Foundations of Music Education

Sunday, January 25, 2009

The Tangelwood Symposium

The Tanglewood Symposium was a convening of music educators in the 1960s to discuss “Music in American Society.” The results of this symposium provided the music education profession with philosophical guidance that is still useful today.

A declining economy in the early 1960s caused the American public to support a “back to basics” educational movement. In response to attacks being made on music education, the Music Educators National Conference (MENC) and important music educators met in Tanglewood, the Boston Symphony Orchestra’s summer home, to discuss this issue and other pressing matters regarding the arts. The symposium’s focus was “Music education as an integral part of life and living, not only within the individual but as it extend[s] to society” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 23).

At the symposium’s conclusion, the Documentary Report of the Tanglewood Symposium stated, “Educators must accept the responsibility for developing opportunities which meet man’s individual needs and the needs of a society plagued by the consequences of changing values, alienation, hostility between generations, racial and international tensions, and the challenges of the new leisure” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 23). With such a rapid cultural shift occurring in the 1960s, the symposium was able to keep up with educational trends and set a precedent for future music educators to adapt to similar changes.

Many of the issues becoming relevant to American society in the 1960s are still factors in music education today. The Tanglewood Symposium brought up issues related to special education, electronic music, youth music and jazz, music education in urban settings, and music as related to other arts (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 23). The MENC National Standards, written in 1994 and still highly advocated by music educators today, promote an awareness of music’s relation to cultural factors (The National Association for Music Education 2008). Many U.S. laws, most recently the Bush administration’s “No Child Left Behind,” require equal educational opportunities, and therefore music education opportunities, for children with special needs. With the dawning of a new administration, educators can depend on more changes in educational policy, and with an even greater economic slump than in the 1960s, music educators in particular will need to draw on historical support such as the Tanglewood Symposium to ensure arts education is not forfeited for the sake of another “back to basics” movement.


Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.

The National Association for Music Education. “National Standards for Music Education.” 2008. http://www.menc.org/resources/view/national-standards-for-music-education (accessed January 25, 2009).

Early 20th Century Expansion

The first part of the 20th century showed an expansion of music education in public schools, particularly secondary schools. There were many factors that led to this expansion, including shifts in educational philosophy, World War I, the changing role of high schools and the Depression. This expansion primarily took the form of group instrumental instruction.

As John Dewey’s philosophy of educating the “whole child” gained popularity in the early 1900s, educators came to believe that the arts should be part of this “total school experience” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 16-17). Class instrumental instruction expanded partially due to Albert F. Mitchell (a music supervisor in the Boston public schools) publishing Mitchell Class Method for violin; other educators followed his lead and published books for orchestra, band and piano group instruction (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 17).

After World War I, the American public had an increased interest in band music, and men returning from the army who had played in military bands were employed by schools to start up instrumental programs. Patrons such as George Eastman (founder of Eastman Kodak) purchased large amounts of instruments for public schools, which in turn were able to hire instrumental teachers (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 17).

Between 1910 and 1940, the chances of children in the United States attending high school increased from 10 percent to 75 percent (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 18). As secondary schools expanded, so did their curricular emphasis: a higher percentage of students did not plan to attend college, so an increase in technical emphasis led to increased numbers of students graduating high school with professional-level musical skills. This rapid expansion resulted in a shortage of qualified teachers, leading schools to employ professional musicians who taught in a rehearsal-style.

The Great Depression also led to secondary school music being taught by professional musicians rather than trained school music teachers. Communities did not feel they could afford to support local orchestras, and “talking pictures” began to use recorded accompaniments rather than live musicians. Though this could be seen as positive for the expansion of instrumental music education in the secondary schools, the government helped further by forming the Works Progress Administration. The WPA supplied funds necessary to employ performing artists, offer low-cost or free performances to the public, and employ teachers (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 19).

Though changes in the middle and late 20th century continued to alter the landscape of American music education, the advances in the early 20th century account for much of the country’s heavy emphasis on instrumental programs in the secondary schools today.


Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.

Lowell Mason

Lowell Mason is known to many educators to be the “father” of music education in the United States because of his role in propagating elementary music in Boston public schools in the early 19th century. As the United States’ first public school music teacher, his efforts were limited to vocal music for various reasons.

