Common Core. One thing it means, apparently, is RIGOR. Rigor is defined (in part) on one website as "encourag(ing) students to think critically, creatively, and more flexibly." http://edglossary.org/rigor/ (Official Warning to Teachers!!! - this website is connected to an educational policy think tank that appears to be highly in favor of standardized testing.)
There's more at the link above about rigor, but basically, it comes down to students thinking at deeper levels than, say, rote memorization. Critical thinking, creativity, etc. Sounds great, right?
Here's where my little experience comes in. My district is slowly rewriting our elementary music curriculum. We took a year each for Kind. & 1st Gr., this year we're doing 2nd & 3rd, next year we'll finish it up w/ 4th & 5th. I'm not on the curriculum committe, because I was on the committee for the last two revisions, & I think it's time to let some of the younger ones have their chance, since they'll be living w/ it for years to come (I'm a couple of years away, give or take, from retirement). But all of us in the Elem. Music PLC get to comment on & ask Q's about the curriculum at our PLC meetings.
Since the curriculum is being aligned w/ Common Core, it's being written as units of study, w/ common assessments at the end of each unit (so we can analyze the all-important DATA). We have a Fine Arts Coordinator, who is a specialist in writing curriculum, & she has been pushing the idea of "rigor" as part of the curriculum, including the assessments. This is because "rigor" is supposed to be part & parcel of Common Core.
The new assessments are always the hot topic at our PLC meetings when we're discussing the new curriculum. Many of the assessments involve students creating something of their own (a short rhythmic pattern, for ex.), which is great as far as I'm concerned, but the way "rigor" is being implemented in the assessments is by having students explain either why they made certain choices, or (as in the case of our 1st Qtr. Kind. assessment): "Why do you think John Phillips Sousa chose that tempo for 'Stars & Stripes Forever'?"
Well. As one logical Kindergartner answered last year, "I don't know - I never met the guy!"
One of our proposed assessments for 2nd Gr. involves students "creating" two short rhythmic patterns in succession, using the Q&A process described in the World Music Drumming Unit 1. I put "creating" in quotation marks, because it's not clear from the way the assessment is designed whether students are composing or improvising. Students do not write their rhythmic pattern down & then play it, & they don't write it down after they play it. It's essentially improvised on the spot, in response to a teacher rhythmic prompt. The teacher is supposed to assess the student on how "effective" their "creation" is. There's a rubric...& students are also supposed to self-evaluate themselves on how they did ("I played rhythms that were interesting" -?!), & eventually rehearse their creations so they're refined & worthy of performance.
Without getting into whether it's even appropriate to assess 2nd graders on their ability to effectively improvise, what really gets me about this is 1) the assessment mixes up improvisation, composition & performance, w/o clearly delineating which one it's trying to accomplish; & 2) it raises the Q of: is this how "rigor" is supposed to work?
What kind of "rigor" are we really talking about anyway? I asked my district Fine Arts Coord., & she answered "intellectual rigor", but - aren't musicians constantly involved w/ other kinds of "rigor"? Such as:
Physical Rigor - playing or singing music can be intensely rigorous physically. Hours of practice, proper fingering technique, posture, breathing, stamina, coordination, and on & on.
Emotional Rigor - it takes emotional depth & maturity to commit oneself to becoming a musician. We must express the music emotionally, which is a complex pychological process in which we strive to make it appear to the audience that the music has complete hold of us, while inside we must keep ourselves in check emotionally enough that we are still in control of our technique.
Spiritual Rigor - the highest form of communicating via music is spiritually, in which the performer & the audience feel at one spiritually w/ each other & w/ the music. This is certainly a debatable phenomenon, & an undefineable one, but it is certainly an experience that many performers and audiences claim to have had.
And when it comes to improvising, most musicians who are experienced improvisers would prob. tell you that 1) it takes years to become an "effective", confident improvisor; & 2) the intellectual aspect of improvising is the least important part of it. Muscle memory (having the technique to rely on) & being emotionally involved in the moment are much more important than thinking about improvising as it happens, or being able to explain it afterwards. Scientists have recently done research on brain activity when jazz musicians improvise, & they have discovered that the areas of the brain that are active when musicians improvise are the same areas that activate the subconcious. In other words, musicians are in essence "dreaming while awake" (NOT daydreaming) when they are improvising. They certainly are not restricting their brain activity to the logical/analytical part. Research has been done on this topic at John Hopkins University:
The Science of Improv
Comments on this post are welcome.
