So You Want to Teach Music in America?

http://ets.org/Media/Tests/PRAXIS/pdf/0113.pdf

Ladies and gentlemen, I present the Praxis II: Music Content Knowledge free exam preparation for music educators.

What are your thoughts about it? Does this demonstrate preparation for teaching music? If so, support your answer. If not, why not?

Hopefully we can have a meaningful discussion. I'll reserve my opinion for later posts IF this gets off the ground.

I think that it doesn't to the least. It's concetrated on music history, a little contemporary and very slight details on reverb (the cathedreal question). In all it seems detached from the real world... (And lacking any teaching material questions actually, but I would imagine these to be in a different test or section (?))

As someone who has graduated from a university as a Music Education major and taken and passed the Praxis tests I will offer a first hand account of what the test is and is not.

First off, passing that test is hardly all that is required of a music major to become an educator. In my college, which is a highly rated school for music education-I have seen others with far worse standards- here are SOME of the requirements to graduate as a music major:

3 years of music theory and ear training (solfege)- this includes rather intense ear training such as singing 12-tone music, dictating non-diatonic melodies, somewhat complex chord progressions and analyzing music through the 20th century.

Primary Instrument- You declare a primary instrument which you take private lessons for all 4 years and perform in ensembles with. Graded by semester.

"Proficiencies" in piano, brass, woodwind, strings, and choral music-Obviously no one is truly a master in all of these areas. However, I had to take one on one tests with professors ensuring I could play enough piano to accompany a choir and perform on each of the instruments enough to play a few scales and elementary level songs.

Method Courses-The bulk of the music ed curriculum. This includes learning numerous methods of popular music pedagogy. For example, elementary music courses taught Kodaly, Orff, and Music Learning Theory Techniques. Throughout the curriculum you have to do things such as peer-teach lesson plans for each grade level or teach various volunteer ensembles.

Observation- Several observation hours were required each semester where we would observe teachers in each grade level in each type of rehearsal setting. A ten plus page report would be written on each teacher.

Educational Psychology- These classes taught about the research of numerous educators in how the human brain works, how we should teach kids, addressing discipline, etc. A related class dealt with special needs students. A very thorough class-one project included a 40 page paper implementing one teaching idea that you had and backing every portion of it up with educational research.

Student Teaching - Normally the grand finale of any music ed program. In most states you get certified to teach K-12 music in all music areas so I taught elementary general music and High school band for my placements. These each lasted about 2 months. Here you spend time working with a cooperating teacher and being observed and graded by a professor. This is the part that plays a big role in how your recommendations for an actual job is effected.

Now, you must pass all of this in order for the Praxis to even matter. If at this point you can not pass the Praxis, the university has done a poor job. The PRAXIS is definitely a little brief. However, it is a standardized test and has a broad range of questions. There are ear training question, analyzing questions, classroom situation classes, history/factual questions, education fact questions, instrument specific questions, etc. I'm sure you can find holes in the test and/or be trained to answer the questions. I will say that no one that graduated with me really worried about the Praxis. However, we all worried about requirements of the college program. Don't discount teachers of music in America if you think the Praxis is insufficient. It is more of a way to weed out educators who have somehow slipped through the system rather then and end all be all test. If I received a grade of anything less than a B in any of the music education classes that I listed, I would not been allowed to move on. For example-methods was divided into a choral, strings, and band portion for each semester. If I got an A in Choir, A in Strings, and C in Band in Methods I, I would not have been allowed to move on to Methods II. Most music ed curriculum are quite in depth.

Hey Ben,

Great response! Really impressive outline of what we're doing (yeah, I'm doing all of this as well - start my student teaching in the spring).

Don't mistake me, though. While I agree with you that it's on the college to prepare music teachers just as much as it depends on personal development and study, I want to make it rather clear that I'm specifically talking about what the Praxis: Content Knowledge test actually assesses. Yes, there is also a Praxis II "essay" portion where you describe a lesson that teaches a concept - you're scored on a scale from 1-5, etc.