Mason grew up learning several different instruments, singing, conducting and composing. He became president of the Handel & Haydn Society of Boston in 1827. In order to improve the society’s performance quality, he established a vocal instruction studio. During this time, he learned of the Pestalozzian music education philosophy (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 11-12). Because of Mason’s experiencing in teaching vocal music and because of Pestalozzi’s emphasis on first teaching children to sing before they read or write music, his initial petition to the Boston school board to include music instruction in elementary school was limited to vocal music.

Mason and the committee that approved his petition advocated including music instruction in elementary schools based on three standards: intellectually, morally and physically. Their explanation harped back to the Greek doctrine of ethos, which suggests music could be “directed and arranged as to produce those habits of feeling of which these sounds are the type,” as well as the Greek belief in the importance of physical education (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 12). They also justified their belief based on the medieval idea of the seven liberal arts, with music being part of the quadrivium including arithmetic, geometry and astronomy. Philosophically, they believed that “Through vocal music you set in motion a mighty power which silently, but surely, in the end, will humanize, refine and elevate a whole community” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 13).

After Mason visited Europe to learn more about the Pestalozzian approach, he returned to the United States to use the method in his own classrooms, eventually leading to his employment as the country’s first public school music teacher. The belief that vocal music is of the utmost importance in elementary music instruction is still advocated in today’s classrooms by followers of the Kodály philosophy of music education (Organization of American Kodály Educators 2004). Furthermore, the importance of music instruction in enriching the quality of life, as the Boston committee pointed out, is still touted by modern music education philosophers such as Bennett Reimer (2003). To Mason, “music contributed to the well-being of the individual…. It created better homes, better citizens, and happier human beings” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 13). Vocal music education was the means by which these goals could be achieved.


Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.

Organization of American Kodály Educators. “Kodály Philosophy.” 2004. http://oake.org/php/kodalyphilosophy.php (accessed January 25, 2009).

Reimer, Bennett. A Philosophy of Music Education: Advancing the Vision, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.

Pestalozzi

The Swiss educator Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi had a strong influence on the development of education in the United States. However, fewer educators might know that his work also had an impact on the inclusion of vocal music instruction in elementary schools.

Pestalozzi believed that active participation and engagement of the senses was the best way to educate children. As a result, he urged educators to include music instruction in their teaching. American proponents of the Pestalozzian method therefore had a philosophical basis for including music in basic instruction (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 10).

Joseph H. Naef, an immigrant to the United States and an early proponent of the Pestalozzian method in the U.S., presented the “Principles of the Pestalozzian System of Music” at an 1830 meeting of the American Institute of Instruction in Boston. The seven points outlining the method were:

1. To teach sounds before signs and to make the child learn to sing before he learns the written notes or their names;
2. To lead him to observe by hearing and imitating sounds, their resemblances and differences, their agreeable and disagreeable effect, instead of explaining these things to him—in a word, to make active instead of passive in learning;
3. To teach but one thing at a time—rhythm, melody, and expression, which are to be taught and practiced separately, before the child is called to the difficult task of attending to all at once;
4. To make him practice each step of these divisions, until he is master of it, before passing to the next;
5. To give the principles and theory after the practice, and as induction from it;
6. To analyze and practice the elements of articulate sound in order to apply them to music, and
7. To have the names of the notes correspond to those used in instrumental music. (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 11).


Some of the basic principles Naef presented are still relevant to elementary music education in the United States today. The Orff Schulwerk method of music and movement education, developed in the 20th century by German composer Carl Orff, advocates that students should create music before learning to write it, similar to the way language is learned: “When the children want to write down what they have composed, reading and writing find their moment” (American Orff-Schulwerk Association 2009). Today, over 10,000 music educators in the United States adhere to an Orff Schulwerk philosophy in their classroom. Additionally, the Kodály philosophy of music education, the collection of ideas advocated by Hungarian composer Zoltán Kodály, advocates singing as the “essence” of the concept and that vocal music instruction should precede instrumental. There is a strong Kodály following in the United States today by elementary and other music educators (Organization of American Kodály Educators 2004).

Although Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1995, 10) point out that Pestalozzi cannot be directly credited for incorporating music instruction in any schools but his own, his work in education laid the groundwork for elementary (and other) music education as we know it today.


Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.

American Orff-Schulwerk Association. “What is Orff Schulwerk?” 2009. http://aosa.org/orff.html (accessed January 25, 2009).

Organization of American Kodály Educators. “Kodály Philosophy.” 2004. http://oake.org/php/kodalyphilosophy.php (accessed January 25, 2009).

Early Music Notation

As music education became more prevalent in the Middle Ages and necessary to the propagation of the Church, a system of music notation began to develop. This system ensured that churches throughout most of Europe would use the same music in liturgical services.

Medieval churches used a style of singing now referred to as chant as part of their worship. There were many different local chant dialects, such as Celtic, Gallican, Mozarabic, Ambrosian and Gregorian, but when Charlemagne was crowned king of the Holy Roman Empire in 800 A.D., he and his successors succeeded in perpetuating the Gregorian repertory and almost completely suppressing all other forms (Grout 2001, 24). Charlemagne achieved this by sending musical missionaries throughout Europe, and these missionaries claimed that the source of the chants was St. Gregory himself (Grout 2001, 37).

Most early transmission of chant was achieved orally. In order for standardized chant to succeed, a method of music notation needed to develop. Initially, signs called neumes were written over the text to indicated ascending or descending patterns. At some critical point in music history around the tenth century, a scribe drew a red horizontal line to indicate the pitch F, and the neumes were placed in relation above or below it. Later, a second yellow line was added to indicate C. Guido of Arezzo described a staff in the eleventh century with lines for F, C and G, which eventually became the modern clefs (Grout 2001, 56). The modern plainsong notation that most people would recognize has a four-line staff with neumes sung with the same rhythmic duration (Grout 2001, 36).

The development of music notation assured that chants could be sung nearly the same everywhere, “Thus notation was both a result of the striving for uniformity and a means of perpetuating that uniformity” (Grout 2001, 38). This brought about a need for more formal music instruction, causing music education to expand even further in the Middle Ages (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 6).


Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.

Grout, Donald J., and Claude V. Palisca. A History of Western Music, 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.

The Doctrine of Ethos

Ancient Greek philosophers had a much broader understanding of the word “music” than modern thinkers, leading to beliefs about music education that are still debated today. Music was inseparable from numbers and poetry, and the mathematical connections in particular lead Greek writers to believe music could affect the soul.

The mathematician Pythagoras discovered the numerical ratios necessary to create different consonances. He and his followers believed numbers were “the key to the entire spiritual and physical universe.” As such, musical pitches and rhythms “exemplified the harmony of the cosmos and corresponded to it” (Grout 2001, 5). This also led Greek thinkers such as Ptolemy to associate music and astronomy, since both were believed to be ordered by numbers. Separately but also of great importance to ancient Greek society, poetry was so inextricably tied to music that the Greeks did not have a word for “artful speech” without music (Grout 2001, 6).

Because the ancient Greeks believed that numbers controlled the seen and unseen world, including the human soul, they believed music could affect a person’s morals. This doctrine of ethos promoted by both Aristotle and Plato meant that the type of music people listened to would directly affect their character, since music “imitates the passions or states of the soul” (Grout 2001, 6). Therefore, censorship of certain modes would be necessary to encourage citizens to become the “right” kind of people (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 4-5). Greek mythology bears many examples of heroes being able to perform great feats through music, such as Orpheus retrieving his wife (albeit briefly) from the underworld (Morford 2003, 356).

Because of the broad range of uses and effects the Greeks believed music encompassed, it played a large role in education. While gymnastics was deemed necessary to educate the body, music’s purpose was to educate the soul. However, Plato stressed that the two elements should be balanced, because “too much music makes a man effeminate or neurotic while too much gymnastics makes him uncivilized, violent, and ignorant;” only the proper balance could produce a “true musician” (Grout 2001, 6). This early emphasis on music education did not go unnoticed by medieval scholars, leading music to be included in the quadrivium, four number-related liberal arts. Of a lower order was the trivium, three verbal-related liberal arts (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 5-6).

Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1995, 4) note that many issues debated among ancient Greeks over the use of music in education and society are still in contention thousands of years later. Music educators still must justify the merit of studying music as more than just entertainment. With the advent of new genres of music, modern music educators must also wonder whether the Greek doctrine of ethos holds true and if they and other musicians are responsible for the positive or negative characteristics of their students.


Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.

Grout, Donald J., and Claude V. Palisca. A History of Western Music, 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.

Morford, Mark P. O., and Robert J. Lenardon. Classical Mythology, 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

My Teaching Philosophy

In my elementary general music classroom, I try to follow two educational approaches: those of Zoltán Kodály and Carl Orff. I think the Kodály approach resonates with me so well because of its strong reliance on the singing voice. The voice is an instrument every child possesses and should therefore be the first he/she begins to develop. The act of singing allows students to feel the music they are creating come from within their own bodies, helping them develop their inner ear much more so than any other instrument. I also strongly adhere to the Kodály belief that only the absolute best music is good enough for children. We see them far too little to waste our time with anything else, and their minds are far too malleable. Folk music of the student’s own culture should be sung first, as it is something they can relate to the most (and folk songs in general have stood the test of time), followed by folk music of other cultures, followed by music written by master composers (which, to come full circle, is often based on folk music of the composer’s own culture). And of course, one of Zoltan Kodály’s goals as a Hungarian composer and educator was to develop a curriculum that would result in all citizens being musically literate, so I begin music literacy earlier than a traditional Orff philosophy would suggest. The literacy is always connected to the folk repertoire, though. I use a lot of moveable Do solfege in my classroom, as I believe this is the best method for students to develop their inner ear and sight-singing skills. I also try to use a lot of singing games and dances so students learn that the act of singing is enjoyable, hopefully laying the foundation for students to love singing in and of itself. (For a great summary of the Kodály philosophy, visit OAKE’s website. The philosophy is not to be confused with the methods, which are described here). In my Kodály level one training, I loved how there was a strong emphasis and improving the teacher’s musicianship. We would have to sing with ourselves in a round by using the Curwen hand signs as the second voice, we would sing one song while signing a partner song, we’d play one part of a duet on the piano while singing the other part, we’d sing a song forward and sign in retrograde, we’d have to sing all the pentatonic scales (Do Re Mi So La Do, Re Mi So La Do Re, etc.) in a row but always beginning on the same absolute pitch, etc. I believe I’ve become such a better musician by studying and teaching with solfege, in turn making me a better teacher. Furthermore, I strongly believe that a sequenced curriculum as the most effective way for students to succeed, and the Kodály philosophy provides ways to achieve this.

I appreciate Orff Schulwerk because it fills in the creative gaps that the Kodály philosophy might be lacking. Where the Kodály approach has its strength in performance, Orff focuses heavily on creating. As with the Kodály approach, Orff Schulwerk encourages music education to come naturally through things children would be doing and enjoying anyway: singing, chanting, dancing, hitting things, etc. I try to use nursery rhymes or other children’s poems in my classroom as natural introductions to beat and rhythm (of the words). Orff instruments are wonderful accompanying sounds for the singing voice, and they allow students to achieve almost immediate success at producing a good tone (on xylophones, metallophones and glockenspiels). I love to use Orff and unpitched percussion instruments with my students to increase their ensemble skills, which really, more simply, is improving their listening skills. (The World Music Drumming curriculum is also excellent for this. I wrote and was awarded a grant entitled “Drumming to Increase Listening, Cooperation and Respect” to buy tubanos for my classroom). I also try to hit National Standards three and four pretty hard through the Orff approach. I believe improvisation should precede formal composition (through some would argue that improvisation without guidelines is composing). I’ve really tried hard to use more improvisation in my classroom this year, especially with recorder. And of course, the timbre of the recorder balances out the Orff percussion sounds in a way children can appreciate. I use recorder in third, fourth and fifth grades. I don’t stop after third grade because I find it to be such a great tool in targeting nearly all of the National Standards, especially two through seven. Where I really fall short as a teacher when it comes to the Orff approach is movement education. I of course incorporate as much movement as I can into my lessons (you absolutely have to with young children), but I feel I could do better at giving students the tools and stepping stones they need to use movement creatively and expressively, therefore increasing their musicianship, rather than just in imitation (not that folk dances where students learn through imitation are without value!) The hands-on approach to the Orff method is invaluable in providing students with active, memorable learning experiences. Research shows that learning by doing is more effective than any other method, and Orff allows nothing but active, engaging musical experiences. (A short summary of the Orff philosophy can be found on AOSA’s website).

