Problem child school music?

Let's get very specific: What do you think a ten-year-old child should have experienced musically at elementary school or what should they be able to do at this age?

Jürg Zurmühle: To put it bluntly, I don't want standardization, I want a child to make music themselves and to have had different encounters with musical culture, with musical actions, with listening and with live, real music. I would also like to see opportunities created for children to access their own musicality at school, kindergarten and pre-school. This does not mean that we primarily look at what a child has to bring, be able to do and have learned, but that we ask ourselves what the child already brings to the table in order to be able to continue working with it musically in different ways.

Roman Brotbeck: I have little experience with this target level, but perhaps a child should have experienced what for me is central to the entire musical education: they should be able to hear, not only music, but also the environment. And they should experience their "voice" - which can also be an instrument - as their own and as something shared. Music is the only art that can realize the commonality so artistically and without feelings of competition.

There are different institutions, different professions that are committed to this common denominator of music, music education. What does it take to strengthen music education through productive cooperation between the music didactic fields (specialists, generalists, generalists in and out of school)?

Jürg Zurmühle: Let me focus on the child: I see the greatest benefit if we succeed in bringing together music makers and institutions, from cultural institutions (from all areas of experimental, pop and rock music) to theaters, music schools and schools.

I think we could make a greater effort in future to ensure that all stakeholders work together much more. From the perspective of teacher training, I could imagine working more with people from other institutions, such as the music colleges, and implementing joint projects and courses. We have already started doing this at the University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland FHNW, and I think it is absolutely necessary.

Roman Brotbeck: From my experience in management positions in the higher education sector and elsewhere, I realize that it is a shame how much positive creativity is lost when institutions set themselves apart from one another and how much unnecessary energy is invested in having their own profile. I believe that a lot of creativity is wasted because people don't want to work together. But that's also the case within universities. I also experienced this in Bern at the Bern University of the Arts HKB, for example, when I put forward the idea of perhaps swapping a student for a certain period of time among the main subject teachers? No, that could ruin the whole course, I was told. With such isolation and, ultimately, mistrust of colleagues within the university, young people are actually learning the wrong things.

Jürg Zurmühle: But I am also optimistic: at the institutional level, it is exactly as you explain. At the personal level, I think it's something completely different. I have always had the impression that when we are in contact with each other as individuals, it is definitely easier to work together.

Another level is teacher training, where I find it really unpleasant from a music perspective that students can or must opt out of music as a subject at primary level. That is something I would clearly not propose myself. All future teachers must be able to teach music. Another thing is that the subject matter is generally neglected at teacher training colleges. I would put more emphasis and time on subject-specific training. Or - as we used to have in the past - students have to take an entrance exam to demonstrate their subject-specific skills.

But we also have a great deal of expertise in the various institutions. We should try to bring together these skills, this creativity of many people in the training of teachers. It doesn't always have to be structurally fixed, but I can well imagine, for example, making music, teaching and learning in study and intensive weeks that are outside the curriculum. In my opinion, the Bologna system, with the collection of credit points, makes this more difficult. It's actually about allowing freedom, institutional freedom, to provide open opportunities for those students who want to "educate" themselves musically. I also think what we are aiming for with "Youth and Music" is important: that people who really bring a lot to the table also have the opportunity to gain further qualifications in order to be able to go their own way musically.

Roman Brotbeck: Education article 67a is very important because it valorizes music lessons and does not see them as a "nice to have". The following sentence is particularly important: "The cantons are committed to high-quality music lessons." It is an indictment of the cantons that they have been avoiding the definition of high-quality teaching for ten years and are content with heterogeneous solutions. As a result, access to music education continues to be strongly influenced by social background.

In the education article, the federal government threatens that it can issue "the necessary regulations" itself if the cantons do not reach agreement on the objectives. In my opinion, this is what it should now do.

On the tenth anniversary of Article 67a of the Federal Constitution, it was noted that the extracurricular area and the promotion of talent were addressed very centrally with "Youth and Music". At the same time, however, little has been done in terms of school development. Where do you see approaches to accelerate this after ten years?

