Freer, Patrick K.

English

ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University

Georgia State UniversityScholarWorks @ Georgia State UniversityMusic Faculty Publications School of Music2011Advocacy for What? Advocacy for Whom? [Fromthe Academic Editor]Patrick K. FreerGeorgia State University, pfreer@gsu.eduFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/music_facpubPart of the Music CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Music at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted forinclusion in Music Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, pleasecontact scholarworks@gsu.edu.Recommended CitationFreer, Patrick K., "Advocacy for What? Advocacy for Whom? [From the Academic Editor]" (2011). Music Faculty Publications. 12.https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/music_facpub/12MEJ – September 2011 From the Academic Editor  by Patrick K. Freer, Georgia State University, Atlanta   ADVOCACY FOR WHAT?  ADVOCACY TO WHOM? 	  “Matthew	  is	  only	  one	  of	  hundreds	  of	  music	  educators	  across	  the	  country	  facing	  termination,	  a	  move	  to	  a	  different	  school,	  or	  a	  change	  in	  responsibilities	  because	  of	  budget-­‐	  and	  tax-­‐cutting	  movements	  sweeping	  through	  federal,	  state,	  and	  local	  governments.”	  	  	   A	  quote	  lifted	  from	  this	  morning’s	  newspaper?	  	  It	  could	  be,	  but	  it	  appeared	  exactly	  thirty	  years	  ago	  in	  a	  November	  1981	  special	  focus	  issue	  of	  Music	  Educators	  Journal	  (MEJ)	  titled	  “The	  Crisis	  in	  Music	  Education.”	  	  	  The	  recession	  early	  in	  the	  first	  presidential	  term	  of	  Ronald	  Reagan	  resulted	  in	  numerous	  tax	  increases	  and	  corresponding	  budget	  cuts.	  	  Reduced	  federal	  education	  funding	  created	  budgetary	  shortfalls	  at	  state	  and	  local	  levels,	  and	  school	  officials	  were	  faced	  with	  difficult	  decisions	  about	  the	  impact	  on	  school	  programming.	  	  Michael	  P.	  Prescott	  (MEJ,	  November	  1981,	  pp.	  35-­‐38)	  noted	  several	  factors	  that	  contributed	  to	  music	  education’s	  predicament,	  including	  the	  splintering	  of	  the	  music	  education	  field	  into	  specialty	  areas	  such	  as	  band,	  orchestra,	  choir,	  general	  music,	  industry,	  etc.	  	  In	  Prescott’s	  view,	  fractionalization	  resulted	  in	  the	  lack	  of	  a	  coherent	  vision	  that	  could	  be	  articulated	  and	  convincingly	  presented	  to	  school	  boards	  and	  legislators.	  	  That	  special	  focus	  issue	  of	  MEJ	  featured	  strategy	  articles	  from	  a	  variety	  of	  vantage	  points,	  including	  from	  parents	  and	  supervisors.	  Notably	  absent	  were	  statements	  about	  music’s	  role	  in	  advancing	  learning	  in	  other	  academic	  areas	  –	  a	  topic	  that	  is	  ubiquitous	  among	  many	  who	  advocate	  for	  music	  education	  today.	  	  Those	  extra-­‐musical	  arguments	  are	  efficiently	  summarized	  in	  David	  Williams’	  ”What	  are	  Music	  Educators	  Doing	  and	  How	  Well	  are	  We	  Doing	  it?”	  (MEJ,	  September	  2007).	  	  In	  the	  November	  1981	  issue,	  authors	  instead	  presented	  a	  strong	  rationale	  for	  why	  music	  is	  core	  to	  a	  basic,	  democratic	  education	  for	  all	  citizens	  (Sudano	  &	  Sharpham,	  pp.	  48-­‐50).	  	  Nonetheless,	  many	  music	  programs	  were	  reduced	  or	  eliminated	  over	  a	  period	  of	  years,	  and	  the	  results	  foretold	  in	  that	  issue	  later	  became	  the	  substance	  of	  John	  Kratus’	  article,	  “Music	  Education	  at	  the	  Tipping	  Point”	  (MEJ,	  December	  2007).	  	  Kratus	  related	  the	  deleterious	  effects	  of	  reduced	  funding	  for	  music	  education,	  and	  his	  analysis	  (which	  provoked	  a	  huge	  number	  of	  Letters	  to	  the	  Editor)	  makes	  for	  an	  interesting	  comparison	  with	  David	  Williams’	  article	  in	  our	  current	  issue,	  “The	  Elephant	  in	  the	  Room.”	  	  