Music Advocacy: Non-Musical vs. Musical Benefits

    The case for music education can, and has often been, supported by non-musical benefits. Studies have shown that students enrolled in music programs score higher on tests. A study by The College Board found that students involved in public school music programs scored 107 points higher on the SAT's than students with no participation (MENC, 2002). In addition, research shows that early music training dramatically enhances children's abstract reasoning skills. These findings indicate that music uniquely enhances higher brain functions required for mathematics, chess, science and engineering (Rauscher et. al., 1997). Students involved in the music program have also been show to be better at languages, learn to read more easily, show an improved social climate, show more enjoyment in school, and have a lower level of stress than non-music students (Weber, Spychiger, & Patry, 1993). I have noticed in my own personal experience that students involved in music classes tend to be more active in other extra-curricular activities as well as do better in school generally. In looking at MAP data provided by NWEA, I found that most of my students scored at or above grade level in mathematics and reading. Some even achieved above the scoring range provided. This was in contrast to the whole student body who had a larger percentage of students below grade level.

  The case for music education can also be made from a purely musical perspective. Bennett Reimer purported that music education is "aesthetic education" and that philosophy has been widely held by many including Allen Britton and Charles Leonhard (Mark, 1982). Unlike the reasons in the preceding paragraph, advocating for music for it's own sake doesn't rely on the value of something other than music. Having to advocate for one's subject with outside reasons is not something teachers of other subjects like biology must do (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1994). Must music educators find reasons for their subject other than the subject itself? Even if music educators do endeavor to advocate with non-musical reasons there is reason for speculation. Some of the research cited in justifying music through non-musical benefits has been shown to be flawed. Many of the benefits noted in studies are skills in learning how to learn that might be developed just as well with other disciplines (Pitts, 2002). Many of the studies cited simply ignore the underlying reasons for the causal link (Winner & Cooper, 2000). Also, reasons for music such as team work, school enjoyment, and lower stress may not be valued by administrators. The current educational climate including the push for common core is focused on knowledge and skill-based outcomes. Administrators may not see the need to build good citizens or lower stress when other outcomes tied to state and national legislation need to be addressed. Though the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) might mean a move towards a more "well rounded" education, the emphasis on "closing the achievement gap" is not going away. When schools run a deficit will they look to trim the budget with something they value or something that is only included in the curriculum to build character or improve school climate? Still the ESSA has provided an opportunity for music educators to claim music for it's own sake. A music education does help in providing a more "well-rounded" education. NAfME in particular has begun to celebrate the passage of the new legislation and call for advocating music as part of the "well-rounded" curriculum. 

   While there are many reasons to claim non-musical reasons for music education, there are also reasons to focus more on advocating music for it's own sake. Research  has shown a correlation between music and a number of positive benefits. However, those correlational claims may be false and miss a more important causal relationship. Advocating for music may not need to include non-musical factors. Music is a valuable part of the curriculum as "aesthetic education" and also in providing a "well-rounded" education. The best approach is likely a mixture of both. When considering advocating for music there seems to be no reason not to use all available arguments. Advocating for music in it's own right does not mean one cannot still claim the non-musical benefits provided they make room for possible issues with the research. 

• 
  

(blogger won't let me indent for some reason)

• Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1994).Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). New York;Toronto;: Schirmer Books.

• Mark, M. L. (1982). The evolution of music education philosophy from utilitarian to aesthetic. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30(1), 15-21.

• Pitts, S. (2002). Issues in music teaching. British Journal of Music Education,19(1), 103-114.     doi:10.1017/S0265051702220173 
• 
  

Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L., Levine, L. J., Wright, E. L., Dennis, W. R., & Newcomb, R. L. (1997). Music training causes long-term enhancement of preschool children's spatial-temporal reasoning. Neurological Research, 19(1), 2

• Winner, E., & Cooper, M. (2000). Mute those claims: No evidence (yet) for a causal link between arts study and academic achievement. Journal of Aesthetic Education,34(3/4), 11-75.