Roman Brotbeck: There is simply a great dissonance when I hear that elementary school teachers who are not trained to teach music are apparently teaching music in elementary school. This clashes with the article: "The cantons are committed to high-quality music teaching". That doesn't go together at all. I can't ask a mathematically incompetent person to give high-quality math lessons, or someone to give French lessons without speaking French themselves. Foreign language teaching is a very good example because it is very close to music. If a child hears a language with good native pronunciation right from the start, it can absorb it much better and more easily than if it is taught French or English in German. It's exactly the same in music! We need highly professional people there. Fortunately, we have managed to achieve this in instrumental teaching at music colleges despite massive resistance. When the modern university system was introduced at the beginning of the noughties, the aim was to reduce the pedagogical training at music universities to three years and limit it to Bachelor level, on the grounds that teaching children was possible even with little specialist knowledge. At the time, the KMHS (Conference of Swiss Music Universities) argued: "This is the most difficult level. So we have to use excellent musicians in instrumental lessons." This has now become an advantage of music schools over elementary school, namely that only musically competent teachers teach there. However, in a democratic country like Switzerland, which should aim to educate the entire population, I think it is important that professionally competent teachers also teach music at elementary school. For me, the time has come for the federal government to issue the necessary regulations to rectify this situation.

Jürg Zurmühle: I take a similar view. We have already tried to point this out in parliamentary committees. I see it as one of the big problems that the federal government doesn't say: "There's an article in the constitution. We want to know from the cantons how you have implemented it." But the associations also need to get involved. We can influence the discussion at a political level through the Swiss Association of Music Education and the Swiss Music Council. This is very important in order to be able to implement this article on this second point. But there are also more pragmatic possibilities: In the canton of Basel-Stadt, a large proportion of music lessons are taught by specialists and they do this very well. From my perspective, however, there is a danger that - if only specialists teach music - music, as I understand it, will simply disappear as an everyday activity because, as we have already experienced, primary school teachers say: this area is covered by the music and movement teacher. In other words, I would actually like to be able to use both specialist teachers and well-trained teachers in the subject of music and that this cooperation, if successful, can produce wonderful results. This brings us back to the same topic: that there is not competition, but cooperation between all players.

Of course, it would be nice if the Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education (EDK) shared this vision so that specialist teachers could teach music at primary school level in all cantons. The directors of teacher training colleges probably see things a little differently. As President of Fachdidaktik Musik Schweiz, do you also have opposing positions to the directors of the PH and if so, how do you deal with them?

Jürg Zurmühle: That's a good question. These conflicting attitudes do of course exist. I mentioned earlier that we have far too little professionalism in music and in education in general. It's not just the management that is opposed to this, but the whole community at the PH, because of course all areas have too little time available for their study requirements. That's why, at the educational policy level, the Master's degree course would be a solution that could enable students to specialize. Or we could take more training time in order to deepen students' skills in the many areas. Another example: at the PH FHNW, instrumental teaching is assigned to the subject science. We have resisted this from the very beginning because this term does not correspond to what we do. Our music seminars are also scientifically based, but not science. That is something completely different. I spent 14 years fighting against the concept of specialist science in music. I have always failed, this term cannot be eliminated.

If you were given more time for musical training at your institution, how would you use it in your practical training?

Jürg Zurmühle: I would like to differentiate between practical and didactic training, which I consider to be equally important. In practical training, we have students who come to our university with very different backgrounds. From people who panic about making music to professional musicians who want to enter the teaching profession at elementary school. We can do justice to these heterogeneous levels in our highly individualized instrumental lessons. Here we try to illuminate different perspectives: On the one hand, I need the instrument to deepen my own musical understanding of listening, acting, interpreting and also improvising - this is very, very important to us - but also to further develop individual understanding and ability. On the other hand, making music together is a fundamental experience that needs to be conveyed. Let me give you an example: the students have to be able to sing a canon as well as improvise with everyday objects. These are different approaches to music and both are very important to me personally and to all of us in the team. But the students have to be able to experience this. From the very first lesson, music is made and everything else that can be read or done is done outside the classroom. Making music together is fundamental, important and central to the subject. And these experiences in music take time, which I would like to have more of.

In other words, they do the rest, the discussion and reflection, the subject didactics, outside the classroom?

Jürg Zurmühle: No, that was the subject-specific science. I understand subject didactics, on the other hand, as the conscious design of facilitating learning processes for children, based on what the children can do, but also based on what I can do as a teacher. One approach is that we get to know different concepts in practice with the students, for example, constructive music lessons that work with patterns or with the principle of solmization. Or another concept, such as that proposed by Beck-Neckermann for kindergarten/junior school, which is more child-oriented: what does a child need, what can the child already do, what role does the improvisational element, discovery and experimentation play? And reflection and dialog: "Tell me, what happened there, what did you hear or do?" Despite the openness, organizational structures are needed for orientation.

