ABSTRACT Dissertation Title:CHARLES FOWLER AND HIS VISION FOR MUSIC EDUCATION: AN INTRODUCTION AND SELECTED WRITINGS FROM 1964 TO 1989 Craig Michael Resta, Doctor of Philosophy, 2008 Directed By:Professor Marie McCarthy School of Music Charles Fowler, eminent advocate for arts education, devoted his career to the idea that music was critical to the development of young people and could positively impact schooling and society. During his 45-year career, he served in many roles: as teacher, supervisor, professor, scholar, author, editor, consultant, and advocate. Although his contributions are prolific, this research represents the first full-scale study that considers his work as an entire body. The purpose of this dissertation is to introduce Fowler as a significant figure in the field of music education, codify the major periods of his career, identify important writings, contextualize them within their times, and review them according to his vision for music education. Utilizing historical method and content analysis, several thousand documents were examined from the Charles Fowler Papers archived at the University of Maryland, College Park. Following an introduction to Fowler and his work, four periods of his career are presented, with the two middle periods, 1964 to 1973 and 1974 to 1989 serving as the focus of the study. Selected works were chosen based on their relevance to important events in Fowler?s life and their relationship to his philosophy and viewpoint. The works were analyzed and contextualized by using primary source documents, foundational texts in music education, Fowler?s own commentary, and interviews with established scholars and colleagues who knew him and respected his work. Finally, these writings traced the development of Fowler?s vision which advocated music education can serve as an agent of social change. Findings reveal that Fowler?s initial vision was based on the seven reconstructionist objectives he outlined in his 1964 dissertation. Based on these objectives, fifteen broad themes emerged in his writings during the period of 1964 to 1989. The themes elaborate on Fowler?s vision for music education and its value to society, and relate to core concepts of reform, democracy, creativity, advocacy, and social change. It is hoped that this study will serve as a catalyst to encourage others to continue research into the life and career of Charles Fowler, along with further writing about reform and pragmatic change within the music education profession. CHARLES FOWLER AND HIS VISION FOR MUSIC EDUCATION: AN INTRODUCTION AND SELECTED WRITINGS FROM 1964 TO 1989 By Craig Michael Resta Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2008 Advisory Committee: Professor Marie McCarthy, Chair Professor Gerald Fischbach Professor Janet Montgomery Professor Carol Parham Professor Steven Selden ? Copyright by Craig Michael Resta 2008 ii Dedication To Charles Fowler. And?to all the people he tried to reach who just didn?t get it: read up and start paying attention. Photo and quote from the Charles B. Fowler Papers, Special Collections in the Performing Arts, University of Maryland, College Park. ?I was not satisfied as a teacher with merely passing on the culture. I wanted a role in creating it. The classroom is not just a place for learning about yesterday, but a laboratory for inventing tomorrow.? iii Acknowledgements This dissertation represents a long journey of reflection and learning. As with any educational endeavor, the task could not have been completed alone. I suspect there are many individuals who I will leave out in my expression of gratitude to those who helped me along the way, but my ongoing appreciation of your contributions is no less sincere. Further, while my counsel has been excellent and experienced, I take responsibility alone for any of my remaining errors or omissions that might still be present. Many thanks to the curators and staff of the Special Collections in the Performing Arts at the University of Maryland?Bonnie Jo Dopp, Vin Novara, and others?who helped with the collection and duplication of the thousands of pages of documents I reviewed and took away for further reading. These include my graduate colleagues Kerri Barone and Justin Indovina, who spent many hours at the copy machine calmly smiling through my worried and perhaps too-specific organizational requests. To my friend Dawn Farmer, who kept the music education division afloat until I completed my degree. In regard to other technical matters, I recognize and thank Phil Kancianic for his editorial acumen and moral support?you always cleaned up when I was in trouble. Jay White helped with specific and important editorial changes and formatting, and Becky Mercado completed final edits, including several therapy sessions at no extra charge. Many important women have ushered me through the administrative requirements of this program, and I would not have completed my doctoral work without them. In the School of Music, these are Jeannette Oliver, Paulette Godin, Iris Day, Debbie Kuckuda, iv and Virginia Wyant. In the College of Education, these are Joy Jones and Patti Dowdell. I cannot express my appreciation enough for your patient assistance these past few years. Bruce Wilson must be acknowledged, not only for his expert advice, interview participation, and strong support of this project, but for bringing Charles Fowler to the University of Maryland in the first place. Many thanks to the seven other interview participants, as well, without whom I would not have as much rich and experienced knowledge of Charles and his contributions. These are Kathryn Martin, Philip Moeller, Tim Gerber, Vince Lawrence, Elliot Eisner, David O?Fallon, and Barbara Reeder- Lundquist. You are respected scholars all, and it was indeed an honor to be the recipient of your time, intellect, and expertise. To my other academic peers who helped me through the murky aspects of dissertation research and writing that are not part of any graduate handbook or orientation