every music curriculum in all schools,
no matter through which ensembles and
courses it is delivered. The music cur-
riculum should be designed so all stu-
dents can make their own music, from
composition to performance to digital
production, as well as participate in the
performance and production of other
students’ compositions.
Courses. The courses of study could
include private and group lessons on a
variety of instruments; performing
ensembles; music theory (aural and writ-
ten); composition and arranging; impro-
visation; amplification and live sound
reinforcement; recording; production;
editing, music criticism (on the artistic,
sociological, or philosophical issues and
uses of music); music history, and the
music industry/business.
Ensembles. The ensembles and reper-
toire studied should be diverse, small
ensembles oriented to the musical lives
of the community’s street-level cultural
life. They could include ensembles such
as string quartets, jazz combos, rock
bands, brass quintets, folk groups, bar-
bershop quartets, steel pan ensembles,
or African and Brazilian drumming
groups. The genres should be such that
students learn to write their own songs,
compositions and arrangements; re-
hearse and record them at school; and
perform them at home and in town.
Ensembles should be tailored to the
community and to student interest.
Those offered at one school might not
necessarily be those offered at another
school. What would remain consistent
from school to school is the emphasis
on developing musical creativity and
musicianship skills and roles, such as
composer, director, performer, record-
ing engineer, and so forth.
39
Large
ensembles requiring a conductor may
be organized periodically from students
performing in the regularly offered
smaller ensembles, but they should not
be the focus of the program.
Pedagogical approach. The pedagog-
Vol. 106, No. 4, March/April 2005 9
ical approach should be focused on
developing student creativity and musi-
cal expression. It should be modeled
after the “creative workplace,” with
small ensembles performing student
compositions and arrangements being
rehearsed, directed, recorded, edited,
and produced by students. The teacher
alternates between providing instruc-
tion, setting parameters, coaching, and
assessing, thus creating the necessary
process and structure that Florida iden-
tifies as crucial to creative endeavors.
40
This is similar to teaching lab science
and creative writing, where teachers
design project parameters and provide
instruction as needed, but the students
work alone and in small groups to solve
the problems and meet the parameters
of the project. Such a model is conso-
nant with the traits and modus operandi
of creative workers and with fostering
student accomplishment of the Pennsyl-
vania and national standards for music
education.
Facilities. The physical plant needed
to support such a music program is a
music technology center consisting of a
large central room to serve as a record-
ing, production, and editing studio. Also
needed are satellite rooms, including a
separate computer lab for instruction in
theory, composition, arranging, and
keyboard; a room equipped to teach
group lessons on wind and string instru-
ments that is also equipped to teach
group electric guitar and bass; a group
drum-set room; and several small rooms
equipped with a single computer for
individual and small ensemble practice
utilizing accompaniment, recording,
and editing programs. The smaller
rooms should be wired to serve as sound
isolation booths for recording projects.
The current rehearsal hall and practice
rooms found in most schools can easily
be converted into such a facility. The
main issue is adding or upgrading tech-
nology and reorienting the curriculum,
not building new facilities.
Middle School
Realizing the enormity of this task, I
recommend that the logical place to
begin such a refocusing of school music
is the middle school. Most elementary
music programs, regardless of the
methodology to which the teacher pre-
scribes,
41
already focus on developing the
types of musicianship skills necessary to
growing creative workers. The break-
down occurs in the middle school, where
many programs mirror high school offer-
ings and focus on preparing students to
participate in the high school band,
orchestra, or choir.
42
Reorienting middle
school programs to focus on student cre-
ativity and technological innovation
would provide a logical progression of
what the students learned in elementary
school. The musician skills developed in
elementary school would be extended by
students learning songwriting, compos-
ing, arranging, learning to play instru-
ments, forming their own ensembles, and
learning to use digital/ audio recording
technology to record and edit their own
music. A restructured middle school
music curriculum would eventually bub-
ble up to the high school level.
