Thoughts on Feb. 2nd

I have been trying all week to come up with something to write here, but have been coming up dry. So I'll just start, and see what happens!

I really enjoyed our discussions about curriculum potential. I think that it is extremely important that there are opportunities for teachers to follow varying paths (based on student interest, teacher interest, current events, etc.). If we only ever stuck to one way of teaching one set of material it would be very boring (both for teachers and for students). It also doesn't provide accurate correlations to real life, or the here and now. Our world is constantly changing and we need our curriculi to be flexible! Personally, I feel very lucky to be working with the new music curriculum, as it provides a framework of concepts, but allows for much creativity and interpretation. This is partially due to the subject - music, when taught using the Orff process, should always be creative and open to possibilities. For those of you who are not familiar with the Orff method, here's a brief description from the Carl Orff Canada website:

“Carl Orff (1895-1982) is probably best known as the composer of such works as Carmina Burana and Catulli Carmina, but it is his work with "Music for Children" which has inspired a global movement in music education.

The Orff approach to Music Education is holistic, experiential and process oriented. It is for all children, not just the most musically or intellectually gifted and encompasses aural, visual and kinesthetic learners.

Orff's philosophy is based on solid, pedagogical principles. A structured, sequential development of knowledge and skills encourages joyful participation, creativity, and personal musical growth from all participants. The Orff approach taps the very essence of our beings. Children learn through doing, exploring and improvising. They are active participants in an integrated, guided process, one which allows for differing musical abilities. In the Orff approach, no child is neglected.

The Orff philosophy combines the elements of speech, rhythm, movement, dance, and song. And at the heart of all this is improvisation - the instinct children have to create their own melodies, to explore their imaginations.

Elemental music is never only music but an integration of movement, dance and language. It is music one creates oneself in which one is involved not as a listener, but as a participant."

The new music curriculum lends itself beautifully to this philosophy of teaching music. And I do think that the butterfly metaphor also helps to enhance this curriculum. Just to help illustrate, I'll quickly go through the main aspects of the music curriculum:

As we discussed in class, "Making Music" is the center of the butterfly because it is at the center of the Orff process. All children are music makers, and in order to better understand and appreciate music, students will all have the opportunity to experience music hands-on by making it themselves.

As I also pointed out, the four wings do not usually work alone.
The first wing, "Music Language and Performance Skills" focuses on specific concepts (such as rhythm, melody, form, harmony, timbre) and techniques for making music. The second wing, "Creative Expression in Music", is all about communicating ideas through music, using the concepts from the afore mentioned wing. The third wing, "Understanding Music in Context", is where students learn to connect music to time, place and community - basically understand the purposes for music in the past and present. Some of these purposes might include telling a story, communicating emotions, celebrating events, etc. The fourth wing, "Valuing Musical Experience" focuses on appreciating music and constructing meaning from one's own music and the music of others. In any general lesson we touch on most, if not all, of these wings.

As I mentioned earlier, the curriculum is also extremely flexible. For example, grade 3 and 4 students are expected to "describe a variety of purposes and roles for music in daily life, in own community and in other places and times". This leaves the door open to study all kinds of music. I always enjoy teaching a unit on musical theatre every year (and show a different musical movie each year). And while it does not specify "musical theatre" anywhere in the curriculum, it most definitely fits several outcomes.

The music curriculum also fits well with going on "tangents" as we discussed before. This is most likely due to the fact that it is such a creative subject - we can basically go anywhere we'd like within the context of music!

I am also lucky that I get the same kids all year for 6 years. There is no pressure of what they have to know by the end of the year because I have them again the following year. Of course I try to stick as much as possible to getting things done in a timely manner, but I feel no "pressure". But perhaps pressure is one reason why some educators do not want to deviate from their standard ways of teaching. There is so much pressure to get things done, and get them done now. Has anyone been reading the Free Press lately? There was a whole article about how we should be publishing school academic achievement statistics so that people can compare schools. Perhaps this is one reason why some teachers are afraid to go off on "tangents". The public will eat them alive if their class does not live up to the "public's" expectations. Just a thought.

I'm not sure what else to say at the moment - but I do think that every curriculum should give opportunities to be flexible, and be easily adaptable to current students and situations.