Advocacy: Non-Musical Benefits for Music Education and Their Usefulness

Music has many non-musical benefits.  As an elementary music teacher, my job security has been placed entirely in the non-musical benefits of my students.  It is understood at my current position that music is valuable to students because it assists them in learning their "core" subject areas, particularly reading and math.  Our school's goal is that "every student will be proficient or advanced in reading, writing and math; no exceptions; no excuses."  Every teacher is expected to use his or her subject to reinforce our school's goal of proficiency in reading, writing, and math.  Some of these non-musical benefits of music are valuable to students, but music should not be kept in schools simply for its non-musical benefits.

A first non-musical reason for including music is its relationship to improving student grades and life.  According to the 1991 report of the National Commission on Music Education "Growing Up Complete," music study improves performance in school and in life.  Several studies have cited that students who participate in music ensembles get better grades and are more likely to go on to higher education. In my high school, this was especially true.  Nearly all of the students at the top of the graduating class participated in band, choir, or orchestra, and many participated in a combination of two or all three.  Related to living a fuller life, students who participate in music learning can communicate better than those who do not.  In my experience, studying music has a positive effect on language learning.  As mentioned in the textbook, students who have speech impediments are greatly helped my singing skills.  A friend of mine personally experienced this.  He had a very terrible stutter, but if he thought about singing the first word he was speaking, it was impossible to tell that he had the speech impediment at all.  I remember in the film "The King's Speech" that this was true as well.  The speech therapist working with the king used singing and music as a technique to help King George overcome his stutter.  I have also experienced in my classroom that students read faster if the lyrics are rhythmic.  I would like to pursue a more formal study of this related to fluency and music reading, but I have informally found that my students who have trouble reading can read a passage more accurately and quickly if I keep a steady beat while they are reading, particularly in the context of karaoke, whether it is a song they have already heard or one that is new to them.  They naturally make the passage musical, and they are not as hindered by their fear of reading.

A second non-musical reason for including music is its relationship to and assistance with study in the other subjects.  As mentioned above, studying music can improve a child's understanding of other core subjects.  Studying music undoubtedly improves a child's understanding of culture and social studies because music is inherently part of every culture.  As child study and understand the music of another culture, the children are experiencing that culture.  From experiencing that culture, students will be able to empathize and understand the people of the culture better.  Students can also understand math with musical rhythm, science through the study of acoustics and sound creation, language arts by studying the text and emotions of music, physical education by moving to music rhythmically, and technology by using computers to create, respond to, or perform music.

A third non-musical reason for including music is that students who participate in music courses, according to Rodosky (1974), tend to like school better and have better attendance.  The textbook also states that music can be an effective "anti-monotony" tool for students who are otherwise bored by excessive study, constantly sitting still and formalized learning.  My students enjoy attending my music class because they are able to be constantly active learners.  Many students get excited and smile, according to their classroom teachers, when they are told that it is time to go to music.  I believe their enjoyment of part of the school day can directly contribute to their willingness to attend.

The most meaningful non-musical outcome of performing music for me was its assistance with my ability to work in a group setting.  This has contributed greatly to my fulfilling life as an adult.  I have learned to work with and be productive with anyone, which was a quality that was not natural to me.  Music taught me how to work with a group and see a positive result.  Previous to my music experiences, I disliked group experiences because I always felt that they were uneven and unfair. I always felt like I ended up doing more work than the other members of my group, and I felt taken advantage of.  Once I became part of performing ensembles, I felt that my contribution to the group was much more even and meaningful.  I felt a connection to the other members of the ensemble, and I finally understood what being part of a community truly meant.  I learned to value others because the input of their voices was critical to the sound of the group.  Each voice contributed something unique and special, and the group would not sound the same with a different makeup of people.

Each of these viewpoints can be valuable for arguing the retention of music in public schools, but these arguments should not be the be-all-end-all for music education. There are reasons why each of these arguments cannot stand alone as a rationale for music education.

First, there is not enough valuable research to that specifically proves that music is really the reason that students who are involved in music get better grades and tend to be more successful.  The research does not determine whether the students involved in music are better at school because they are involved in music or if they are involved in music because they were better in school.  This distinction is an important one because while there is a correlation between music participation and better grades, there is not proven causation.  As mentioned above, I have never seen a formalized study that relates fluency to music reading, but I would like to see one or possible conduct one of my own.  It cannot be proven, therefore, that music reading actually betters reading fluency in students.

Second, it is unwise to include music simply because it enhances the “core” curriculum because those subjects can stand alone.  While it may positively impact a child’s science education to do a science experiment in music class, why take separate time for music in the school day if the child can learn the required content in an actual science course?  As mentioned in the textbook, the subject of math does not need to be validated by its musical value.  It is validated simply because it is math and is useful in itself.  It could be more prudent to view music this way as well than to argue its relevancy based on its relationship to other subjects.

Third, it is rather a bit of a cop-out to keep music in place simply because it is enjoyable to students.  Recess is enjoyable to students and is important as well.  However, music teachers certainly do not value being thought of as recess for their students.  I know that it is offensive to me that people think of my subject as "fun time" for the kids. While music is very fun, active, and engaging, it has academic, creative, and aesthetic meaning that make it much more than just "fun time" for students.  If music is simply recess, there is little reason to keep it in place in the schools besides an opportunity for prep or break time for general classroom teachers.  If music class has to depend on "being fun" in order to be sustained, it will not be sustained for very long, especially when students need to learn deeper and less fun but equally as important concepts.

Fourth, although it is truly valuable to think of music as an opportunity to work in a group setting, there are many other group setting opportunities in which children can participate.  Particularly, I think of sports in this regard.  Team sports undoubtedly teach students how to work as a team and value one another, but I do not think sports are as important to a child's health as music.

Music must be able to stand alone on its inherent value.  If music teachers use non-musical reasons to keep music in schools, there will always be arguments that render other things more important.  Music is important because it is music.  Music exists for music's sake, and it makes people more human to experience it and understand it.  Music in schools should be valued simply because it is a valuable part of the human experience, and it makes humans into better people.