The time is right: a syllabus assessment program for the U.S.

Traveling is a funny thing. You think the excitement of the journey and the romance of the new will stick in your memory. They do. But what you really learn about is yourself.

My piano teaching shoes have taken me all over the world. I've found the challenges and joys of instruction are a lot the same wherever you go. Adorable little children in Lima, Peru, forget the titles of their recital pieces. Piano students in Winchester, England, play Alberti bass figures too loud. Young Hong Kong-ese pianists pound when they play big chords. And everywhere, in every living room from Tierra del Fuego to the Beaufort Sea, students practice too fast. "I have to hurry to get finished," one little boy in Santiago, de Chile, told me in Spanish. "My favorite TV show comes on at 4:00 P.M."

Human nature springs eternal and so do the problems of piano playing. Solutions, though, vary from culture to culture. There are as many directions in mode of instruction, repertoire choice, practice techniques and teacher-student relations as there are students and teachers. Each knows what they know. But there are some key differences in how they put that knowledge into practice. You might put it another way: the culturally based expectations students, parents and teachers bring to lessons are not the same in Taipei as they are in Tunbridge Wells. They are not even the same in Toledo and Toronto.

I've steered myself along many paths, across our great country and around the world. I've listened to many students. I've seen a lot of teaching. And I have come to the conclusion that countries that offer a high-quality nationwide curriculum and assessment program encourage a consistently superior level of musical accomplishment compared to those that do not. Sadly, the United States is in the latter group. There is no nationwide syllabus examination system here. I think that should change.

My first thoughts about exams came years ago, before I had been invited to teach anywhere outside the four walls of my own studio. I noticed my students worked hard to get a high score on national tests: SATs, AP tests, International Baccalaureate exams--all were the cause of intense study and preparation, usually to the detriment of piano practice. Why, I wondered, don't we have equivalent exams for students of independent music teachers--a fair, rigorous and objective measure of each student's progress, a test nationally respected and acknowledged as equal in importance to academic testing?

The answer is: many countries do. Australia has an excellent national evaluation program. Canada has two. England has four. All are valued components of a comprehensive, nationwide education that includes thorough preparation in practical music making--in cities, on farms, in all parts of the country, rich and poor. In these countries it's not the case that some states have fine programs, while others offer little. In Canada, a student may receive academic credit for her private music study; her parents can deduct the examination fee from their tax bills as an educational expense. Do you want to become a trumpet major at a Canadian university or school of music? You'll have to be a pretty good pianist, Grade 6 or better, in the Royal Conservatory of Music Examinations system. Which means you also will have studied music theory, ear training (sight singing, pitch recall and rhythm recognition) and sight reading. Canadian schools won't even consider you for admission if you don't already have these accomplishments, no matter what your instrument.

An impossible standard for American teachers and music students? Not at all. But we're going to have to pull up our shirt sleeves and start working together. Here are some issues I think should be addressed.

Establishing a fair, but challenging, standard. I was speaking with a respected colleague in another state. We were discussing this issue, and she simply wasn't interested. "You know, my students have enough to do. I don't think we really need another activity. Right now, we're getting ready for our Awards Carnival." I wasn't deterred. What do students have to do to win their awards? Silence. "Well, actually ... everyone gets an award. The student just has to show up and play."

I am a firm believer that there is a place for programs like the one she describes. Younger or less-motivated students sometimes need an event in which, basically, everyone wins. But it is not the same as having a national standard. An assessment program that wins the support of American families must recognize effort and achievement. Students who accomplish more should get a higher score; those who do less must be given the tools to improve. Should everyone pass? Not if we want music study to be a respected, educationally valid part of every student's life study.

Developing a curriculum that trains students for a lifetime of music making. Most of us agree on the broad outline of skills students need to succeed in music. They need to develop their listening, and they should be able to count and read the written score. Music making requires a pain-free, efficient technique. It demands learning and practice skills and the ability to sight read; also the knowledge of theory, harmony and history.

How can we help our students learn all of this? I believe one of the strongest factors in building a nation of well-trained music makers is the presence of a curriculum that offers resources for teaching these proficiencies, along with a meaningful third-party assessment tool to measure accomplishment. The curriculum syllabus should be comprehensive and the examination rigorous. A list of recommended pieces students may or may not perform isn't the same as a syllabus; requiring several scales but permitting the student to choose which one she plays is not an adequate measure of technique.

I often am asked, "If we have a national test, won't teachers simply teach the test?" My answer is always the same: "Some weaker teachers probably will, and it may be a good thing." I've given pedagogy workshops in thirty-two states and met many fine teachers. I've met very few who don't care about their students, who aren't doing their best to help everyone develop a love of music and the ability to share the joy of music making.

