Will

 a  Music  Education  Truly  Make  Your  Johnny  a  Genius?  

 
Dick  Letts    
 
For  decades  past,  perhaps  especially  in  Anglo  countries  such  as  the  USA,  UK,  Canada  and  
Australia,  efforts  of  the  music  community  to  secure  the  place  of  music  in  the  school  curriculum  
have  been  frustrated.  Advances  are  made,  but  as  often  as  not  lost  again.  Teachers  and  their  
colleagues  have  come  to  expect  that  so  far  from  being  won  once  and  for  all,  the  battle  will  have  to  
be  fought  again  and  again,  turning  over  the  same  arguments,  the  same  prejudices,  fighting  the  
same  fundamental  ignorance  of  the  value  of  an  education  in  music.  
 
Among  the  slogans  that  recur  year  after  year,  two  suggest  music’s  basic  difficulty  with  the  
curricular  decision-­‐makers:  “Music  is  not  a  frill”,  and  “Music’s  place  is  at  the  core  of  the  
curriculum”  (or  words  to  that  effect).  That  is  to  say,  so  many  decision-­‐makers  do  see  music  as  a  
frill,  and  do  not  wish  to  give  it  a  place  in  the  core  curriculum,  the  job  of  persuading  them  
otherwise  is  never  done.  
 
Some  music  educators  have  attempted  to  win  the  argument  by  shifting  ground.  Rather  than  
attempt  to  convince  with  yet  another  exposition  of  the  intrinsic  values  of  a  music  education,  they  
set  out  to  show  its  value  to  an  education  in  the  subject  areas  that  the  decision-­‐makers  believe  to  
be  important.  
 
Basically,  there  have  been  two  approaches.  One  is  to  attempt  to  enhance  curricula  in  non-­‐musical  
subjects  through  an  imaginative  use  of  music:  e.g.  through  the  inclusion  of  music  from  cultures  
under  study  in  social  studies,  history  or  geography.  
 
The  other  is  to  develop  and  present  evidence  that  an  education  in  music  contributes  somehow  to  
achievements  in  non-­‐musical  areas.  There  is  a  considerable  amount  of  research  testing  this  
proposition  and  positive  results  are  cited  widely..  
 
The  music  community  is  very  pleased  with  this  research.  Music,  underdog  of  the  educational  
system,  is  suddenly  revealed  as  undergod,  capable  of  almost  magical  influence  on  students’  
academic,  personal  and  social  development.  
 
Because  the  music  sector  uses  this  research  for  political  purposes,  we  might  wonder  about  its  
rigour  in  assessing  the  work.  Does  it  present  only  properly  verified  outcomes  or  does  it  accept  
with  gratitude  any  assertion  that  supports  its  argument,  no  matter  how  poorly  based?  
 
We  will  look  at  three  reviews  of  the  existing  research:  
 
Elliot  W.  Eisner:  Does  Experience  in  the  Arts  Boost  Academic  Achievement?  which  we  have  as  an  
unpublished  manuscript  from  Stanford  University,  California,  April  1997.  
 
Caroline  Sharp,  with  Pauline  Benefield  and  Lesley  Kendall:  The  effects  of  teaching  learning  in  the  
arts.  A  review  of  the  research.  Qualifications  and  Curriculum  Authority,  London,  1998.  
 
Bernard  West,  compiler:  The  Importance  of  School  Music.  Music  Industries  Association,  
Berkshire  UK,  December  1997.  
 
The  Forward  to  The  Importance  of  School  Music  says  this:  
 
“There  is  now  overpowering  proof  linking  the  learning  of  music  by  children  with  significantly  
improved  abilities  in  a  host  of  other  subjects.  This  seems  to  be  particularly  the  case  when  
children  start  to  learn  music  at  a  very  early  age.  
 
This  booklet  sets  out  the  evidence  supporting  MIA's  case  that  the  Government,  in  aiming  
radically  to  improve  education  in  the  UK,  could  make  no  better  start  than  introducing  one  
instrumental  music  lesson  every  day  for  each  pupil.  It  includes  a  digest  of  the  key  evidence  so  far  
published.  
  
The  following  pages  show  that  despite  reducing  slightly  the  time  spent  on  other  subjects,  five  
music  lessons  a  week  would  actually  increase  children's  learning  in  the  other  disciplines.  
 
Apart  from  the  unique  ability  of  music  to  be  a  general  learning  accelerator,  there  are  many  fine  
byproducts  of  increased  music  lessons,  such  as  the  character-­‐building  effects  of  music  in  
teamwork,  coordination  and  self  discipline.  
 