In terms of "Content Knowledge" though, I'm a little wary of some of the questions and the preoccupation with performance over everything else we should all probably know as music teachers. That's not to say performance is less important, but I'm simply baffled at how seemingly zeroed in some of these performance questions are versus the completely "baffling" and "mind-boggling" way music history and ethnomusicology are more or less "pureed" into the test as though, "Well, we've gotta have somethin' there for history/ethno." I mean, some of the questions make absolutely no sense why they even belong on this assessment other than to fill space and meet some kind of requirement.

For crying out loud, would it be too much to ask for the test to actually require us to know "meaningful content" at the historic and cultural level beyond random memory testing? What about the "chronological order" question in the test prep packet? I know some music history professors who would scoff at the question because there is almost nothing meaningful about music in historical context that would be understood from chronological order alone. In other words, the development of the motet in the 13th Century, the opera in the 17th Century, the string quartet in the 18th Century, or the symphonic poem in the 19th Century tells us -what- about any of these, or for that matter, anything meaningful about the periods in which these genres developed.

It's fluff, plain and simple.

I'll say that I did buy a study guide with a practice test and scored about a 75% on it (I'm weak in the pedagogy of choral and jazz works, something I'm attempting to brush up on between now and when I take it), but I'm dumbfounded with questions that ask what the best music to use in "some kind of situation" and the answer be tonal... while I do recognize the benefits of using tonal music, it's actually better to see a test question like, "Given the ______ curriculum [that introduces young people to music with songs written in diatonic systems], why would tonal music be an appropriate selection for a student at the ___________ grade level?" with answer choices that specifically explain why... which doesn't perpetuate this "us vs contemporary music" dichotomy and instead assesses the teacher's understanding of the context. Yeah, it's a standardized test, but there should at least be some critical thought behind some of the questions in my opinion.

Bleh, I'm ranting. I agree with you Ben, I'm just narrowing in on this particular aspect of the assessment of music teachers. Any thoughts?

While I agree that its not the greatest assessment and I feel that there are a lot of not so great music educators out there and maybe this is one (of many) things to blame for it, I am not so sure that making sure that the teacher is a master of music history is really the most important thing in the world. Yes, we want the teachers to know what they are talking about and know the history of the piece but this can be researched easily at any given point in time. What I am more worried about is the ease of the ear training/listening questions. There are only a few and are mostly pretty easy. I am less interested in the historical facts than the second type of question you outlined-the classroom situations...I really honestly don't remember these very clearly from when I took it but do remember being a little annoyed at some of them where what I would actually do depended on many more factors than were outlined in the test.

The bottom line is being a good educator has to do with knowledge, skill, and a desire to put up with all of the non teaching factors one will deal with on a daily basis. Colleges and tests can only prepare you so much for this.

The bottom line is being a good educator has to do with knowledge, skill, and a desire to put up with all of the non teaching factors one will deal with on a daily basis. Colleges and tests can only prepare you so much for this.

I think a good educator needs "life" experience... outside of the academic world. Colleges prepare you to "know" things, but when it comes to "applying" those things, it's too often in a controlled, institutional environment. I may be off the mark here based on my region, but it sure seems like there are A TON of YOUNG music teachers coming straight out of their undergraduate work into the K-12 system to teach. I realize that "teaching experience" is important, but it's useless without any idea of what's going on outside the walls of your classroom. If the "entry-level" position of music education is the director, what's the position for those with more experience? It's more like, "The more experienced you are, the more choices you have - the pick of the litter, so to speak - of any other 'entry-level' position."

Maybe it's just me, but I'm being critical and challenging the status quo here a bit just to see the justification for what we have now.

are we talking academic teaching or youth musicians?

We're talking about K-12, so I guess we are talking about "youth musicians."

... which doesn't perpetuate this "us vs contemporary music" dichotomy...

Who said contemporary music is non-tonal? For crying out loud, we left the 20th century over a decade ago now!

Who said contemporary music is non-tonal? For crying out loud, we left the 20th century over a decade ago now!

No one explicitly said contemporary music is non-tonal. These "non-tonal" systems are prevalent in contemporary music as opposed to the traditional canon, though. So generally speaking, if you're saying "non-tonal" music is no longer "contemporary" then you're ignoring a significant number of contributions to contemporary music by composers of what we're calling "non-tonal" music today. For crying out loud, if that's what you're implying, then that's just blatant ignorance.