43
Conclusion
Back to Prosperity: A Competitive
Agenda for Renewing Pennsylvania was a
shot across the bow for the state. The
report’s findings and the work of Richard
Florida and the Social Impact of the Arts
Project—taken together with the rich
intellectual movement of music educa-
tion during the latter half of the twentieth
century and the national and state stan-
dards for school music—provide guid-
ance to help music educators map a new
direction for K–12 music instruction that
will not only help improve the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania in economic and
social terms but also will help schools
achieve the stated goal of United States
music education, which is to help all
Americans realize their creative potential
in music.
44
Music education plays a cru-
cial role in the knowledge economy. We
must step up to the challenge and not
only craft a new vision for school music
but also operationalize it in order to meet
the needs of all children and strengthen
our communities. Although there will be
new demands in curriculum design,
scheduling, subject matter competence,
and technology acquisition, the greatest
challenge we face may be overcoming
our own paradigms.
Notes
1. Bruce Katz et al., Back to Prosperity: A
Competitive Agenda for Renewing Pennsyl-
vania.
2. “Rendell’s New Budget to Target Jobs,”
Philadelphia Inquirer, February 1, 2004.
Governor Rendell cited the report in his
2004–05 Budget Address on February 3,
2004; see http://www.governor.state.pa.us/
and see the budget proposal at http://www.
state.pa.us/. The governor cited the need to
create “vibrant neighborhoods” where
“companies want to invest” and “workers
want to live” (ii).
3. At least twenty citations are found in
the document concerning “Brain Drain,”
“Knowledge Economy,” and “Entrepreneuri-
alism.”
4. Katz et al., Back to Prosperity, 22–23.
5. Ibid., 60, 90–91.
6. Florida defines creative workers as one
of the classes of workers in today’s econo-
my. What differentiates the creative class
from the working and service classes is that
creative workers are “paid to create,” and
they “have considerably more autonomy and
flexibility.” See Florida, Creative Class,
8–12, for more in-depth discussion of what
defines the creative class.
7. See also Florida, “The Economic Geog-
raphy of Talent.” Governor Rendell cited
Florida’s work in his 2004–05 Budget
Address (see note 2).
8. Mark Stern and Susan Seifert, “Social
Impact of the Arts Project: Summary of
Findings,” 11.
9. Ibid.
10. Florida, Creative Class, 187, 260.
11. Pennsylvania General Assembly 2003a,
Academic Standards for the Arts and
Humanities. Code 22, chapter 4, appendix
D, (January 11).
12. Katz et al., Back to Prosperity, 60.
13. Stern and Seifert, “Culture Builds Com-
munity” (unpaginated summary sheet).
14. Ibid. See also Stern and Seifert, “Social
Impact,” 3.
15. Stern and Seifert, “Social Impact,” 11.
16. Ibid., 10.
17. Ibid.
18. Stern and Seifert, “Culture Builds Com-
munity.”
19. Stern and Seifert, “Social Impact,” 3.
20. Katz et al., Back to Prosperity, 93.
21. In Creative Class, Florida calls “knowl-
edge workers” “creative workers.” Therefore,
both terms will be used interchangeably
throughout this article.
22. Florida, Creative Class, 13–14.
23. Defining the elusive concept of creativity
is beyond the scope of this article. Florida
goes to great lengths to define it (Creative
Class, 30–35). His understanding of creativity
is used for this article. For its essential quality
for creative workers, see Florida, Creative
Class, 21.
10 Arts Education Policy Review
24. Claude Palisca, Music in Our Schools;
Judith Murphy and George Sullivan, The Tan-
glewood Symposium; Clifford Madsen, Vision
2020; Ronald Thomas, M.M.C.P. Synthesis;
Ellen Winner, Lyle Davidson, and Larry
Scripp, Arts PROPEL: A Handbook for
Music.
25. For an overview of Dalcroze, Kodály,
and Orff, see Polly Carter, ed., The Eclectic
Curriculum in American Music Education,
rev. ed.; see also Sinichi Suzuki, Nurtured by
Love; Edwin Gordon, Learning Sequences
in Music: Skill, Content, and Patterns.
