Sage: It's Not Just an Herb

Wandering around the internet lately, I came up on this:  R.I.P Sage on the Stage.

The article, which is really just an enticement to click through to an interview, asks several rhetorical questions.  All of which I will now answer from the contrarian viewpoint.

1) But why is it important for students to own and direct their learning?
In many ways it is folly for students to direct their learning.  You've got 30+ kids in a class who are interested in 30+ different subjects, the vast majority of which do not over lap.  So immediately, you have a classroom management and lesson planning nightmare.  These interests are often random and fleeting.  They are frequently dead-ends in the long-term.  They involve knowledge and skill acquisition which require a slew of fundamental, and seemingly unrelated, work.  For example, if you cannot do arithmetic, you have no shot at doing mathematics or science properly.  If you cannot hold a saxophone there is no way on Earth you will ever figure out how to play "Tequila." 

2) Will students meet academic standards if teachers give them control of their learning? 
No.   Students lack the discipline and the knowledge to direct their own learning, particularly in the elementary years.  (If educated correctly early, they can and should have major input on their secondary school studies.)  Allowing students to control their own learning is the intellectual equivalent of allowing children to choose what they eat for every single meal.  Neither one is healthy and both will lead to disastrous consequences later in life. 

Academic standards are predicated on the wisdom of adults, who (theoretically at least) know what knowledge and subjects are of use later in life.  That's called curriculum.  They also know how to organize that knowledge so fundamental ideas/skills are learned first and more advanced ones later.  That's called scope & sequence.  They also know the resources and methodologies appropriate for each age group.  That's called pedagogy.  Children know none of these things. 

3) Why are teachers reluctant to let students learn independently?
Because good teachers are wise and know that not all learning can or should be done independently. Intellectually challenging material (particularly abstract subjects like music and math) is nearly impossible to learn correctly without a proper teacher.  The teacher has all of the knowledge mentioned in #2 above, and by using it appropriately, can guide the student through the cognitive thicket. 

Without a curriculum, a scope, a sequence, and pedagogy, students trying to learn on their own are lost in the tall grass.  Not only do they have to master the outer surface knowledge, but also have to recreate the inner structures from scratch.  This is like trying to learning how to fly an airborne plane while building it at the same time.  Again, unless you are a statistical outlier, a recipe for disaster.

4) What can teachers do to begin the process of letting go?
I would start by letting go of silly, pie-in-the-sky rubbish such as espoused by this article.  Then I would let go of all modern teaching theories taught in university education schools.  After that I would let go of every one who preached this nonsense as if it was the Gospel. 

After all that letting go, I would learn something about curriculum, scope, sequence.  For pedagogy, I would turn to those who teach people like pilots, or welders, or soldiers.  They are the true keepers of the lost art of teaching.

Humans as a species cannot make progress as a civilization if every generation has to reinvent the wheel.  By learning from masters, from teachers, we can stand on the shoulders of past giants and progress further.  After all, that's exactly how we got to this point.

Miss Friday's Room 101 - Kids' Music

I hate kids' music.

I know, I know.  A music teacher is not supposed to hate music.  But I do, and for a very good reason.  There is literally a metric shit-load of outstanding music out there.  Folk, rock, jazz, classical, you name the genre, and there is great music.  But kids music is all too frequently written for teaching purposes.  And it's written badly.  Really, really badly.

First as a point of comparison, let's look at a high quality traditional folk song:

Now to assist the casual observer, I marked up the song a little.  The boxes show examples of how the important words of each are placed on the beat.  Important words are also set with quarter notes which are twice as long as the eighth notes prevalent in the piece.

The unimportant words, and the unstressed syllables of polysyllabic words, are places off the beat.  I've highlighted a few of those with red circles.  These unimportant bits are always set with the short eighth notes.

Lastly, each line is comprised of full measures.  This makes the rhythm and meter simple to understand and read.  Learning this song is easy, as is teaching it.

Now let's turn to a song written specifically for kids.  For the sake of politeness, I've redacted the composer and lyricist.

Now instead of emphasizing the important words and syllables with longer notes, this song does the exact opposite.  Look at the examples in the circles.  The words "the" and "so" get the longer quarter notes.  As do the unstressed second syllables of "bongo" and "player."  Granted these quarter notes are in metrically weak upbeat positions, but the rhythmic accent overwhelms the note's position.  The result makes the song hard to sing.  The words you naturally want to lengthen and accent, you can't because the unimportant words are instead.

Particularly awful in this song is the treatment of the word "the."  In the places I've circled, it is accented, which is about half the time.  The other half of the time, "the" is treated as it normally should.  In those underlined spots, "the" is set with a short note in an metrically unaccented place.  The inconsistency adds further difficulty in performing this song.

The last example of poor writing is a purely visual one.  At the plus signs, the measures are incomplete.  The use of partial measures is supposed to highlight musical phases, making them easier to learn.  Okay, I can see that, but what about phrases that end in the middle of the line?  Again inconsistency.  Plus, a nightmare when trying to teach the concepts of meter and time signature.  You can't teach the rules and the logical design when your music breaks them.  I would never put this sheet music in front of my students.

From here on out, I won't teach them the song by rote either.  It is a piss-poor song setting.  There are plenty of other short, peppy songs which use syncopation properly.  And if I want to teach Latin music, I'll reach for the traditional songbooks on my shelf.  The ones with the well-constructed tunes that have passed the test of time.