Neither  must  we  forget  that  the  UK  Music  Industry  is  both  a  major  exporter  and  a  major  
employer  with  recognised  huge  growth  prospects  -­‐  an  ideal  industry  in  which  many  of  today's  
school  children  can  find  employment  in  adulthood.  
 
On  the  basis  of  the  evidence  in  this  booklet,  we  at  the  MIA,  the  association  representing  all  
aspects  of  musical  instrument  supply  in  the  UK,  do  not  flinch  from  calling  for  the  Government  to  
insist  on  teaching  the  4  R's  -­‐  the  fourth  being  rhythm'.”  
 
Nothing  ambiguous  about  that  agenda!  
 
A  few  pages  later,  the  compiler  claims  to  foreshadow  the  detail  of  the  argument:  
 
“The  research  summarised  in  this  booklet  proves  that  learning  music  helps  children  as  young  as  
3  by  improving:  
 
·  artistic  ability  and  neatness  
 
·  speech-­‐fluency  in  native  and  foreign  languages  
 
·  reading  ability  
 
·  memorising  capacity  
 
·  reasoning  capacity  
 
·  time  management  skills  
 
·  team-­‐working  and  social  skills  
 
·  learning  ability  
 
·  problem-­‐solving  ability  
 
·  ability  in  maths,  science  and  engineering  
 
·  ability  to  handle  performance  pressure  (stress).”  
 
The  following  overview  of  the  research  only  two  pages  later  begins  by  noting  a  number  of  
discoveries  about  brain  form  and  function  related  to  musical  activity;  for  instance:  listening  to  
music  increases  blood  flow  velocity  in  the  two  arteries  that  run  through  the  centre  of  the  brain;  
the  part  of  the  brain  that  controls  the  thumb  and  fifth  finger  of  the  left  hand  is  much  larger  in  
string  players  than  in  non-­‐musicians.  “Empirical  research”,  it  says,  “has  yet  to  be  carried  out  to  
demonstrate  beyond  doubt  increased  aptitude  in  any  of  the  skill  areas  listed  [above],  but  it  seems  
logical  to  assume  that  if  the  brain  can  be  affected  by  music  in  the  ways  mentioned…it  could  be  as  
easily  affected  in  other  beneficial  ways.”  The  logic  is  not  reassuring.  
 
That  is  as  close  as  the  publication  gets  to  any  reservation  about  the  research  results.  It  goes  on  to  
cite  experiments  in  Hungary  on  the  development  of  children  taught  with  the  Kodaly  method,  a  
large  experiment  in  Switzerland  and  a  number  in  the  USA.  All  the  experiments  cited  purport  to  
show  positive  and  interesting  results,  but  there  is  virtually  no  mention  of  experiments  which  fail  
to  do  so,  nor  any  assessment  of  the  quality  or  rigour  of  the  experiments.  
  
This  publication  embodies  the  problems  that  arise  from  the  desire  to  use  the  research  for  
propagandist  purposes.  
 
Sharp’s  book  is  a  review  of  the  research  literature  on  the  effects  of  arts  teaching  and  learning,  
commissioned  by  the  School  Curriculum  and  Assessment  Authority.  In  the  music  world,  we  tend  
to  think  that  only  music  is  proposed  as  affecting  academic  and  other  non-­‐arts  performance,  but  
research  purports  to  show  similar  effects  for  other  art  forms.  The  following  text  is  selectively  
extrapolated  from  the  Summary  in  Sharp’s  study.  
 
“Relevant  material  was  identified  by:  database  and  Internet  searches;  a  request  through  the  
Council  of  Europe  and  CIDREE  (a  European  educational  research  network);  and  by  personal  
requests  for  information  to  key  people  and  organisations  in  the  UK.  The  main  focus  was  on  
recent  published  studies  of  research  into  arts  activities  for  children  of  school  age.  
 
Criteria  for  inclusion  were:  that  the  study  should  contain  empirical  evidence  of  the  effects  of  arts  
education  on  learning  in  non-­‐arts  areas  (e.g.  improvements  in  other  subject  areas,  or  emotional  
and  social  development).  
 
In  total,  81  books,  articles  and  papers  were  obtained  from  the  initial  searches.  The  majority  were  
rejected  because  for  instance  they  were  theoretical,  descriptive,  or  polemic  rather  than  empirical.  
There  are  22  relevant  studies  included  in  the  review.  Seven  of  these  are  literature  reviews/meta-­‐
analyses  and  15  are  empirical  studies.  Most  (17)  originated  in  the  USA;  there  was  also  literature  
from  Canada,  Switzerland,  (UK)  and  South  Africa.  There  are  16  studies  focusing  on  or  including  
music.  
 