Both	  authors	  see	  discrepancies	  between	  our	  professional	  advocacy	  rhetoric	  and	  the	  reality	  of	  the	  large	  group	  performing	  ensembles	  that	  characterize	  our	  secondary	  music	  programs.	  In	  his	  article,	  “A	  History	  of	  Music	  Education	  Advocacy”	  (MEJ,	  September	  2002),	  Michael	  Mark	  traced	  the	  development	  of	  efforts	  to	  justify,	  maintain	  and	  enhance	  music	  education	  in	  the	  nation’s	  public	  schools.	  	  Since	  publication	  began	  in	  1914,	  MEJ	  and	  her	  predecessors	  have	  printed	  approximately	  136	  articles	  and	  at	  least	  as	  many	  letters	  and	  columns	  specifically	  dealing	  with	  advocacy.	  	  Though	  articles	  in	  the	  early	  years	  frequently	  dealt	  with	  philosophical	  issues,	  the	  move	  toward	  leveraging	  those	  ideals	  for	  political	  gain	  was	  addressed	  only	  rarely.	  	  That	  changed	  with	  the	  economic	  recession	  and	  education	  reform	  initiatives	  of	  the	  early	  1980s,	  and	  shifted	  dramatically	  from	  proactive	  justifications	  to	  defensive	  responses	  in	  the	  MEJ	  issue	  of	  January	  1992	  with	  two	  article	  sub-­‐titles	  that	  included	  the	  word	  “fight:”	  “Fighting	  for	  Every	  Child’s	  Right”	  (Karl	  Glenn),	  and	  “Prepare	  to	  Fight	  for	  Your	  Music	  Program”	  (Robert	  A.	  Harding).	  	  Advocacy	  strategies	  and	  related	  action	  items	  coordinated	  by	  the	  MENC	  staff	  began	  appearing	  with	  regularity	  in	  the	  1990s	  and	  are	  now	  highlighted	  in	  nearly	  every	  issue	  of	  the	  journal.	  The	  role	  of	  MEJ	  in	  conveying	  information	  about	  advocacy	  to	  the	  MENC	  membership	  continues	  to	  be	  substantial.	  	  The	  inherent	  problems	  are	  at	  least	  two-­‐fold:	  	  1)	  MEJ	  readers	  don’t	  uniformly	  agree	  on	  what	  should	  be	  advocated,	  and	  2)	  MEJ	  reaches	  those	  who	  might	  do	  the	  advocating,	  not	  necessarily	  those	  community	  members,	  school	  boards	  and	  legislators	  who	  need	  to	  hear	  the	  message.	  	  These	  two	  problems	  comprise	  the	  nucleus	  of	  our	  current	  issue’s	  lead	  article,	  “Apparently,	  We	  Disappeared.”	  Author	  Lauren	  Richerme	  details	  her	  analysis	  of	  how	  mainstream	  media	  has	  (often	  erroneously)	  portrayed	  music	  education	  since	  2005,	  and	  she	  then	  draws	  implications	  for	  music	  educators	  who	  approach	  advocacy	  from	  any	  of	  multiple	  perspectives.	  	  Perhaps	  the	  first	  MEJ	  article	  to	  specifically	  deal	  with	  advocacy	  issues	  appeared	  in	  February	  1933	  (then	  the	  Music	  Supervisors’	  Journal),	  and	  it	  makes	  for	  worthwhile	  reading	  today.	  	  The	  author,	  J.	  Harold	  Powers,	  began	  with	  this	  statement:	  	  	  “In	  times	  like	  the	  present,	  when	  all	  forms	  of	  social	  movements	  and	  institutions	  become	  the	  target	  for	  more	  or	  less	  vituperative	  criticism,	  insofar	  as	  they	  may	  affect	  the	  economic	  situation,	  education	  could	  not	  hope	  to	  escape	  entirely	  unscathed.	  	  We	  have	  seen	  our	  teaching	  profession	  receive	  more	  newspaper	  publicity	  in	  the	  form	  of	  editorial	  comment	  and	  criticism	  during	  the	  last	  two	  years	  than	  in	  any	  other	  ten	  years	  .	  .	  .	  Might	  it	  not	  be	  well	  to	  pause	  here	  at	  the	  low	  point	  of	  the	  ebb	  tide,	  to	  take	  account	  of	  stock,	  to	  give	  ourselves	  the	  same	  close	  scrutiny	  that	  our	  critics	  have	  been	  giving	  us	  –	  to	  consider	  what	  we	  might	  have	  done	  had	  we	  been	  called	  to	  the	  defensive	  for	  our	  very	  professional	  life?	  	  .	  .	  .	  I	  submit	  to	  you	  that	  the	  stabilizing	  agencies	  in	  this	  present	  topsy-­‐turvy	  world	  must	  be	  the	  activities	  and	  influence	  of	  music	  in	  the	  public	  schools”	  (p.	  10).	  	  