into doctoral student life. To my doctoral cohort?Michael Tallon, Catherine Hawkes, Adria Hoffman, Randy Rumpf, Phil Kancianic, Margo Hall, Regina Carlow, and others?I am fortunate to have such brilliant and dedicated teachers and scholars as my friends and future professional colleagues. To Marybeth Gasman for her patience as I asked questions, too many questions, who always responded with intelligence and humor, and helped me to see that hard work really can still land you a great gig, even in this day and age. I will always hold fond memories of Roberta Lamb and Martina Miranda during the Summer of 2006 in the SCPA Archives, finally having friendly faces who delighted as much as me in the finding of a rare treasure of music education history. And to Richard TangYuk and Paul Meers, v always engaging in spirited and meaningful debate about the role of music and pedagogy within the academy and greater society. To my music teaching colleague Art McGaw, who embodies the philosophy of a true musician and pedagogue. Art is a teacher devoted to his students, always working harder than required, and for many hours beyond the school day to bring music to the students of his district and community. From him, I have learned a great deal about teaching music, its purpose for children, and the value of keeping a sense of humor about it all. Our many years in the classroom will remain an important memory of my career. To Art, and the thousands of other practitioners working in the field every day, you and the students are an important reason that Fowler?s work, and a dissertation such as this study, has been undertaken. I wish to express my admiration for the faculty in the Music Education Division and College of Education at the University of Maryland for the opportunities they provided and for the benefit of their experience and teaching. These also include Bret Smith and Kaye Ferguson, now off to other adventures away from College Park. I further wish to thank my committee members, past and present, for their time and willingness to serve. These professors are Marie McCarthy, Roger Folstrom, Marvin Lynn, Carol Parham, Steve Selden, Janet Montgomery, and Jerry Fischbach. Your support as I met my research obligations from multiple locations, over many months, is appreciated. Further, to my sister in the academy, Regina Carlow. Regina, you have advised me through many anxieties, research questions, and counseling sessions with an insider?s knowledge of doctoral student life and an outsider?s understanding of the end result. I hope our professional and personal relationship will continue for many years to come. vi To Dr. Marie McCarthy (who I will perhaps call Marie soon, but am not quite there yet) who has been my most important advisor during this journey. There is no doubt in my mind that I would not be at the point of typing these final words were it not for your rock-solid mentorship these past five years. I hope you know, despite my imperfections, how blessed I am to count you as mentor and friend. From you I have learned the true joy in research and writing, which includes the pain of editing, the pleasure of success through hard work, and the dedication of a true teacher who has never wavered in her belief that I might actually be a scholar one day. Finally, my family has been a resolute grounding all of my life. My time as a stressed and over-worked doctoral student has not diminished their constant love of me and support for my work. To Mom, David, Pop, Frank, and the rest: my heartfelt thanks. To my partner in life, Jay White?there you are, always around, patient and calm, seeing the big picture, hanging in, putting up with it all. I suspect my contributions to the partnership are not equal, but if you stick around, I will keep trying to reach parity one of these days. vii Contents Dedication............................................................ii Acknowledgements....................................................iii Contents............................................................vii Chapter One: An Introduction to Charles Fowler and His Times...................1 Introduction.....................................................1 A Personal Interest..........................................3 A Biographical Sketch.......................................4 Description of the Problem.........................................9 Significance and Purpose of the Study................................11 Research Questions..............................................13 Scope and Context of the Study.....................................16 Definitions...............................................17 Assumptions..............................................19 Outline of the Narrative...........................................21 Summary......................................................21 Chapter One Notes...............................................23 Chapter Two: Charles Fowler in Historical and Theoretical Context...............27 Introduction to Related Literature...................................27 Theoretical Foundations of Fowler?s Thinking..........................28 Theodore Brameld and Reconstructionist Philosophy.....................29 Brameld and His Influences on Charles Fowler...................32 Fowler?s Dissertation and Its Philosophical Connections............33 Fowler?s Dissertation and Its Objectives..............................34 Charles Fowler and Music Education Foundations.......................47 Connections with Music Education History......................48 Connections with Music Education Philosophy...................50 Connections with Music Education Sociology....................52 The Four Periods of Charles Fowler?s Career...........................58 The Four Periods: An Introduction.............................59 The First Period: Roots of a Philosophy.........................60 The Second Period: Making a Statement........................61 The Third Period: Reaching a Wider Audience....................64 