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, I’m a strong believer in MENC’s National Standards. This probably results from North Central College’s music education undergrad program placing such a strong emphasis on them, and I’m thankful for it. I could walk into any school district, teach to the standards, and probably be following the district’s curriculum (if it’s a good curriculum) without even looking at it.
The standards succinctly summarize all the important musical experiences a child should be exposed to, though I look forward to the revisions that should be coming soon, because there’s talk of adding a movement component.

I spent a lot of time in undergrad reading Bennett Reimer’s and others’ philosophical musings for one of my upper-level music education courses. In my music education philosophy paper, I stated that the purpose of music education is: 1) to make musical values more widespread and understandable; 2) to educate feeling; 3) to teach musical creativity to help individuals think, do and feel music in a meaningful way; 4) to cultivate the ability to gain significant musical meanings; and 5) to teach musical context in order for students to “know within” music. My “thesis” was, “These five aspects of music education are intricately related. The creative process is permeated with feeling and elicits meaning, and the ability to create meaning is dependent upon context. Humans value music because of the profound results of this process. As music educators, we are faced with the task of supporting the fundamental necessity of our subject matter, and having a clear understanding of the purpose of music education can help us clarify to ourselves and to others that our profession is valuable and essential to the quality of human life.” I think the most important part of this philosophy statement is in regard to valuing music. All cultures throughout the world and throughout history have had music. Obviously it’s something humans value, then, and I think it’s because music can express that which words and actions cannot. A thousand different emotions can be experienced from a smattering of sounds arranged in a certain way, which, to me, is awe-inspiring to consider. Valuing music all comes down to enriching the quality of one’s life. As music educators, we owe it to our students to give them the ability to improve their lives in the most rewarding way possible.

While I believe the entire above paragraph is significant, I think teachers need to have a clear mission or goal in mind if they want to achieve all of these things. A lot of my colleagues say that their primary goal is to instill a love of music in children. That’s a great goal, but I think we’re shortchanging our children if we limit ourselves to that. My goal (and active teaching philosophy in sum) is to produce independent musicians and life-long musical learners. When children take ownership of their own musical learning, it produces an intrinsic love and motivation that goes far beyond simply liking music. I want my students to not only love music and want to be music consumers, but I want them to have the skills necessary to do something with that love of music and to better themselves in the process.

Relating to the importance of basic musical skills being necessary for children/humans to enrich their lives, I think one of the biggest travesties in any society is a child, or adult, who cannot sing in tune. Either someone didn’t teach them or they didn’t try to learn (barring physical handicaps), and they’ve been denied or are denying themselves a highly enjoyable, life-enriching experience. I also am saddened that in American culture, parents don’t sing to their children as often as they used to, and families and friends don’t pass time by singing or creating music together. Part of the problem is lack of musical literacy, and so, for me (and Kodály), my two greatest focuses in the classroom are on singing and developing literacy skills. A society in which every citizen is musically competent would be my ultimate goal. And in a society where ADHD and autism become more and more prevalent, two of our secondary teaching goals will have to be to teach students to be better listeners and to work in harmony (pun intended) with others.

I realize this is quite lengthy (tl;dr), but it’s something I feel passionately about. And I suppose that’s a good thing, because it makes me a better music educator to feel so strongly about the importance of what I do. I feel very fortunate to have a job that I not only love but that (I feel) makes a difference in the world.

Friday, January 16, 2009

My Music History

I grew up without a lot of formal music training, and to this day I'm the only "musical" person in my immediate family. I had general music in elementary school and my first year of junior high, but other than that, my musical experiences consisted of my mom singing simple nursery rhymes, Disney, some dance classes, toy glockenspiels, hand clapping games with neighborhood kids, and my dad’s rock and roll collection. I always liked to sing, though, and I’m surprised no one ever pushed me toward any kind of lessons (I sometimes like to make my mom feel guilty she didn’t “make” me take piano). I think I would have played flute in elementary band if I hadn’t accidentally asked to try a clarinet instead on the demo day, not liking how difficult it was to produce a sound. We didn’t have chorus in elementary school (and I didn’t belong to a church), and I had no interest in joining in junior high: I preferred a daily study hall, restricting my arts-related extracurriculars to drama club.

