Preparing teachers for the 21st century. (Certification News).

Editor's Note: Some twelve years have now passed since E.L. Lancaster's article, "Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century," appeared in the February 1990 issue of Clavier. A reprint of the article here seems as appropriate and relevant today as when it was first published. For, here we are now, three years into the twenty-first century, and the professional issues E.L. confronted in this article are still being addressed today.

The 20th century has witnessed a number of positive changes in the independent music teaching profession. Even the term independent music teacher represents a step forward; unlike the mis-used term private teacher, it reflects that teaching now incorporates many educational approaches beyond the traditional private lessons. Other developments include the creation of the Independent Music Teachers Forum by the Music Teachers National Association; articles in professional journals addressing the problems of independent music teachers; the K.T.V. video conference, sponsored by Baldwin Piano and Organ Company and Clavier; and new degree programs in pedagogy at many colleges.

As we move toward the 21st century, our goal should be to make independent music teaching a true profession. This will challenge those currently in the field and those training future teachers. The following proposals may sound radical, if not impossible to achieve, and may provoke resistance or even anger. My hope is that they will stimulate discussion and action among members of the profession.

It should be against the law to teach piano without a license. For years we have wondered what to do about the unqualified piano teacher. Certification programs, workshops for teachers, and pedagogy courses have attempted to upgrade the quality of teaching. Although they have served a useful purpose, these programs are purely voluntary.

I propose to bar those without proper education from teaching. Such a policy is standard in many other professions: public schools have done it for years, and doctors and lawyers require certification. This raises the question of who certifies the teachers, the federal government or the state. Getting the necessary legislation passed would require hiring lobbyists and raising money to pay them, a process that could damage the image of the independent teaching profession.

We need a national marketing campaign to educate the public on the importance of a good music education. Research by Benjamin Bloom at the University of Chicago has shown that the first teacher sets the tone for a student's attitude toward music for an entire lifetime, yet too many parents still choose the teacher who is cheaper or most convenient. Certification or licensing of teachers will help, but raising public awareness will require an expensive national marketing campaign, one as memorable as Brooke Shields wearing Calvin Klein jeans or Wendy's asking, "Where's the beef?" Many prominent music teachers are qualified to lead such a campaign in conjunction with a marketing firm, but choosing the leader and funding the campaign present major challenges.

We should educate prospective teachers about the financial rewards of independent music teaching. The Chronicle for Higher Education gives the average salaries of college teachers, and other sources list average salaries in the medical, legal, and business professions; yet statistics on piano teaching income are hard to obtain. Our professional organizations should conduct an ongoing scientific study to compile statistics on what a piano teacher can expect to make per year for a given amount of teaching per week in a specific area of the country.

We should do more than just tell students they aren't going to get rich teaching piano; we should be able to tell them exactly how much money they can make for a given amount of work. Although we may fear they'll react by choosing a different profession, committed students will pursue teaching regardless of the financial rewards.

Music education should turn its attention to music study for the masses. Most piano curriculums are oriented toward training students to become professional pianists. We need separate curriculums for the amateur and the professional; a track for amateur instruction should begin as early as the junior high level and continue through college into the adult years. Such a track would help cut down the large dropout rate among piano students. Our best teachers should be willing to instruct those who are interested in music as an avocation as well as those pursuing it as a vocation.

Colleges should restructure curriculums to provide in-depth training and practice teaching with a variety of age levels. Ideally the bachelor's degree should focus on learning about music and how to play the instrument, the master's degree should provide intensive teacher training, and the doctoral degrees should focus on research and creative activity. Realistically, however, many independent teachers do not go beyond the bachelor's degree, and colleges are responsible for giving them as much teacher training as possible. Perhaps undergraduate pedagogy programs could be expanded to five years, as several schools have done with their education programs for public school teachers. If we achieve the goals of licensing teachers and educating the public, the resulting increase in teachers' income would compensate for the additional education.

We should embrace technology as part of the future of keyboard education. In an article in the March 1989 issue of Music Educator's Journal, Bennett Reimer declared that the technological revolution in music will go on with or without us. Using computers is only the beginning; MIDI, electronic keyboards, digital pianos, synthesizers, sequencers, and drum machines already directly affect the independent music teaching profession. Yet fear of the unknown makes it difficult for many to face this issue.

Professional teachers cannot afford to turn their backs on new technology; if we do, less qualified teachers will again take up the slack. Colleges should develop courses to prepare future teachers to in corporate this technology into their curriculums, and current teachers will need additional education.

Those who insist that technology will not replace the acoustic piano are hindering our progress; that issue has little relevance to the survival of music. After all, music survived the decline of the harpsichord, and it will survive even if the acoustic piano suffers the same fate. The important thing is that we grow as people and as musicians.

When Time magazine addresses a subject we know it has arrived. An article entitled "Keys to the Kingdom" in its March 6, 1989 issue discussed the electronic phenomenon. It quoted an 11-year-old who summed up the difference between the piano and synthesizer by saying, "The piano is the more beautiful instrument, but the keyboard is the more interesting one." Our challenge as teachers is to interest students so they can appreciate beauty; if technology can help us do this, we should be grateful.

Facing these issues will require a united profession willing to deal with difficult questions. We will need to propose legislation, initiate research, raise money, launch marketing campaigns, redefine curriculums, and keep up with technology. If we meet these challenges head-on, independent music teaching in the 21st century will be an aesthetically and financially rewarding career.

[c] 1990 The Instrumentalist Co., reprinted with permission. Subscribe to Clavier for ten issues yearly at $17 ($25 for delivery outside the U.S.) by writing to 200 Northfield Rd., Northfield, IL; telephone [phone], fax: [phone].

E. L. Lancaster is vice president and keyboard editor-in-chief of Alfred Publishing. He was professor of music at the University of Oklahoma, Norman, where he taught courses in piano pedagogy and coordinated the group piano program. In addition, from 1981 to 1996, he and his wife, Gayle Kowalchyk, operated a large independent piano studio in Norman, Oklahoma.