26. Christopher Small, Music, Society, Edu-
cation and Musicking: The Meanings of Per-
forming and Listening; Tia DeNora, Music
in Everyday Life.
27. PRAXIAL as applied to music educa-
tion was first defined by Philip Alperson in
“What Should One Expect from a Philoso-
phy of Music Education?” There has been a
great deal of scholarship, discussion, debate,
and misunderstanding surrounding the
meaning of Praxial philosophies of music
education. The reader is referred to original
sources of this dialogue, in addition to
Alperson, such as David Elliott, Music Mat-
ters: A New Philosophy of Music Education,
which brought the idea further into the main-
stream of music education discussions;
Marie McCarthy, ed., Music Education As
Praxis: Reflecting on Music-Making As
Human Action, in which various scholars
present perspectives on Praxialism, and
Thomas Regelski, “Schooling for Musical
Praxis.” Scholarly discussion of Elliott’s
perspective was held by the MayDay Group
in Robert A. Cutietta, “David Elliott’s Phi-
losophy of Music Education.” Clarification
of two different Praxial perspectives is pro-
vided by J. Scott Goble in “Perspectives on
Practice: A Pragmatic Comparison of the
Praxial Philosophies of David Elliott and
Thomas Regelski”; and by Wayne Bowman
in “Re-Tooling ‘Foundations.’”
28. Music Educators’ National Conference,
National Standards for Arts Education.
29. Pennsylvania Code 22, Academic Stan-
dards for the Arts and Humanities.
30. Ibid. These standards incorporate dance,
music, theatre and visual arts into one law.
They are comprehensive and serve as a guide
for improving music education in the Com-
monwealth’s K–12 schools. Unfortunately,
due to the necessity of covering all the arts,
some of the language is inappropriate for
music. This could have the unintended effect
of causing some educators and administrators
to interpret appropriate musical studies too
narrowly. For example, the emphasis on
“works” is appropriate for some visual arts,
but not music. A musical performance is a
temporal event, not a work as understood in
this sense. The use of the word “work” may
cause some people to confuse the study of a
composer’s score with studying music. A
score is not music, just as a script is not
drama, nor a playbook a football game. The
word “aesthetic” is also used in the standards.
Aesthetic is an unclear concept in its own
right and problematic when applied to music.
Therefore, music teachers must interpret
some of the terms in order to understand and
operationalize the intent of the law for music
instruction. I recommend replacing the words
“work” and “works” with performance event
or composition, depending on which is more
appropriate to the intention of the given state-
ment, and replacing “aesthetic response” with
“philosophical and sociological perspec-
tives,” which provides clarity as to the actual
intent of the law.
31. Ibid. See also Pennsylvania Code 22,
Certification, Preparation of Professional
Educators. Pennsylvania Department of
Education, “General Standards and Specific
Program Guidelines for State Approval of
Professional Educator Programs”; Pennsyl-
vania Department of Education, “C.S.P.G.
No. 55 Certification Staffing Assignment:
Music Education (K–12)”; and the National
Standards for Arts Education.
32. James Keene, A History of Music Edu-
cation in the United States, 113–14, 270–340.
33. See NCES, “Arts Education in Public Ele-
mentary and Secondary Schools: 1999–
2000.” This document is supposedly a “nation-
al profile of the status of arts education” in
schools. The types of music offered are never
even raised in the study. Types of offerings
(classes/ensembles) provided are asked of ele-
mentary school principals. They were to iden-
tify if they offered “general music, chorus,
band, strings/orchestra, and other.” The results
show nobody reported “other,” leaving the
reader to conclude the standard offerings listed
above are all that apparently exist. The survey
for secondary school principals, which poten-
tially might reveal more diversity in music
offerings, does not even include that question.
Thus, the only data available indicate that the
same ensembles are what is being offered in
secondary schools.
34. This is frequently the case with guitar
majors. They are seen as “neither fish nor
fowl.” They are not “band directors,” and
they are not “choral directors.” Many fine
musicians simply opt not to pursue careers in
music education because they are interested
in creative musical activities, are composi-
tion majors, or major in instruments such as
guitar or piano, and do not want to be “direc-
tors.” The end result has been an exclusion of
those with different perspectives and ideas
from entering the profession. I believe this
narrow understanding of what a music
teacher is has retarded the evolution of music
education and is one of the keys to reforming
music education in the United States.