It is very important to me to understand both examples as good approaches to music teaching. I don't want to play them off against each other, but rather present them as both-and. However, I must be able to differentiate between the approaches and choose whether I am teaching a canon or whether I am letting the children improvise with everyday objects. In subject didactics, we must succeed in getting students to the point where they realize that there are different ways of teaching music and that they can differentiate between different concepts and approaches. The dialog about the experiences and concepts is of course extremely important for the students and we do this live whenever possible.

In this context, what importance and urgency do you attach to music education research at universities of teacher education and conservatoires?

Jürg Zurmühle: For me, research in the field of music education is extremely important in order to be able to test the beliefs of music teachers. On the other hand, we still know relatively little about how the multi-layered and diverse musical learning processes of children can be shaped in a beneficial way and how children learn music in all its forms. The exploratory view sensitizes, focuses and generalizes: it is not just about individual experiences, but about finding principles. In my own modest research work, I pursued such questions: What really and precisely happens in the moment when children make music together? How do children describe their experiences at a concert in which they participate? The hustle and bustle of the classroom often makes it impossible to take a close look. This is why such research, which looks closely and repeatedly and tries to understand, reveals astonishing things that were previously unknown and unconscious.

It is important for the university to receive research results, for example by reading and discussing primary texts together in teams and with students. On the other hand, it is also the task of the university to pursue its own research questions in order to obtain and publish findings on music teaching in schools.

Roman, what do you think is the task of research in music?

Roman Brotbeck: In no other area have music and art colleges changed as much as in research. Despite initial resistance from many teachers, an enormous development has taken place. A lot has also happened in music education research, but its topics are sometimes too marginalized for me. From a distance, it seems to me that the link between teaching and research needs to be strengthened. Sometimes there is a danger that research is a satellite that no longer has an impact on university teaching. In music education, research that is developed from practical experience would be desirable. Specific didactic research would be an ideal field for this. I also have an idea for this: an inter-institutional research project to develop an interactive Swiss music teaching aid for elementary school, incorporating all languages and cultures. The teaching material could contain best practice elements, which could then also have an impact on other areas.

We will be happy to take up the aspect of teaching materials again later. The demand for research-oriented lecturers comes strongly from the institutions. What are useful qualifications in this context?

Jürg Zurmühle: I want people with a lot of practical experience, who have had a lot of practical experience in music and have taught music. For example, people who have been musicians since childhood and have then trained as teachers, taught and have many contacts in different settings, but who also have subject-specific and didactic training. In addition to music education qualifications, research qualifications should also be available. The previous, esteemed colleagues with a doctorate in music education are not music teachers, but either psychologists or sociologists. They have done very important and fundamental work, there is no question about that, but they are not music teachers. This is now slowly beginning to change in the sense that researchers can bring in the perspective of practitioners from the field alongside the perspective of research methodology and research distance.

Roman Brotbeck: I was lucky in that I knew from the beginning of my training - I studied musicology - that I didn't want to simply write encyclopaedia articles and books in a quiet little room, which would then be received in a small circle of musicologists and perhaps get four good or even four bad reviews, but I always wanted to have a broader influence. That's why, through the media, the radio and the presidency of the Tonkünstlerverein, I finally got involved in all the planning for the re-establishment of the music and art academies. That was an enormous opportunity for me. In Bern, it was possible to change things in a few years that would probably have taken two decades in normal times. Once these developments were consolidated, I withdrew. My ability lies more in setting things in motion than in managing them. And yes, it was possible to initiate research, it was possible to completely renew music education at university level. This was an ideal time in the Swiss music academy landscape because the directors - whether in French-speaking Switzerland, Ticino or German-speaking Switzerland - were all pulling in the same direction. We were not in competition with each other, on the contrary: we were constantly on the phone and talking to each other, because the sword of Damocles was hanging over us, that the music universities would only be allowed to offer a few master's degrees, similar to the technical universities of applied sciences. The Swiss conservatoires would no longer have been able to keep up internationally. This joint struggle has brought about many changes. I would like to see Switzerland's music education sector develop a similar solidarity. What was achieved with the music academies back then is exemplary for me in terms of pooling forces. One result of this is the excellent teachers who work in music schools today - also thanks to the conservatoires.

