:-)

Today's blog will not be as intellectual as others... my apologies...

First, I would like to comment on my utter disgust with the NYC Public School systems. How can they hire a smashingly great, new teacher (moi), guarantee me a job, and then tell me I'm "fired." Ewww. Is there no justice? So now, I am left to wander the street of New York for another job. I'll keep you posted on that progress.

Second, I was truly impressed by the different thinking patterns occuring in class today through the paper introductions. It was amazing to see the different kinds of routes we all took when relating philosophy to music education through our experiences. All of you really had such thoughtful ideas that I hadn't thought of before you had said, and these thought-provoking ideas have led me to reconsult our texts to see things in more ways. So thank you.

It has been such a pleasure to work with all of you these past three weeks. I'm so looking forward to seeing you at O Passo. Be well and happy writing!!!

Spontaneous Re-Creativity

Elliott discusses the difference between creativity and spontaneous originality, saying that when children have outburts of what we think is creativity ("composing" something on the piano at age 2--which is usually just playing random notes) it is really just spontaneous activity. But, is this not what children need to feel the freedom to play, to make music, to become creative? They need an outpour.

My question is--there are so many artists that throw globs of paint on a canvas in dots and call it art. And people render this as creativity. And yet, my niece made a painting just like this the other day that is hanging on my fridge. Is this art? And is she rendering her creativity? Not according to Elliott. She's just letting out her spontaneous originality. Is it the idea of the institution that is deciding that the globs of paint on the canvas is the result of a creative flow process?

Maybe Elliott should talk to Duchamp about the "Urinal" to see if that is an outpour of creativity (or, recreativity). Yikes.

Brass Class

Nice work today, guys! I really enjoyed your presentation! I LOVED the animal musicing, too!

So anyway, I thought I'd share a bit of my musicing experience with you, and how it helped me and didn't in certain ways...

I had to take brass practicum in undergrad to learn how to play all the instruments in case I taught band. DJE was my teacher, and the entire class was premised around musicing. You know how we talked about how certain students have certain levels of challenges and when they achieve these challenges they reach a sense of self-growth and self-esteem? Well, I could not buzz on a mouthpiece to save my life in the beginning of class, while other people could already play the instruments. Automatically I felt like I couldn't "DO" (like the question James posed to us today--what about the kid that can't "do") and felt like a failure. DJE made the class very individually centered and put us on our own levels of music... and yet, for some reason it didn't make me feel bad that I wasn't playing the more advanced pieces by the end of the semester because I was making music and I was rising to my own challenges and growing more confident on the brass instruments. I was musicing. Granted, on different levels than my peers, but I was doing, and actively, too.

Now, I don't think DJE would have taught a regular band class in this sense, but his approach to teaching this class not only conveyed his philosophy of musicing, but gave us more I want to ask him insight into teaching brass instruments. I wonder how he would teach a regular band class of middle schoolers. How do you think he'd do it?

DJE

So, after today's conversation and in preparation for gearing up for tomorrow's presentation on my favorite Canadian music educator, I will bring up some thoughts I have on DJE (er, David J. Elliott).

There are sometimes when I think DJE is a proponent of the basis of critical pedagogy, but then at other times he seems like he thinks critical ped is CRAP. He views the teacher as facilitator in a performance-based classroom--he even calls her a coach. And the student is seen as an apprentice to the teacher to learn how to make music (music fundamentals). But he speaks nothing of dialogue bewteen teacher and student, and nothing of the teacher gaining anything from the student (i.e. learning through "musicing").

I'm so looking forward to tackling this dichotomy of pedagogies tomorrow and if/how they complement each other harmoniously through the presentation.

Rock On, Pals.

Miss, You Needs a Shape-Up

So I was really engaged by the story Dr. Abe told us today in class about the teacher in Newark who used the music of the people in her class to teach (a la rap). She really embraced the students' lifeworlds and made that the lifeworld and environment of the classroom. I probably wouldn't be able to do this--even in a NYC public school--because I'd probably get fired (talk about institutionalization) but I feel that at the same time it is important to connect to the students' life world, through music and your everyday interactions with them...