35. Robert Cutietta, “David Elliott’s Philos-
ophy,” 23–24.
36. Patrick Jones, “Returning Music Edu-
cation to the Mainstream: Reconnecting
with the Community.”
37. Patrick Jones, “Action for Change: Act-
ing on Our Ideals.” See http://www.mayday
group.org/ for recommendations on steps to
be taken to reform music teacher education.
38. For in-depth discussion of this topic,
see Jones, “Returning Music Education to
the Mainstream.”
39. For in-depth discussion of revising
music education to connect students to the
musical lives of their communities and
descriptions of physical plant and the curric-
ular changes required to support it, including
needed changes for teacher education, see
Jones, “Returning Music Education to the
Mainstream.”
40. Florida, Creative Class, 41.
41. Dalcroze, Gordon, Kodály, Orff, etc.
42. The NCES’ study, “Arts Education in
Public Elementary and Secondary Schools:
1999–2000,” as previously mentioned, indi-
cates no other ensemble offerings.
43. There are models that attempt some of
these things and can serve as good starting
places for those seeking ideas. See Thomas,
M.M.C.P. Synthesis, for a curriculum built on
a music laboratory approach to school music;
see Winner, Davidson, and Scripp, Arts PRO-
PEL: A Handbook for Music, for insights on
projects, approach, and assessment; and see
Regelski, Teaching General Music in Grades
4–8, for an approach to middle school music
that focuses on developing life-long amateur
musicianship in all students.
44. The Music Educators’ National Confer-
ence’s National Standards for Arts Education
states that all Americans should “be able to
communicate at a basic level in the four arts
disciplines” and “proficiently in at least one
art form” (18–19). The Pennsylvania Aca-
demic Standards for the Arts and Humanities
states, “Pennsylvania’s public schools shall
teach, challenge and support every student to
realize his or her maximum potential and to
acquire the knowledge and skills to” master
each of the state arts standards, which include
performing music, as cited in Academic Stan-
dards for the Arts and Humanities.
References
Alperson, Philip. 1991. “What Should One
Expect from a Philosophy of Music
Education?” Journal of Aesthetic Edu-
cation 25 (3): 215–42.
Bowman, Wayne. 2003. “Re-Tooling
‘Foundations’ to Address 21st Century
Realities: Music Education Amidst
Diversity, Plurality, and Change.” Action,
Criticism, and Theory for Music Education
2, no. 2 (December): http://www.mayday
group.org/Bowman03.pdf.
Carter, Polly, ed. 1990. The Eclectic
Curriculum in American Music Edu-
cation. Rev. ed. Reston, VA: National
Association for Music Education.
Cutietta, Robert A. 2000. “David Elliott’s
Philosophy of Music Education: Good
Vol. 106, No. 4, March/April 2005 11
Theory, Bad Timing or Bad Theory, Good
Timing?” Bulletin of the Council for
Research in Music Education 144
(Spring): 21–27.
DeNora, Tia. 2000. Music in Everyday Life.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Elliott, David. 1995. Music Matters: A New
Philosophy of Music Education. New
York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Florida, Richard. 2002a. “The Economic
Geography of Talent,” Annals of the
Association of American Geographers
92:(4): 743–55.
———. 2002b. The Rise of the Creative
Class: And How It’s Transforming Work,
Leisure, Community and Everyday Life.
New York: Basic Books.
Goble, J. Scott. 2003. “Perspectives on
Practice: A Pragmatic Comparison of the
Praxial Philosophies of David Elliot and
Thomas Regelski.” Philosophy of Music
Education Review 11, no. 1 (Spring):
23–44.
Gordon, Edwin E. 1997. Learning Se-
quences in Music: Skill, Content, and
Patterns. Chicago: GIA Publications.