There are many, though, who don't have the training and teaching competencies necessary to teach everything on our skills outline. A syllabus curriculum for them will be a service. It provides a framework for teaching, offering teachers reasonable goals and the tools to attain them. More experienced teachers will use the national test as one device among many to inspire and motivate their students. For both groups, the test simply is a snapshot. It gives you a glimpse of how your student is doing on the day of the exam and allows you to measure his accomplishment against the national norm. Is this important? Yes, if we want music study to be a respected, educationally valid part of every student's life study.

Choosing well-qualified adjudicators and working with them to ensure a uniform criterion of judging. A meaningful national program will ensure that a student in Sequim, Washington, (where I spent much of my childhood working on my grandfather's dairy farm) will receive the same quality exam as a student at Lincoln Center. The scores will be equivalent, so both young musicians can compare their scores against a national norm, in all categories of the examination. This simply isn't possible without a painstaking selection and training process for judges.

The first step is selecting qualified individuals--those with a fine musical background, teaching experience and rapport with young people. The process then must expand to include training about all aspects of the examination. How does one score a student, for instance, whose rhythm is accurate while sight reading but who misses a lot of notes compared with another who plays the same example with great verve and imagination, but no beat? These concerns should be addressed, in advance, by all judges.

How do you train judges in your state? I asked a different colleague, whose home state has one of the better state assessment programs for piano. "They watch a video at our annual convention," she answered. Any further training? "Not really. But we are very responsive to complaints." Is watching a video or attending a session at convention enough to qualify one to be a judge? Not if we want music study to be a respected, educationally valid part of every student's life study.

Agreeing to act together to set standards for the kind of teaching we do and to educate the public about them. Have you heard of the National Standards for Arts Education? All of us should have. Here's how they are described on the Kennedy Center website: http://artsedge.kennedy-center.org/ professional_resources/standards.

   "Developed by the
   Consortium of National Arts
   Education Associations (under
   the guidance of the National
   Committee for Standards in the
   Arts), the National Standards for
   Arts Education is a document
   which outlines basic arts learning
   outcomes integral to the comprehensive
   K-12 education of every
   American student. The
   Consortium published the
   National Standards in 1994
   through a grant administered by
   MENC, the National
   Association for Music
   Education."

Hmm, don't see professional studio teachers listed there. Let's check the "Coordinating Council": American Alliance for Theater & Education, National Art Education Association, Music Educators National Conference and National Dance Association. Where are we listed? We'd better go down to the next category. Check out the "Music Task Force," the group that actually wrote the curriculum. No independent music teachers appear there. Keep scrolling! The "National Committee for Standards in the Arts" includes school principals, representatives from our fine university music programs, officials from the Getty Center ... but no private music teachers. "Endorsers"--we've gotta be listed in that category! Nope. But there's one more group, last on the list: "Supporters." You can rest easy, fellow music teacher. Our professional organization, Music Teachers National Association, can he found therein. We're after the Dance Notation Bureau but before the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

As tray preteen nephew would say, "What's wrong with this picture?" Why aren't we taking part in the national dialogue about what is essential to every child's music education? Who better than us to set the norms for the teaching of the great tradition of piano, winds, voice and string teaching that we represent? Who knows more than us about how to reach students of all ages?

Should we let other authorities set the standard for the kind of teaching in which we are experts? Not if we want music study to be a respected, educationally valid part of every student's life study.

Working to challenge our students to reach a high standard, the very best of which each is capable. "I don't think our state is the best one to start such a program in," a dear friend and honored collaborator from the South told me. "We don't have that many elite students." But that's just the point. An educationally valid, universally recognized assessment program should be for all students who are working hard at their instruments. Not just the super talented, who are hoping for a career in music or planning to use their music study as a passport into a fine university.

Let me run some numbers for you. The biggest state assessment program, by far (The next closest state program has about 11,000 students.), is in my home state of California. It's a program of the Music Teachers Association of California called Certificate of Merit. There are some really excellent things about its content, and we Californians are very proud of it. Students and families support it too--last year's enrollment topped 28,000 active participants. In some ways, of course, it's not surprising that California has the largest syllabus program. It's the largest state, topping 35 million residents at last count.