Jürg, what does that look like for you? What have you been able to achieve personally in your roles and functions?

Jürg Zurmühle: My biography is quite different. I am originally a flautist. I trained as an orchestral flautist at what was then the conservatory in Basel and was finally asked on the street if I could teach at the teacher training college in Liestal. At the time, I had no idea about teacher training. In the end, I had an almost 40-year career in teacher training, with ups and downs. When I look back on my time as head of the professorship over the last 14 years, it is gratifying to see what we have achieved. I deliberately say "we" because it was a team effort - I couldn't have achieved it alone. What we have achieved is, on the one hand, to provide the best possible training within the given framework conditions - which are not ideal. The other is that we were able to integrate and reflect the extremely different views of what music teaching should and can be, which we encountered in the professorship at the beginning - we had merged from many institutions, with many people who had very different views of music teaching - into our professorship. We have and live a both/and approach: we try to have a clear normative setting: What you have to be able to do at the end, in other words a competence orientation, so to speak. On the other hand, we ask ourselves the following questions: What are points where a great deal of creativity and interplay is possible? What are things that you can do and are "allowed" to develop as an individual, professional quality? One teacher can lead a canon, another has discovered that she can go on listening walks with the children in the forest. And a third may be a pop singer and use her own skills to create songs with the children, incorporating a range of instruments from sound games to boomwhackers and electronics. I am proud that we can offer a wide range of music lessons that are not arbitrary.

Do you follow the development of your alumni, for example, do they become practice teachers?

Jürg Zurmühle: Following is a bit too much to say, but we are in contact with individuals. For example, we asked teachers for our homepage www.musikinderschule.ch if they could try out elements of it and give us feedback. We also maintain relationships with former students in the field through our research projects. Others have completed a CAS at the PH FHNW. We can involve them as experts. Maintaining contacts is less institutionalized and more personal. These contacts are extremely valuable to us.

To come back to your personal musical biography: Where has this influenced what you do? In other words, to what extent have your experiences influenced your work?

Jürg Zurmühle: I also learned to play the shakuhachi, a Japanese bamboo flute, and trained in African drumming - very different situations. When I took up my position as a professor, I started to think about how music teaching actually works. My personal experiences were very different: on the one hand, I had learned to improvise very strictly in prescribed settings, but also in open structures. So I started looking for music education concepts and asked: "Can someone tell me how to do it? What is the right thing to do now?" Thank goodness no one tells you. There are many different ways of teaching music, and for me this was followed by a valuable, intensive exploration of different concepts of music teaching. I had already been fascinated by this during my flute lessons. That's how I came to the conclusion: There is not one concept of how music lessons should and must go, there are many. That was a decisive moment for me biographically. Today I am at a point where I can present and understand these concepts in a broader context.

Jürg Zurmühle: I understand the concern, but I am skeptical about teaching aids. In most cases, teaching materials are based on some kind of premise, sometimes not even explicitly formulated, as to what is meant by music teaching. This means that there is actually a fixed orientation in the teaching material according to a concept, an idea of music or a method. That's why I would feel restricted by an official Swiss teaching aid. Another thing is to ask yourself what teaching materials mean today. These could be designed more openly and always be thought of in terms of development. For example, as a platform where very different forms of teaching are offered and also discussed, a dynamic teaching aid, so to speak. But I have my reservations about a teaching aid in the sense of a normative setting. This is sometimes a wish of students, but I personally don't think it is adequate to the state of knowledge and the heterogeneity of children, music, methods, goals and paths.

This brings us back to the area of education policy: a definition of high-quality teaching is still pending in order to give the federal government the means to check what it should be. Would you find it inappropriate to define this in the same way as for teaching materials? Don't we need guidance here too?

Jürg Zurmühle: Yes, but that is different from definitions. It's about a common course. The association or the Executive Board, for example, has been involved with the "Further development of the baccalaureate" and have also taken a critical stance on it. That is enormously important. However, it is difficult to get to the heart of the concept of "high-quality music teaching". At the moment, I don't feel comfortable with such a definition. I think the discussions and searches need to take place on a different level: High-quality music teaching is a dynamic process. This "definition" is not fixed once and for all, but is something that can be discussed and reflected upon again and again.

So would this dynamic be part of the definition?

Jürg Zurmühle: Yes, exactly.