I didn’t actually join chorus until my sophomore year of high school. My best friend since second grade had taken piano lessons as a kid and had been in chorus since junior high. I became enthralled with The Phantom of the Opera after she gave me tickets to see it for my 15th birthday and decided I wanted to pursue singing with her. I was in my high school’s musical sophomore and junior years, and I began to teach myself piano. I also began taking private voice lessons. Senior year, I wanted to audition for the top choir, but it was offered the same period as newspaper, and I was the Editor-In-Chief. As a result, I never participated in the IMEA All-State Conference as a performer. Still, I sang duets with my friends in variety show performances junior and senior years. And since I was a year ahead in math, I opted out of calculus and took music theory my senior year instead.

When I began looking at colleges, I first looked at musical theatre majors. I ended up attending North Central College in Naperville (having grown up in Naperville), beginning as a vocal music performance major and taking my first-ever private piano lessons. When I laid out my four-year plan toward the beginning of my freshman year, I realized I had almost an entire year open. At this time, I had begun teaching group beginner piano lessons for four- to six- and seven- to ten-year-olds. I really enjoyed it, and I could always remember wanting to be a teacher (I gave my career speech on it in seventh grade), so I decided to switch to music education. By my junior year, I was teaching group and private piano twenty hours per week at a studio in addition to my full-time course load and practicum hours. I realized almost immediately that I preferred elementary school music, despite the college’s strong focus on the choral setting. I managed to land outstanding placements in Naperville for both my elementary practicum and student teaching. These cooperating teachers introduced me to Kodály and Orff concepts and the World Music Drumming curriculum.

After I graduated college in 2005, over 20 of my piano students left the studio and began taking lessons privately out of my home. My first year of teaching was at a junior high in a rougher area than I was prepared to handle, and I looked most forward to days when I could come home to piano students. I took my Orff Level One training at the University of Nevada Las Vegas summer 2006, and it completely reshaped my teaching philosophy. I was very fortunate to get an elementary school position the following school year in the same Naperville school district I student taught in and grew up in; my school feeds into the junior high and high school I attended! I decided to focus on my development as an elementary general/vocal music teacher and cut my piano studio down to five students. Summer 2008 was extremely busy: I completed my Orff Level Two at UNLV, Kodály Level One at Indiana University Bloomington, and World Music Drumming Level One through the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.

I am now in my third year of teaching at the same elementary school, and I look forward to moving from my initial to standard certificate next year. I see early childhood and kindergarten students once per week for 20 minutes, first and second grade students twice per week for 25 minutes, and third through fifth grade students twice per week for 30 minutes. I conduct a before-school chorus that meets twice per week for half the school year. This year, I have 70 fourth and fifth graders involved. Second graders give a music demonstration night in February, and fifth graders have a program in May. In my classroom instruction, I place a strong emphasis on learning to sing in-tune with a light head voice. I’ll go into more detail in my “philosophy” post.

The four graduate classes I completed in 2006 and 2008 will transfer into my Masters of Music Education at NIU. I completed Assessment in the K-12 Music Classroom with Dr. Cosenza this fall as well. After I complete this Foundations course, I will take theory and history in the summer, Techniques of Research in the fall, and I’ll complete my final project spring of 2010. After finishing my M.M. Ed., my next course of action (perhaps after a pause to get married and start a family) will be to pursue my National Board Certification and to complete my Orff and Kodály levels. I would also love to sing in a chorus again if I’m ever able to find the time. I'd also like to become more active in my MENC, AOSA and OAKE memberships.

On a random side note, my tastes have certainly matured beyond musical theatre. My favorite era is the Romantic (in terms of music as well as literature and art), but my favorite modern artist is Loreena McKennitt. She blends traditional Celtic styles with different world instruments, sometimes leaning toward a Middle Eastern or Indian sound. I'd highly recommend checking her out! I also still love classic rock (Tom Petty puts on an amazing show) and alternative rock (so do the Foo Fighters!)

    Followers