The Fourth Period: Bringing it All Together......................65 Summary......................................................67 Chapter Two Notes..............................................68 viii Chapter Three: A Discussion of Methodology and Analysis.....................76 Introduction to Research Methods...................................76 The Charles Fowler Papers...................................76 Historical Method and Document Analysis............................77 Establishing Methodological Precedent.........................81 Analyzing the Documents of Charles Fowler.....................84 Sources and Validity.......................................86 Connecting Research Questions and Methodology.................89 Coding, Evidence, and Thematic Categories......................93 Summary......................................................94 Chapter Three Notes.............................................96 Chapter Four: Making a Statement, 1964 to 1973.............................99 A Brief Introduction to Fowler?s Writings.............................99 Placing the Works in Context......................................100 Editorial Work for the Music Educators Journal, 1964 to 1971............110 Other Contributions to the Music Educators Journal, 1964 to 1971.........121 Additional Writings and Publications, 1964 to 1973.....................127 Emerging Themes and Ideas......................................132 Connections with the Objectives..............................137 Concluding Thoughts............................................138 Chapter Four Notes.............................................140 Chapter Five: Reaching a Wider Audience, 1974 to 1982......................148 A Brief Introduction to the Writings.................................148 Placing the Works in Context......................................148 The Initial Years with Musical America..............................150 Articles Published in Musical America, 1974 to 1975...................152 Articles Published in Musical America, 1976 to 1979...................167 Articles Published in Musical America, 1980 to 1982...................176 Additional Writings and Works, 1974 to 1982.........................184 Emerging Themes and Ideas......................................195 Connections with the Objectives..............................199 Concluding Thoughts............................................201 Chapter Five Notes.............................................203 ix Chapter Six: The Later Works, 1983 to 1989................................213 An Introduction to the Works......................................213 The Final Years with Musical America..............................213 Placing the Works in Context......................................214 Articles Published in Musical America, 1983 to 1985...................220 Articles Published in Musical America, 1986 to 1989...................232 Additional Writings and Works, 1983 to 1989.........................244 Emerging Themes and Ideas......................................260 Connections with the Objectives..............................265 Concluding Thoughts............................................268 Chapter Six Notes..............................................270 Chapter Seven: Conclusions, Implications, and Final Thoughts..................278 Clarifying the Vision............................................278 Research Questions Revisited................................279 Review of the Seven Objectives..............................280 Emergent Themes of the Research............................281 Bringing Connections and Themes Together....................282 Voices of Experience on Fowler and His Work........................287 Relationship to Current Trends and Practices..........................294 General Conclusions of the Study..................................298 Implications for Further Research..................................302 Final Thoughts and Commentary...................................307 Chapter Seven Notes............................................310 Bibliography........................................................313 Primary Sources................................................313 Secondary Sources..............................................333 1 Chapter One: An Introduction to Charles Fowler and His Times Introduction Music education advocacy has become an important tool in the development of quality K-12 music programs in the United States. While many steadfastly support the value of music in public schools, there is still need to maintain a campaign to keep music education strong and dynamic within the curriculum of American education. The benefits to children who participate in music education are addressed and debated on many levels, but the overall power of music to change the lives of children and society in a positive way is often not understood by those outside of the profession. An important figure who articulated the value of music in schooling is the noted arts education advocate Charles Bruner Fowler (1931-1995). The purpose of this dissertation is to introduce and to trace the development of Fowler?s contributions in order to better understand his vision for music education as reflected through selected writings during an important segment of his career, the years 1964 to 1989. Advocacy has become central to music education over the past forty years. 1 When Fowler?s career began in the mid-1950s, music education advocacy was in its infancy. 2 It was not until the mid-1960s that advocacy became a formal part of the Music Educators National Conference (MENC), the professional organization of music educators. 3 Subsequently, Fowler spent thirty years of his career expressing the message that music and arts education were not only vital to the education of children in schools, but also an important component of a civilized society. 