The New York Times today discusses how “thousands” of schools across the country are reducing class time in subjects other than reading and math, as a reaction to the reading and math testing requirements of the “No Child Left Behind” law. (Registration required for NY Times site.) In some cases, schools have completely eliminated other subjects, particularly for low-proficiency students.
Yes, reading and math are the core skills upon which most other education is built. Is the best way to develop these skills, however, to focus solely on these subjects? Anyone who knows anything about music, for example, knows it has fundamental links with math. An understanding of musical meter requires an understanding of fractions. Wouldn’t a well-taught music class be a good way to engage those students who struggle in math, yet plug in to their iPods as soon as they leave class? What about students who don’t read well, but find themselves motivated by a social studies class to read more about their heritage, or are spurred by a science class to read a biography of Marie Curie?
The solution is not to cut the “ancillary” subjects, but to harness them so they reinforce reading and math skills. An art class could be part studio art, part art history, with required readings about artists and styles. It could teach math skills through discussion of the Golden Ratio and its application to art and architecture. This might require a team approach to teaching, and a crossing of departmental boundaries, but surely it’s worth it if it inspires students to develop core skills that were lacking.
In the end, though, as I’ve written before, “teaching to the test” is a short-sighted method, and may even limit children’s cognitive skills. Yes, tests are an important part of educational assessment, but they cannot be the sole metric. Even the No Child Left Behind Web site asserts that “Surely a quality education reaches far beyond the confines of any specific test.” Unfortunately, the reality seems to be that the No Child Left Behind testing requirements are limiting many children’s educations.
As a music teacher, I agree that the study of music does help in reading and math as many studies have shown. I would say that the time signature (“understanding musical meter” as you state) has little to do with math. The structure of the time signature IS formed as a fraction, but acutally give the musicican two different sets of information. The bottom number gives the type of note receiving the beat (counts, pulse) such as a quarter note, eighth note, or half note. The top number gives the number of these counts in a measure (unit of division in music). The combination of the two gives you the “musical meter”. There are two types of meters in music (“feel”, if I may call it that). Simple and compound. Simple is subdivisions of two and compound is subdivisions of three. 2/4, 3/4, 4/4 are time signatures in simple meter. 3/8, 6/8, 9/8 are compound meter. Played quickly compound meter has a distinctive “feel”. Like a waltz for example. UM,pa,pa,Um,pa,pa. However 3/8 played slowly has a simple “feel”. Um,pa, Um,pa.
While I agree with what you say about music helping in Math and Reading skills it has more to do thith connections in the brain rather than actual applications. The younger music is started, the greater the benifits of music. Do not, however, confuse and math concept (fractions) with musical direction (time signature).
Thanks for your comment, Concernedeagle. You are right, of course, in that time signature in music isn’t a fraction. (I played piano for a number of years, myself.) I was a little sloppy, perhaps, in my use of the term “musical meter” in my post, but I do think there is a direct link between understanding music and learning fractions. If a child knows that a half note is twice as long as a quarter note, and a whole note is twice as long as a half note, he/she should find it pretty easy to apply those concepts to other objects. (My son’s Music Together teacher, who is also a professional musician, tells us this a lot in our classes, too, so I’m not just going on my admittedly non-professional opinion here.)
[...] I’m all for this—but wonder if restrictions without simultaneous education about healthy food choices and physical activity will simply seem repressive. Will it cause children in their perverse way to find other means of getting junk food (leaving the school to buy chips and a Coke at the convenience store across the street, for example)? Restricting junk food in schools is a good idea, but I hope it’s part of a broader initiative. With schools cutting back on science and history in order to focus on the core “No Child Left Behind” skills of reading and math, I have to be skeptical. [...]
[...] I’ve never been a fan of NCLB, but the teacher qualifications seem pretty reasonable: teachers of math, history and other “core subjects” must have “a bachelor’s degree, a state license and proven competency in every subject they teach.” NCLB calls such teachers “highly qualified,” though this seems pretty minimal to me. [...]
[...] The good news? Math scores are up, especially for fourth-grade students. Fourth-grade reading scores are also up. President Bush says the results confirm NCLB is working. He would. I remain a skeptic. [...]