Music Education

comparison and conclusion

mhkim — Fri, 01 May 2009 07:26:44 +0000

Let’s pick three things that the school has and compare it to music. Physical education, also known as PE, is less of a priority than music because although exercise helps with academics, it has less of an effect on academics than music does. Also, music works the parts of the brain that do not get used in academics while physical education merely gives the brain a rest.

Renovating is less of a priority than music because most of the renovations done in schools are to make the school look better, not because it is mandatory. If this is the case, which it mostly is, we can all agree that it does not have an effect on academics and therefore is less important than music.

Sex Education is less of a priority than music because sex education can be briefly covered during the course of similar subjects, such as Biology. Also, This kind of knowledge should not be covered in school but instead is the parent’s job to inform their kids; I thought that is what “The Talk” was for.

I think that the money spent on any one of these things could support music education at a school. I think that schools need to make music education available for people who want to take it and not chuck music education “out the door” every chance they get. I know this is possible because money is more of an excuse than an issue (looking at the previous posts), and music is more important than some things (PE, Sex Ed, Renovation) so it should not be the first thing chucked out.

Music Education important?

mhkim — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:45:28 +0000

The argument in the previous post is not a valid argument. The benefits I have listed in three previous posts are good reasons why music is important, but another reason why it is important to schools is because it achieves the general goals of schools. The general goals it achieves are in academics. These goals are enhanced by music because as we discussed in a previous post, students who participate in music generally have better grades, standardized test scores, and higher IQ’s.

Since music education helps achieve school goals, shouldn’t music be a part of school curriculum? Well, they say that there are a lot more important things than music, so let’s take a look at some of these important things and judge whether or not music is the least important thing.

second argument

mhkim — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:41:59 +0000

The people that are against music education in schools make the argument that music is the least important thing in schools (if the school even has a music program). This thinking leads to schools without a music program. I think that music is not the least important thing. I know that most schools regard music as the thing with the least priority (very bottom of the priority list) because when a situation arrises in school, they usually end up with the plan to “sack the music program”.

I think that music should be placed higher on the priority list. And the thing is, more and more schools are starting to sack the music program. How important do you think music is to students?

Benefit 3

mhkim — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 03:58:32 +0000

The last major benefit of having music education in schools is the building of character. The proof of building character by participation in music education is in research by Richard J Deasy. I think that the reason for this is because students are required to put a certain amount of their own feeling into a piece (a composition of music). This is because music is considered an art, and artists such as painters put a little bit of themselves in their works.

Although many people overlook this benefit, I think that this benefit by itself could outweigh the costs going into making music education available in schools.

So, cost is not a reasonable argument because you do not need a lot of money to start a music program. Like I said in the previous post “cost” and as you can see in the first picture of the first post, a choir can be made and instruments won’t be needed. Cost is not a reasonable argument also because the three reasons I have stated in this post and previous posts outweighs the costs.This second reason leads us to another argument which the opposing side makes. This argument explains the reasoning behind not having music available in school curriculums.

Benefit 2

mhkim — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:45:16 +0000

Another benefit of having music education in schools is promotion of discipline of the students. This is supported by research by Richard J. Deasy done on the effects of music on grade point averages and standardized tests. This is a good measure of the promotion of discipline because most of the time, a good grade point average and standardized test score is achieved by constant effort and self control.

I support the statement that participating in music education promotes discipline because I felt that taking music lessons were extremely structured. Everything about classical music required a lot of discipline because it was structured.

There is one more main benefit of having music education in school.

Benefits

mhkim — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:58:15 +0000

One benefit of having music education is increase in the brain activity of the students. Research says that students participating in music education have higher grade point averages and standardized test scores. Research done by E. Glenn Schellenberg also suggests that music lessons enhance people’s IQ. So, this means that the schools that put music education into academics are going to generally have better students (student body). If the students are good, the school becomes well known for academics and if the school becomes well known for academics, it will be funded quite well. I think that this benefit is very good. I think that this reason alone can outweigh any financial barrier.

If you click here and look on page 513, you will see a bar chart that shows the mean increase in full-scale IQ for kids that played music, and kids that did not.

costs and benefits

mhkim — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 03:55:07 +0000

OK, every instrument is 300 dollars and 100 instruments are needed at most. When I was in a youth symphony the largest group had just over a 100 members. I also know that 100 instruments is enough because over a 100 kids would be too many kids for the conductor/instructor to handle; the conductor in the youth symphony had a hard time handling 100 disciplined students. These costs are reasonable because no more than a 100 people are going to play at once. So the cost of the instruments is going to be 3000 dollars. A conductor’s pay would be 40k a year at the most. I know that a conductors pay is like this because I have discussed salaries of music educators with a conductor.

Now that we know the cost, we need to know the benefits. What do you think the benefits are?

cost

mhkim — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 06:49:24 +0000

The main argument against music education in school as I mentioned before, is the cost. Let us investigate how much it is going to cost. How much do you think it costs to buy insrtuments and higher an instructor/conductor? Instruments are a one time thing and let us say that every instrument costs 300 dollars (which is on the high end of the price range). I got this price by averaging the average costs of various instruments for beginners. How much do you think it is going to cost? How many instruments do you think is needed?

If a school does not have any money to spend on instruments, there is still something they can do. They can hire a teacher to teach music theory and be the conductor of the choir (which the school makes).

Worth it?

mhkim — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:27:04 +0000

A choir in performance. Picture from http://www.alavocal.org/images/AMEA2008/honor_choir2008.JPG

People practicing traditional instruments. Picture from http://www.crbs.umd.edu/crossingborders/lessonplans/2006/lowery.html

College students rehearsing for band. Picture from http://www.lehman.cuny.edu/lehman/enews/2006_02_14/images_issue/cruzhs_band.jpg

Should music education be a part of education for public schools (K-12)? Well, the main reason why people say music education should not be a part of education for public schools is because it would cost too much. But observing and looking at these pictures, and also using your own experiences, do you think that music education be a part of education for public schools? In other words, do you think that the money spent to add music education to public schools is made up (by any means)?