Jones, Patrick M. 2003. “Action for Change:
Acting on Our Ideals.” Paper presented at
the MayDay Group Colloquium 14: The
Next Ten Years for the MayDay Group,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
BC. http://www.mayday group.org/.
———. 2004. “Returning Music Education
to the Mainstream: Reconnecting with the
Community.” Paper presented at the
International Society for Music Edu-
cation, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain.
Katz, Bruce, Amy Liu, Jennifer Vey, Kurt
Sommer, and Damon Jones. 2003. Back to
Prosperity: A Competitive Agenda for
Renewing Pennsylvania. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Center of Urban
and Metropolitan Policy.
Keene, James A. 1987. A History of Music
Education in the United States. Lebanon,
NH: Univ. Press of New England.
Madsen, Clifford, ed. 2000. Vision 2020:
The Housewright Symposium on the
Future of Music Education. Reston, VA:
MENC: The National Association for
Music Education.
McCarthy, Marie, ed. 1999. Music
Education as Praxis: Reflecting on
Music-Making As Human Action. College
Park, MD: Univ. of Maryland.
Murphy, Judith, and George Sullivan. 1968.
The Tanglewood Symposium: Music in
American Society. Reston, VA: Music
Educators National Conference.
Music Educators’ National Conference.
1994. National Standards for Arts
Education: What Every Young American
Should Know and Be Able to Do in the
Arts. Reston, VA: Music Educators
National Conference.
National Center of Education Statistics.
2002. “Arts Education in Public Ele-
mentary and Secondary Schools: 1999–
2000,” NCES 2002-112. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education. http://nces
.ed.gov/pubsearch.
Palisca, Claude V. 1964. Music in Our
Schools: A Search for Improvement?
Report on the Yale Seminar on Music
Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Pennsylvania Department of Education.
2004. “C.S.P.G. No. 55 Certification
Staffing Assignment: Music Education
(K–12).” Harrisburg: Pennsylvania
Department of Education, July 1.
———. n. d. “General Standards and Specific
Program Guidelines for State Approval of
Professional Educator Programs.” Harris-
burg: Pennsylvania Department of Edu-
cation.
Pennsylvania General Assembly. 2003a.
Academic Standards for the Arts and
Humanities. Code 22, chap. 4, appendix
D, January 11.
———. 2003b. Preparation of Professional
Educators. Chap. 354, “General Stan-
dards and Specific Program Guidelines
for State Approval of Professional
Educator Programs,” March.
Philadelphia Inquirer. 2004. “Rendell’s
New Budget to Target Jobs,” February 1.
Regelski, Thomas. 1998. “Schooling for
Musical Praxis.” Musiikkikavsvatus
(Finnish Journal of Music Education) 3,
no. 1 (Spring): 7–37. Reprinted in
Canadian Music Educator 40, no. 1 (Fall):
32–43.
———. 2004. Teaching General Music in
Grades 4–8: A Musicianship Approach.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Small, Christopher. 1996. Music, Society,
Education. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan Univ.
Press.
———. 1998. Musicking: The Meanings of
Performing and Listening. Hanover, NH:
Wesleyan Univ. Press.
Stern, Mark, and Susan Seifert. 2001. “Social
Impact of the Arts Project: Summary of
Findings.” Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsyl-
vania School of Social Work.
———. n.d. “Culture Builds Community:
The Power of Arts and Culture in
Community Building.” Philadelphia:
Social Impact of the Arts Project, Univ. of
Pennsylvania School of Social Work
(summary sheet).
Suzuki, Sinichi. 1983. Nurtured by Love.
2nd ed. Trans. Waltraud Suzuki. Miami,
FL: Suzuki Method International.
Thomas, Ronald B. 1970. M.M.C.P. N.P.:
Synthesis. N.P.: Americole.
Winner, Ellen, Lyle Davidson, and Larry
Scripp, eds. 1992. Arts Propel: A
Handbook for Music. Cambridge, MA:
Project Zero, Educational Testing Service
and the President and Fellows of Harvard
College.
Patrick M. Jones is an associate professor
and head of the Music Education Division at
the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.
12 Arts Education Policy Review
|
|