Show me then. Where are these floods of 21st Century non-tonal works?

Please don't turn this into a thread about this...next its going to turn into an "is there a such thing as tonal music thread" argument. Let's stick to the point. There are so many types of composers today composing "atonal" and "tonal" and in between music. At this point it is truly hard to know which will be seen as relevant in a few years. There has probably never been a wider variety of styles represented by contemporary composers. That being said, the most played today by orchestras and major concert hall groups is indeed more tonal in nature than music of 100 years ago.

I agree with you, Ben. This doesn't need to be a thread about whether tonal or otherwise music exists. But I'll answer the question regarding where it exists...

http://www.pytheasmusic.org/new_music_festivals.html

Now, while I can't attest to every single work from every single festival on this list, that's a ton of "new music" festivals where the kind of eclectic, "otherwise" music being composed today is being performed alongside performances of Cage, Varese, Crumb, etc. These festivals actually draw rather large crowds of enthusiasts as well.

I've seen a LOT of competitions, calls for scores, festivals, and even fellowships that call for new and adventurous works that distance themselves from tonality. It really is a large and diverse audience now a days for that type of music. I spoke to one person at a University regarding tonal music today and he stated that the vast majority of ensembles want music that is adventurous NOT music that sticks to the same old, same old. So... I agree with Ben and Shaun on this one.

I didn't know tonal music was the "same old, same old." Darned thing.

Personally, I've never seen any competition that specifies style like that, and, IMO, if they do, that's a pretty bad competition. If they want something so specific, why bother asking for something new? Just play the old stuff. (I'm sure there's a satirical reference in there somewhere).

I didn't know tonal music was the "same old, same old." Darned thing.

Personally, I've never seen any competition that specifies style like that, and, IMO, if they do, that's a pretty bad competition. If they want something so specific, why bother asking for something new? Just play the old stuff. (I'm sure there's a satirical reference in there somewhere).

Asking for something new and adventurous is not specific.

Asking for something atonal is not specific.

I agree that tonal music is not the same old - unless you mean strict classical tonalism-then yes it is.

I still find it an absolute mystery why people put so much emphasis on ear training.

It's one of those academic mysteries that bugs me to no end since nobody has ever been able to clear up why it's something I should bother with. In the end I only did it because it was a requirement, but that's the worst reason to do anything.

I still find it an absolute mystery why people put so much emphasis on ear training.

It's one of those academic mysteries that bugs me to no end since nobody has ever been able to clear up why it's something I should bother with. In the end I only did it because it was a requirement, but that's the worst reason to do anything.

I find this to be a rather shocking response. I don't really know your background SSC...did you go to a university for music? or do you mean on a secondary education level?

A few responses to this:

First off, I see very few high schools in the US placing enough (imo) emphasis on ear training in large ensembles-band, orchestra, and to a lesser extent, choir.

The ones that do play FAR (and I mean FAR) greater in tune and since ear training (at least when taught properly) involves a lot of singing, students begin to phrase more musically

Eartraining extends beyond pitch and includes rhythm (at least to me) and students play more accurately when playing or singing pitch or rhythms.

As a COMPOSER I can't think of a more important skill.....If you walk down the street thinking of a musical idea, you can memorize the idea much easier if you have somewhat of an understanding of it. If you have better than average ear training skills you will be able to instantly recognize the pitch relationships and rhythms and if you have great ear training skills you can do that and harmonize it to your liking in your head.

I'm curious of your background ssc and how you can say that you feel ear training is unimportant as a musician?

I still find it an absolute mystery why people put so much emphasis on ear training.

It's one of those academic mysteries that bugs me to no end since nobody has ever been able to clear up why it's something I should bother with. In the end I only did it because it was a requirement, but that's the worst reason to do anything.

To be frank, you just lost a lot of respect from me as a composer. Ear training is like, #2 on the top things you MUST learn as a composer.