Advocacy for What? Advocacy for Whom? [From the Academic Editor]

Georgia State University

Georgia State University
ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University
Music Faculty Publications School of Music
2011
Advocacy for What? Advocacy for Whom? [From
the Academic Editor]
Patrick K. Freer
Georgia State University, pfreer@gsu.edu
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/music_facpub
Part of the Music Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Music at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Music Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please
contact scholarworks@gsu.edu.
Recommended Citation
Freer, Patrick K., "Advocacy for What? Advocacy for Whom? [From the Academic Editor]" (2011). Music Faculty Publications. 12.
https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/music_facpub/12
MEJ – September 2011 
From the Academic Editor  
by Patrick K. Freer, Georgia State University, Atlanta 
 
 
ADVOCACY FOR WHAT?  ADVOCACY TO WHOM? 	  “Matthew	  is	  only	  one	  of	  hundreds	  of	  music	  educators	  across	  the	  country	  facing	  termination,	  a	  move	  to	  a	  different	  school,	  or	  a	  change	  in	  responsibilities	  because	  of	  budget-­‐	  and	  tax-­‐cutting	  movements	  sweeping	  through	  federal,	  state,	  and	  local	  governments.”	  	  	   A	  quote	  lifted	  from	  this	  morning’s	  newspaper?	  	  It	  could	  be,	  but	  it	  appeared	  exactly	  thirty	  years	  ago	  in	  a	  November	  1981	  special	  focus	  issue	  of	  Music	  Educators	  
Journal	  (MEJ)	  titled	  “The	  Crisis	  in	  Music	  Education.”	  	  	  The	  recession	  early	  in	  the	  first	  presidential	  term	  of	  Ronald	  Reagan	  resulted	  in	  numerous	  tax	  increases	  and	  corresponding	  budget	  cuts.	  	  Reduced	  federal	  education	  funding	  created	  budgetary	  shortfalls	  at	  state	  and	  local	  levels,	  and	  school	  officials	  were	  faced	  with	  difficult	  decisions	  about	  the	  impact	  on	  school	  programming.	  	  Michael	  P.	  Prescott	  (MEJ,	  November	  1981,	  pp.	  35-­‐38)	  noted	  several	  factors	  that	  contributed	  to	  music	  education’s	  predicament,	  including	  the	  splintering	  of	  the	  music	  education	  field	  into	  specialty	  areas	  such	  as	  band,	  orchestra,	  choir,	  general	  music,	  industry,	  etc.	  	  In	  Prescott’s	  view,	  fractionalization	  resulted	  in	  the	  lack	  of	  a	  coherent	  vision	  that	  could	  be	  articulated	  and	  convincingly	  presented	  to	  school	  boards	  and	  legislators.	  	  That	  special	  focus	  issue	  of	  MEJ	  featured	  strategy	  articles	  from	  a	  variety	  of	  vantage	  points,	  including	  from	  parents	  and	  supervisors.	  Notably	  absent	  were	  statements	  about	  music’s	  role	  in	  advancing	  learning	  in	  other	  academic	  areas	  –	  a	  topic	  that	  is	  ubiquitous	  among	  many	  who	  advocate	  for	  music	  education	  today.	  	  Those	  extra-­‐musical	  arguments	  are	  efficiently	  summarized	  in	  David	  Williams’	  ”What	  are	  Music	  Educators	  Doing	  and	  How	  Well	  are	  We	  Doing	  it?”	  (MEJ,	  September	  2007).	  	  In	  the	  November	  1981	  issue,	  authors	  instead	  presented	  a	  strong	  rationale	  for	  why	  music	  is	  core	  to	  a	  basic,	  democratic	  education	  for	  all	  citizens	  (Sudano	  &	  Sharpham,	  pp.	  48-­‐50).	  	  Nonetheless,	  many	  music	  programs	  were	  reduced	  or	  eliminated	  over	  a	  period	  of	  years,	  and	  the	  results	  foretold	  in	  that	  issue	  later	  became	  the	  substance	  of	  John	  Kratus’	  article,	  “Music	  Education	  at	  the	  Tipping	  Point”	  (MEJ,	  December	  2007).	  	  Kratus	  related	  the	  deleterious	  effects	  of	  reduced	  funding	  for	  music	  education,	  and	  his	  analysis	  (which	  provoked	  a	  huge	  number	  of	  Letters	  to	  the	  Editor)	  makes	  for	  an	  interesting	  comparison	  with	  David	  Williams’	  article	  in	  our	  current	  issue,	  “The	  Elephant	  in	  the	  Room.”	  	  Both	  authors	  see	  discrepancies	  between	  our	  professional	  advocacy	  rhetoric	  and	  the	  reality	  of	  the	  large	  group	  performing	  ensembles	  that	  characterize	  our	  secondary	  music	  programs.	  In	  his	  article,	  “A	  History	  of	  Music	  Education	  Advocacy”	  (MEJ,	  September	  2002),	  Michael	  Mark	  traced	  the	  development	  of	  efforts	  to	  justify,	  maintain	  and	  enhance	  music	  education	  in	  the	  nation’s	  public	  schools.	  	  Since	  publication	  began	  in	  1914,	  MEJ	  and	  her	  predecessors	  have	  printed	  approximately	  136	  articles	  and	  at	  least	  as	  many	  letters	  and	  columns	  specifically	  dealing	  with	  advocacy.	  	  Though	  