Many of my students use ebonics in their everyday speech. Instead of telling me to get a haircut, they say, "Miss, I's gots to tell you sumthin... you needs a shape-up." It took me a week to figure out what a shape-up was. They ask me (or, rather, they "ax" me) if they can use the "affroom" (that is, the bathroom). This speech is them, it is a part of them. And I need to embrace it. I could disregard it when they talk like this, but I feel that I can't. When I have no idea what they're talking about, I ask them; shouldn't I know how they communicate and express themselves? I even try to use some of their speech in my speaking (I find many things to be "whack" these days--that is, crazy). Though this is not truly embracing a lifeworld in the fullest sense, I have to start somewhere to get somewhere. Maybe my colleagues think I'm nuts for asking the kids about their speech and interests, and think I'm even nuttier (or whack) for trying to practice the terms. But I know my students LOVE to talk about their speech and interests with me and really appreciate that I try to grasp onto their lives in some way. Am I whack for doing this, or am I on the right track?

Also, the guy we were talking about today with art as an institution is named George Dickie, and his book is called "What is Art." In case you'd like some reading after classes are over. :-)

Un-Guiding Light

This whole idea of the institution as a vehicle for power and stability is really throwing me for a loop, probably because I have never thought of places of educational enlightenment as places that were so deeply rooted in tradition and holding true to the values that they resistant change. That guiding light--that ivory tower--turns its light off to change. Will we, the future smarties of the institutions--the names--the professors, the doctors, the administrators--fall into this proces of habitualization because it requires less work, or will we form a structural coup to revamp the institutional setting to create a more cosmopolitan and contemporary environment in which learners can grow? It is hard to say, as the norms of society hold on tight to control what goes on in many aspects.

I want change. How can we evoke change efficiently without having everyone turn on us? Seriously, how? I should probably read more on educational policy and communism to reach enlightenment...

A stream of consciousness from yours truly...

Re-Direction of Belief?

You know, I really have to say that I find it so interesting the different perspectives of feminism among our class. Yes, maybe the different perspectives and opinions do grow from peoples' different backgrounds and upbringings.

What Prof. Schmidt said today about how 2nd generation immigrants and girls who went to all-girls schools tend to really have a drive to succeed and voice themselves was very curious. I am second generation in my family (my grandparents came from Greece), AND I went to an all-girls' high school. Do these factors point to the fact that I have a NEED--a desire--to want to have power and change things? I don't know. Does this mean that instead of writing about the problems of women in a feministic point of view, I become pro-active to making change? I don't know.

We began to get at this whole background thing and how it affects our views of the world (and especially feminism as we learned today!) toward the end of class today, and I'd like to readdress it sometime to try to understand the factors playing in the grand scheme.

Critical Pedagogy for the Teach

So, I've been thinking about this idea of critical pedagogy and how the teacher is the learner, creating a conversation between student and teacher rather than teacher as transmitter.

This is one of those things that takes awhile to get used to--seeing the teacher in a different light--as a person who makes mistakes, as a person who can be questioned--as a HUMAN! It is like the first time you realized your parents weren't the all-knowing. They always seemed to have all the advice--like knowing the answer was part of a built-in device inside their brains. When you realize that parents are human and make mistakes, and have to struggle to find a thoughtful answer, it can be a bit of a downer... sort of like coming to terms with the teacher as a person, just like your parent.

One of my professors in undergrad practiced this notion in critical pedagogy. She created an environment in her classroom of dialogue among everyone. We questioned the ideas she posed, we offered our opinions of them (many times negating them), and she accepted this, while also defining her role as a learner too, constantly writing down our thoughts and ideas. Through this setup of dialogue, she became empowered by what we (the students) had to say. At first it was hard to accept a teacher that did not know everything and that questioned EVERYTHING she and everyone around her said. But after awhile it was comforting to see that she was like us--she got confused by things and had to struggle through concepts just like us. And together we worked together to empower each other and try to get to new levels understanding.

I think if we set the bar of the teacher as a human, someone who can engage in conversation with the student to yield newfound information and understanding, we can change these notions that teachers have an all-knowing device in their heads and are separate from the learners.

Does this make sense? This just came to my head while we were talking about critical pedagogy and the role of the teacher.