Top stuff imo:

1. Written Music theory (how to write notes, their chords, harmonies, functions, keys, rhythm, etc.)

2. Ear training (how said notes SOUND and you being able to reproduce them from scratch.)

3. Dictation (the reverse of ear training (kind of), listening to something and writing it down.)

4. Voice leading/Counterpoint (how one voice leads and how it reacts with others)

5. Orchestration (less on the list because all the others are required FIRST, but in composition, is just as essential as what the notes are themselves)

Ear training is like, #2 on the top things you MUST learn as a composer.

Top stuff imo:

1. Written Music theory (how to write notes, their chords, harmonies, functions, keys, rhythm, etc.)

2. Ear training (how said notes SOUND and you being able to reproduce them from scratch.)

3. Dictation (the reverse of ear training (kind of), listening to something and writing it down.)

4. Voice leading/Counterpoint (how one voice leads and how it reacts with others)

5. Orchestration (less on the list because all the others are required FIRST, but in composition, is just as essential as what the notes are themselves)

I disagree on the ear training being above voice leading/counterpoint and orchestration. I think ear training and dictation really arent necessary skills for composers - especially today.

The top stuff imo:

1. Theory

2. Voice Leading/Counterpoint (a part of me wants to put this in with theory!)

3. Orchestration/Instrumentation

Now, why I wouldn't include Dictation and Ear Training:

Dictation: Not many people can sit and listen to a piece and then write it down from memory. Only a small handful of composers have been able to do this and even then it's not really certain that they actually didn't have the piece memorized prior to listening and/or viewing! It's really a moot point. That said, i DO think that a composer should have to disect scores of other works. To see how they work and to learn from the processes used by others!

Ear Training: While yes, this is a valuable skill for a musician. I don't necessarily find this of use as a composer. Just being able to identify a note by hearing it really doesn't do much to help a piece get started, developed, and completed. So you can pick a note out of thin air? I do however, think that this skill is essential for a musician (especially vocalists). For those that play an instrument, it can be helpful for intonation purposes - but aside from that, unless you don't have access to a piano/instrument/computer... it really isn't that important today as it was hundreds of years ago.

I feel good ears are superior to any other aspect of music training other day.

As someone who didn't have them and then developed them at a later point, I can say it has been invaluable.

Sure, you can sit on Finale/Sibelius and click on notes until you find something you like. However, hearing and imagining complex textures is far easier if one has developed their ears. Just listen to just about any orchestral piece by Debussy and think about the complexity of the way he overlaps parts. The way he pairs seemingly unrelated ideas in perfect harmony is nothing short of amazing and he surely would never imagined it if he couldn't hear it in his head. One with poor ears surely would never write it with the help of computer in today's world. Sure, a computer is helpful, but being able to imagine exciting and complex ideas only happens if one can hear with an inner-ear too. It is much more complex than picking a note out of thin ear-we aren't just concerned with perfect pitch-that is probably last on the list to me.

I feel good ears are superior to any other aspect of music training other day.

As someone who didn't have them and then developed them at a later point, I can say it has been invaluable.

Sure, you can sit on Finale/Sibelius and click on notes until you find something you like. However, hearing and imagining complex textures is far easier if one has developed their ears. Just listen to just about any orchestral piece by Debussy and think about the complexity of the way he overlaps parts. The way he pairs seemingly unrelated ideas in perfect harmony is nothing short of amazing and he surely would never imagined it if he couldn't hear it in his head. One with poor ears surely would never write it with the help of computer in today's world. Sure, a computer is helpful, but being able to imagine exciting and complex ideas only happens if one can hear with an inner-ear too. It is much more complex than picking a note out of thin ear-we aren't just concerned with perfect pitch-that is probably last on the list to me.

Well, that's assuming all Debussy did was sit in front of his score without any piano or anything else there. I'm quite certain he had a piano there with him as he composed - the vast majority of composers from the late 18t century onwards did. Same can also be said that he developed those textures and lush harmonies due to his extreme knowledge of music theory.

I find this to be a rather shocking response. I don't really know your background SSC...did you go to a university for music? or do you mean on a secondary education level?

Master in Composition and musicology. And yes, I think it's a waste of time for both of the things I studied.