articles	  in	  the	  early	  years	  frequently	  dealt	  with	  philosophical	  issues,	  the	  move	  toward	  leveraging	  those	  ideals	  for	  political	  gain	  was	  addressed	  only	  rarely.	  	  That	  changed	  with	  the	  economic	  recession	  and	  education	  reform	  initiatives	  of	  the	  early	  1980s,	  and	  shifted	  dramatically	  from	  proactive	  justifications	  to	  defensive	  responses	  in	  the	  MEJ	  issue	  of	  January	  1992	  with	  two	  article	  sub-­‐titles	  that	  included	  the	  word	  “fight:”	  “Fighting	  for	  Every	  Child’s	  Right”	  (Karl	  Glenn),	  and	  “Prepare	  to	  Fight	  for	  Your	  Music	  Program”	  (Robert	  A.	  Harding).	  	  Advocacy	  strategies	  and	  related	  action	  items	  coordinated	  by	  the	  MENC	  staff	  began	  appearing	  with	  regularity	  in	  the	  1990s	  and	  are	  now	  highlighted	  in	  nearly	  every	  issue	  of	  the	  journal.	  The	  role	  of	  MEJ	  in	  conveying	  information	  about	  advocacy	  to	  the	  MENC	  membership	  continues	  to	  be	  substantial.	  	  The	  inherent	  problems	  are	  at	  least	  two-­‐fold:	  	  1)	  MEJ	  readers	  don’t	  uniformly	  agree	  on	  what	  should	  be	  advocated,	  and	  2)	  MEJ	  reaches	  those	  who	  might	  do	  the	  advocating,	  not	  necessarily	  those	  community	  members,	  school	  boards	  and	  legislators	  who	  need	  to	  hear	  the	  message.	  	  These	  two	  problems	  comprise	  the	  nucleus	  of	  our	  current	  issue’s	  lead	  article,	  “Apparently,	  We	  Disappeared.”	  Author	  Lauren	  Richerme	  details	  her	  analysis	  of	  how	  mainstream	  media	  has	  (often	  erroneously)	  portrayed	  music	  education	  since	  2005,	  and	  she	  then	  draws	  implications	  for	  music	  educators	  who	  approach	  advocacy	  from	  any	  of	  multiple	  perspectives.	  	  Perhaps	  the	  first	  MEJ	  article	  to	  specifically	  deal	  with	  advocacy	  issues	  appeared	  in	  February	  1933	  (then	  the	  Music	  Supervisors’	  Journal),	  and	  it	  makes	  for	  worthwhile	  reading	  today.	  	  The	  author,	  J.	  Harold	  Powers,	  began	  with	  this	  statement:	  	  	  “In	  times	  like	  the	  present,	  when	  all	  forms	  of	  social	  movements	  and	  institutions	  become	  the	  target	  for	  more	  or	  less	  vituperative	  criticism,	  insofar	  as	  they	  may	  affect	  the	  economic	  situation,	  education	  could	  not	  hope	  to	  escape	  entirely	  unscathed.	  	  We	  have	  seen	  our	  teaching	  profession	  receive	  more	  newspaper	  publicity	  in	  the	  form	  of	  editorial	  comment	  and	  criticism	  during	  the	  last	  two	  years	  than	  in	  any	  other	  ten	  years	  .	  .	  .	  Might	  it	  not	  be	  well	  to	  pause	  here	  at	  the	  low	  point	  of	  the	  ebb	  tide,	  to	  take	  account	  of	  stock,	  to	  give	  ourselves	  the	  same	  close	  scrutiny	  that	  our	  critics	  have	  been	  giving	  us	  –	  to	  consider	  what	  we	  might	  have	  done	  had	  we	  been	  called	  to	  the	  defensive	  for	  our	  very	  professional	  life?	  	  .	  .	  .	  I	  submit	  to	  you	  that	  the	  stabilizing	  agencies	  in	  this	  present	  topsy-­‐turvy	  world	  must	  be	  the	  activities	  and	  influence	  of	  music	  in	  the	  public	  schools”	  (p.	  10).	  	  


https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&amp;context=music_facpub

Advocacy for What? Advocacy for Whom? [From the Academic Editor]

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University

Georgia State University