In  the  majority  of  cases,  the  design,  analysis  and  interpretation  of  the  data  could  be  described  as  
adequate  or  good.  However,  there  were  two  common  weaknesses.  The  evaluation  reports  often  
lacked  information  about  the  content  of  the  programme,  the  sample  characteristics  and  the  
research  methods  used.  Secondly,  there  was  a  tendency  for  some  authors  to  over-­‐emphasise  
positive  results,  without  acknowledging  less  positive  findings  or  exploring  alternative  
explanations.”  
 
The  study  examines  the  22  sources  one  at  a  time,  finds  many  wanting  but  some  revealing  
interesting  and  reasonably  well  substantiated  results.  The  music  studies  as  a  whole  are  neither  
more  nor  less  compelling  than  those  in  other  art  forms.  Some  studies  showed  negative  results.  
Sharp  calls  a  spade  a  spade.  She  reaches  these  conclusions  overall.  
 
·  “Although  there  are  interesting  indications,  there  is  simply  insufficient  consistent  and  
compelling  evidence  at  this  time  that  arts  education  will  necessarily  lead  to  positive  non-­‐arts  
outcomes.  On  the  basis  of  the  evidence  presented  in  the  22  studies,  the  case  for  the  broader  
outcomes  of  arts  education  should,  therefore,  be  considered  not  proven.  
 
·  It  is  possible  that  specific  experiences  can  make  a  valuable  contribution.  There  may,  for  
example,  be  an  association  between  exposure  to  some  kinds  of  music  and  the  development  of  
spatial-­‐temporal  skills.  However,  it  cannot  be  said  that  arts  teaching  will  automatically  contribute  
to  pupils'  learning  in  other  subjects.  Whilst  some  experiences  may  contribute,  other  experiences  
may  not.  Further  research  may  be  able  to  shed  light  on  those  particular  experiences  which  have  
positive  non  arts  outcomes.  
 
·  There  are  indications  that  certain  aspects  of  arts  learning  may  be  particularly  effective  with  
younger  children.  Further  research  is  needed  on  the  effect  of  the  arts  on  different  sub-­‐groups  
 
·  The  available  evidence  suggests  that  transfer  of  learning  from  one  subject  to  another  is  not  easy  
to  achieve.  People  do  not  automatically  apply  existing  skills,  knowledge  or  attitudes  to  new  
situations.  More  research  is  needed  into  the  circumstances  in  which  transfer  of  arts-­‐related  
learning  can  be  achieved.  
 
·  Among  the  studies  included  in  the  review  were  examples  of  programmes  which  deliberately  set  
out  to  teach  non-­‐arts  skills,  such  as  mathematics  and  reading,  through  the  arts.  While  some  of  
these  provided  evidence  of  gains,  it  is  important  to  consider  whether  the  outcomes  of  such  
teaching  methods  compare  favourably  with  those  achieved  by  other  mathematics  and  reading  
programmes.  
 
·  There  is  a  need  for  further,  high  quality  research  to  identify  the  specific  experiences  that  can  
enable  artistic  development  and  provide  a  broader  contribution  to  learning.  The  research  will  
also  need  to  explore  the  extent  to  which  it  is  possible  to  fulfil  both  of  these  functions  
simultaneously.”  
 
   
 
Eisner  reviewed  the  experimental  and  correlational  studies  of  the  relationship  between  arts  
courses  and  academic  achievement  published  from  1986  to  1996.  So  far  as  was  possible  he  
looked  at  those  studies  published  in  refereed  journals  that  showed  not  only  results  but  also  the  
data  and  methods.  
 
Eisner  complains  that  many  of  the  studies  claim  that  in  one  way  or  another  arts  courses  
strengthen  academic  performance,  but  that  it  is  often  difficult  to  discern  any  basis  for  the  claim,  
or  that  the  basis  can  be  shown  to  ignore  obvious  alternative  hypotheses,  or  that  the  experiment  
can  be  shown  to  support  some  other  hypothesis  than  the  one  asserted  –  for  instance,  rewarding  
mathematical  performance  by  showing  televised  music  lessons  might  show  the  effects  of  
reinforcement  on  learning  in  mathematics  rather  than  a  study  of  the  contributions  music  makes  
to  academic  achievement.  Some  programs  set  out  to  improve  a  non-­‐arts  skill  such  as  writing  
through,  for  instance,  experience  in  drama  and  writing  courses;  but,  says  Eisner,  the  aim  of  such  a  
study  is  not  to  teach  drama,  with  some  sort  of  flow-­‐on  to  writing,  but  to  teach  writing.  
 
