Music Education: Essential or Expendable?

Since ancient times, humans have been convinced of the inherent value of music and aware of the necessity of its inclusion in the education of children. Plato considered music to be one of the two most important units in school. Aristotle claimed in Politics that "Music has the power of producing a certain effect on the moral character of the soul, and if it has the power to do this, it is clear that the young must be directed to music and must be educated in it."

In recent years, however, music education has been weakened and sometimes eliminated when budget cuts become necessary. The neglect that music education has suffered is not the result of anyone's personal agenda against music. Rather, music has long since ceased to be regarded as a core subject; it is now a peripheral fringe, at best. Administrations, school boards, and faculty have failed to recognize how music benefits children in several areas of development. Training in music remains, however, an essential component of a well-rounded elementary and secondary education.

Studies have demonstrated a significant relationship between strong musical training and such general academic areas as reading comprehension, mathematics, learning ability, and spatial skills. More specifically, in a study reported by the College Examination Board, a direct correlation was shown between the length of time studying arts and music and improved SAT scores. Students who had taken twenty units of music scored 128 points higher on the verbal SAT and 118 points higher on the math SAT than those who had taken 15 units.

Another study showed the relationship between participation in music programs and grades earned in the classroom. The study looked at students who scored A's and B's in math, English, history, and science. Music students scored as much as 10.9 percent higher in these subjects than non-music students.

The value of music in a young person's life cannot always be measured by statistics. Sometimes, when dealing with things not as tangible as grades and scores, testimony of teachers and parents must suffice. Such testimony has asserted that involvement in music programs has shown to be a strong influence on the development of areas like discipline, creativity, self expression, communication, and leadership skills.

Still, music education faces extinction in schools across America. One threat that poses itself to strong music programs is an apparent lack of time. Music, as any other core subject, requires ample amounts of time for students to learn it well enough to develop understanding and to demonstrate proficiency. Thirty minutes a week is not enough time devoted to a subject that contributes as much as it does to the lives of students. Time, however, is not a valid issue; with some creative restructuring of the typical school week, time could be made for sufficient attention to music and the other arts without expense to other core subjects.

Some argue that if music is brought to a place of core importance, proficiency requirements in the subject will eventually follow. This, they say, would be neither realistic nor beneficial, since not every child has inborn musical talent and required participation in music programs will kill any enjoyment of the subject. If this argument can be made for music as a core subject, then it must also be made for English, math, or any other required subject. In fact, we could extend it to all education itself, and protest compulsory education on the grounds that students find no pleasure in coming to school since they are forced to do so. We must also remember that not all people are born with innate abilities in mathematics, sciences, or language arts: areas in which we nonetheless require proficiency.

Historically, music programs are the first to be reduced or cut when tax revenue and other financial difficulties require schools to consider cutbacks. And when talk arises concerning national standards and improvements to existing arts and music programs, questions arise as well. What will these improvements cost? Who will pay for them?

To put the financial standing of music education in perspective, let us examine two government funded groups: the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Science Foundation. The U.S. government spends only .095 percent in the arts than on support for science. Of the $140 million allocated to the NEA (compared to the $1.8 billion for the NSF) only 3.5%--that's $5.95 million-- is devoted to education (compared with 10%--$171 million for the NSF). These figures reveal that the government spends more on science education alone than it spends on the arts altogether.

It must be noted that there are schools that presently have excellent music programs which require little or no change. And, where change is necessary, extra financial support may not be. Maybe music teachers could take their current curriculum just a few steps farther and offer to students a broader cultural and historical context for the material being taught, or perhaps encourage students to improvise or compose on their own. This would help to make music more valuable in the eyes of school boards and administrations without immediately requiring extra funding. Paul Lehman, music professor and dean at the School of Music of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, said in a speech to the Music Educators National Conference regarding music education reform: "Perhaps we can't afford to do everything, but neither can we afford to do nothing."

The need for music education is apparent, the time is available, and the resources are not as hard to come by as they may seem. Music should not only be taught in school, but be treated as a core subject, essential to the whole development of the student. Students who are not given strong musical training are robbed of a highly valuable part of their education.