If you walk down the street thinking of a musical idea, you can memorize the idea much easier if you have somewhat of an understanding of it. If you have better than average ear training skills you will be able to instantly recognize the pitch relationships and rhythms and if you have great ear training skills you can do that and harmonize it to your liking in your head.I'm curious of your background ssc and how you can say that you feel ear training is unimportant as a musician?

Not really. If my musical ideas extend beyond just plain intervals or chords, I can't "think" of them using any of the training people often have. Likewise, I can just sit at a piano or whatever and hear out what I want and write it down. More on this on my response to Jaw. In reality, there has never ever been a point in my entire life where I said "gee I'm glad I took all those goddamn ear training courses!"

I disagree on the ear training being above voice leading/counterpoint and orchestration. I think ear training and dictation really arent necessary skills for composers - especially today.

...For those that play an instrument, it can be helpful for intonation purposes - but aside from that, unless you don't have access to a piano/instrument/computer... it really isn't that important today as it was hundreds of years ago.

Indeed. How many composers were KNOWN to use piano/other instruments to help them out?

And like I said before, the ability to "hear in your head" what you're reading is far better accomplished by actually studying scores and hearing music. That's the stuff I do all the time, and it's the stuff I think is essential for a composer. It just boils down to listening and reading music, nothing more nothing less.

All the other stuff is of dubious value. Sure you can ...sort of get there also by going the other way, but I don't find it useful. Even singers/instrumentalists benefit more today thanks to technology they can hear performances and so on and learn it "by ear." Hell a lot of singers do it that way, they just listen to a recording until they have their lines memorized. Is it better than being able to sight read good? Not really, but does it work? Yes.

And at the same time, a composer can still be awesome even if they're DEAF, really. It doesn't matter at the end if the composer had a good ear or not, just what they actually wrote. All of this talk has to do with method and everyone's method is different. Some may rely more on whatever training they had, others may rely on whatever other things they have that can help them (pianos, computers, whatever.) In the end after a while you find your own way to deal with musical ideas.

And that's my entire beef against ear training for composers, it's not a surefire way to help everyone (it didn't help me at all.) And more over, this reaction that it's so important is exactly what makes me question it even further. Honestly then we should throw all the stuff Beethoven wrote when he was deaf in the trash since since his ears failed he certainly must've written pure garbage. You can see how this doesn't follow and makes no sense.

It seems extremely dogmatic and I still don't see the point. Just saying "OMG LOAST RESPECT!11" doesn't help at all, it just strengthens my point.

I will agree to strongly disagree with most everything you said, however:

"And like I said before, the ability to "hear in your head" what you're reading is far better accomplished by actually studying scores and hearing music. That's the stuff I do all the time, and it's the stuff I think is essential for a composer. It just boils down to listening and reading music, nothing more nothing less."

That is ear-training whether you call it that or not

"And at the same time, a composer can still be awesome even if they're DEAF, really. It doesn't matter at the end if the composer had a good ear or not, just what they actually wrote."

This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read! You are right, they can be awesome when they are deaf (ahem Beethoven) because they have good ears! Beethoven knew what his material sounded like even though he couldn't hear it! that is called ear-training!

"Honestly then we should throw all the stuff Beethoven wrote when he was deaf in the trash since since his ears failed he certainly must've written pure garbage"

You couldn't make less sense...he wasn't just throwing notes in the air...he knew what it sounded like!

"ear"-training OBVIOUSLY doesn't really train the physical ear....the physical ear only helps us to hear the actual sound but it is training the brain to recognize what these sounds are. All the computers in the world wouldn't have helped Beethoven when he went deaf since he couldn't have heard it! he wasn't just writing random things!

Well, that's assuming all Debussy did was sit in front of his score without any piano or anything else there. I'm quite certain he had a piano there with him as he composed - the vast majority of composers from the late 18t century onwards did. Same can also be said that he developed those textures and lush harmonies due to his extreme knowledge of music theory.

"Knowledge of music theory" doesn't help him to know what it sounds like

Many of his scores use more notes/lines than could be played at the piano

Hearing them on piano-1 sound does not justify the mastery of orchestration that goes along with his music and is another equally difficult skill that requires inner listening