“Reports  of  the  effects  of  arts  education  on  academic  achievement  appear  to  be  most  notable  in  
programs  that  are  specifically  designed  to  help  students  with  reading  problems  learn  to  read  
through  the  arts.  As  educationally  virtuous  as  such  effects  might  be,  these  programs  are  
specifically  designed  to  teach  reading;  the  arts  are  resources  to  this  end.”  
 
Then  Eisner  makes  a  very  important  point.  
 
“It  must  be  granted  that  the  achievement  of  transfer  of  learning  is  an  ambitious  and  noble  aim.  It  
has  been  so  since  Thorndike  (1914)  did  research  to  test  his  theory  of  identical  elements  around  
the  turn  of  the  century.  Some  contemporary  social  scientists  such  as  Lave  (1994)  have  little  
optimism  that  transfer  can  be  very  wide.  Learning  or  cognition,  they  claim,  is  situated  and  its  
utility  is  limited,  more  or  less,  to  contexts  like  the  ones  in  which  it  is  situated.  Yet  it  seems  
obvious  that  some  transfer  must  occur,  otherwise  learning  would  be  so  situation  specific  that  it  
would  not  occur  elsewhere.  After  all,  no  two  situations  are  ever  identical;  time  changes  among  
other  things.  However,  when  we  talk  about  the  effects  of  arts  education  on  academic  
achievement  in  reading  or  in  mathematics,  we  are  expecting  transfer  of  wide  scope.  To  expect  
that  is  to  expect  a  great  deal.  At  this  moment  I  can  find  no  good  evidence  that  such  transfer  
occurs  if  what  we  count  as  evidence  is  more  than  anecdotal  reports  that  are  often  designed  for  
purposes  of  advocacy.”  
 
In  a  way,  Eisner  has  his  own  political  agenda,  but  it  is  one  that  is  based  squarely  on  the  intrinsic  
values  of  the  arts  in  education.  
 
“Why  be  concerned  about  the  relationship  of  the  arts  to  academic  achievement?  
 
(This)  takes  us  back  to  first  principles.  When  a  body  of  work  in  a  particular  field  of  study  makes  
significant  and  valuable  contributions  to  a  wide  array  of  skills,  dispositions,  or  understandings,  
the  value  of  that  field  increases.  We  all  like  "toofers"  [two-­‐for-­‐one];  and  if  we  can  get  them,  so  
much  the  better.  Thus,  I  have  no  objection  what-­‐so-­‐ever  if  experience  in  the  arts  helps  raise  test  
scores  in  math,  reading,  or  sentential  calculus.  Problems  begin  to  emerge  when  the  values  for  
which  the  arts  are  prized  in  schools  are  located  primarily  in  someone's  version  of  the  basics,  
when  those  basics  have  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  the  arts.  The  perils  of  such  justification,  
whether  those  justifications  pertain  to  the  so-­‐called  basics  or  to  versions  of  arts  education  that  
regard  its  primary  function  as  fostering  cross-­‐cultural  understanding,  are  profound.  The  core  
problem  with  such  rationales  for  arts  education  is  that  they  leave  the  arts  vulnerable  to  any  other  
field  or  educational  practice  that  claims  that  it  can  achieve  the  same  aims  faster  and  better.  If  one  
wants  to  help  students  understand  the  life  styles  of  other  cultures  it  strikes  me  that  
anthropological  studies  would  be  more  direct  route  and  even  if  we  imagine  for  a  moment  that  
they  weren't  the  most  direct  route,  to  use  the  arts  primarily  to  teach  what  is  not  truly  distinctive  
about  the  arts  is  to  undermine,  in  the  long  run,  the  justifying  conditions  for  the  arts  in  our  
schools.  
 
What  instrumental  justifications  of  the  kind  I  have  described  also  do  is  to  legitimate  the  marginal  
position  assigned  to  the  arts  by  those  looking  for  such  justifications.  When  arts  educators  accede  
to  their  expectations  it's  a  way  of  saying,  "You're  right,  the  arts  are  not  really  important  in  their  
own  right.  Their  importance  is  located  in  their  contributions  to  more  important  subjects.””