A good comparison, population-wise, with California is the country of Canada. Although vast in area, in inhabitants, Canada numbers slightly less than California with about 31 million people. So, naturally, we would expect their national curriculum and assessment program, called the Royal Conservatory of Music Examinations, would be roughly comparable in numbers. Maybe slightly less. Do you want to take a guess? You'll probably be wrong. The RCME program enrolls 115,000 students every year. The Australian Music Examinations Board, to offer another comparison, offers more than 100,000 examinations annually, in a country of a little more than 20 million people.

Are Australian and Canadian music students simply more talented than Americans? My own mother, an inveterate traveler who has steered her shoes to both countries, thinks so. "I suppose they like music more," she told me. I would argue the opposite. The fact that both countries have a national curriculum program that serves all students with a fair, but challenging assessment, encourages more students to study. They study longer. And they reach a higher level of musical accomplishment. A study in Canada demonstrated that students who participate in the Royal Conservatory Examinations study, on average, almost two years longer than the normal student.

In an educational world where students are tested often, in all subjects, can professional studio teachers afford not to challenge their students to participate in a comparable exam in our own area? Not if we want music study to be a respected, educationally valid part of every student's life study.

Accepting the fact that professional programs require a professional fee. I have a brain in my head, but I didn't always use it. When I started my career, I actually felt guilty talking about money--even though I earn my living through my teaching.

You see, I really love music, and I love kids and want to help them. So I felt, somehow, that I really shouldn't be charging for something I enjoyed so much, even though I spent many thousands of hours and hard-earned dollars in the pursuit of my own education. I was embarrassed to charge students a decent fee, even those who could well afford it. I have discovered since that many music teachers share what I felt back then. They don't charge enough, and their perceptions of what families can, and are, willing to pay are not accurate.

I recently gave a talk about the importance of a national assessment program to a piano teachers' group in a lovely small town, the home of one of America's finest state universities. The town is located in one of our country's poorest regions. I knew, in advance, that fees were going to be an issue. "There is a lot of poverty here," one teacher told me. "We can't afford it." So I asked another local teacher to do some checking for me. I asked, "What other extra-curricular activities do your students participate in besides piano?" "Tae kwon do is popular with many," she said. OK, let's check the expenses for tae kwon do examinations. The results were revealing. She called the local community center, a lower-cost alternative to privately owned tae kwon do centers, and found that tae kwon do students can choose to be examined four times a year. The charge was $25 per exam, plus a $25 membership in the national organization. In addition, a membership in the community center itself was required--$125-plus per year for tae kwon do exams in a less-affluent community. I was amazed, so I called the community center myself when I got to town. How many students take the exams, I asked? Practically everyone, the receptionist told me. "It's the expected goal."

Can we ask students to pay comparable fees to those they are paying for other activities? We have to if we want music study to be a respected, educationally valid part of every student's life study.

Participating in a program that is user friendly and does not make unreasonable demands on participants and organizers. We are experiencing a time crisis in our society. One survey found that people spend, on average, about 20 percent more time working than they did as recently as 1980. With an equivalent rise in single-parent families, or families in which both parents work, people have less time to spend on non-income producing activities and are more choosy about events in which to participate.

There has been a change of attitude, too. Most surveys show that the post-baby boom generations do not have the same belief in service and volunteerism earlier groups did. They are not willing to donate their time and money without a clear personal connection and a sense that effort spent will generate a worthwhile return. This has led to a predicament familiar to most MTNA leaders. It's getting hard to find younger teachers willing to step into the leadership roles in all levels of our organization.

It's my view that bemoaning the situation is a waste of time. Instead, I believe we must ask ourselves: what are we offering prospective applicants that will encourage them to join and participate? Are our programs easy to use? Do they reflect positively on our sense of professionalism? Do they enhance the lives and improve the careers of those who become involved? Do they require little busy work? If the answer to any of these questions is "No," it's time to take a hard look at the way things have always been done.

Should we demand that our programs be user friendly and time efficient? Yes, if we want music study to be a respected, educationally valid part of every student's life study.

Examinations help everyone. "When you have something to work for, you work a lot harder," said a piano student. "You make a commitment to yourself. You practice because you have set an objective."

During the coming months, AMT will present visionary articles from leaders on the future of the arts and music. It is our hope that you find these articles intriguing, thought provoking and challenging. Your responses, endorsements, disagreements and other comments are solicited.

Selections from reader's responses will be included in a future issue of AMT. Share YOUR vision for the future through AMT! Send an e-mail response to [e-mail].

Scott McBride Smith, NCTM, is president of the International Institute for Young Musicians and the Royal American Conservatory Examinations. He is co-author of The Well-Tempered Keyboard Teacher and associate editor of Keyboard Companion. A former member of the MTNA Board of Directors, he has given workshops throughout the world.