4 Why then, is the study of Charles Fowler an important endeavor? Few figures can claim the distinction of working for such a large and varied number of influential organizations that represent culture and the humanities 2 in America and around the world. For example, Fowler worked for the Music Educators National Conference, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Getty Center for Education in the Arts, Walt Disney Productions, Epcot Center, The Kennedy Center, Radio City Music Hall, New York Philharmonic, Metropolitan Opera, National Endowment for the Arts, National Public Radio, and later his own organization, National Cultural Resources. Fowler published over 230 articles, books and other works with publishing houses such as Oxford University Press, Musical America, McGraw-Hill, Hinshaw Music, American Council for the Arts, Music Educators National Conference, Wadsworth Publishing, Macmillan, and others. 5 While Fowler is lesser known today, it is evident from these lists alone that his output was prolific and valuable. Further, determining his contribution to music education in the latter decades of the twentieth century is an important and timely task that is explored in this study. The content of the work is the primary focus, and various levels of analysis focus on the important messages Fowler attempted to convey through his publications and output. While Fowler was mostly known as an advocate for music education and the other arts during his career, it is important to note the philosophical background that instilled his belief that music education could empower children to improve their lives and change the societal conditions around them. Fowler grounded his music education advocacy in a philosophy of reconstructionism, which suggested that education can be a social change agent. Through his advocacy efforts, Fowler wished to create more in- depth cultural awareness, more effective education, appreciation of music for its own sake, aesthetic understandings, and empowerment of self, among others. For Fowler, advocacy was the mechanism by which to promote in society the powerful value of music 3 in education. Therefore, this study highlights that reconstructionist philosophy informed Fowler?s view of music education as a social change agent. This relationship is explored in his writings from his dissertation, completed in August of 1964, to the end of his tenure as Education Editor at Musical America in July of 1989. A Personal Interest My interest in this topic comes from personal experience and knowledge that the role of a music teacher is not only that of an educator who develops musical ability, but also one who advocates for the importance of music and its larger purpose in the education of a child and in the development of a civil society. I have thought for many years that music teachers as a community of educators have a role to articulate the power of their message to anyone who will listen. Most notably, those who most need to hear it are generally those with the authority to influence educational policy and values: superintendents, principals, school board members, other academic teachers, community members, and others. This message was consistently relayed by Fowler throughout his career. Charles Fowler spent a significant portion of his career expressing why the arts are an invaluable asset to society. It seems that many of his core ideas are still not understood and appreciated in the mainstream of American education and society today. This highlights the rationale to undertake a study such as this, in order to clarify and classify his writings and evaluate the way he reframed the purpose of music education. The journey of research into Fowler?s prolific work has informed and changed my view of music in education and the role of the arts in society. While my representation of his 4 unique voice will never match the power of his own writing, I have endeavored to do so throughout my analysis and commentary of his output and vision. Thus, the principal purpose of this study is to examine Charles Fowler?s works and identify themes that illustrate how he advocated for and valued music education. His work echoes other important voices in music education, such as Lowell Mason, Max Kaplan, Bennett Reimer, Charles Leonhard, and others, while reinforcing the main thesis of this study that music education has a larger purpose in schooling and society: as an agent of social change and improvement. A Biographical Sketch In order to better understand the individual who is central to the study?Charles Fowler?a biographical sketch is useful. Based on a thorough search of related literature, limited information has been published about Fowler?s life in biographical form. Two shorts pieces exist: an electronic biography released by Thomson and Gale Publishers, 6 and the finding aid from The Charles Fowler Papers in the Special Collections in the Performing Arts at the University of Maryland. 7 Charles Fowler was born on May 12, 1931, in Peekskill, New York, the son of Charles and Mabel Fowler. He began college in 1948 at The State University of New York (SUNY), Potsdam, and graduated in 1952 with a Bachelor of Science in Music Education. He taught in the public schools of Rochester, New York, from 1952 to 1956, working with K-8 music students. In 1956 he returned to school at Northwestern University, where he earned his Master of Music degree. He then worked as Assistant Professor of Music at Mansfield State College from 1957 to 1962 and at the same time served as Supervisor of Vocal Music to Mansfield Junior and Senior High Schools. 8 5 While his career as a writer, for which he is primarily known, did not begin until the mid- 1960s, one can begin to see some of his thinking in class papers he wrote as a graduate student in the mid-1950s and early-1960s. These included a paper discussing creative approaches to preparing elementary music teachers. 9 Another example was a paper surveying principal philosophical concepts in education and music from the Romans to the Renaissance. 10 In these papers, he began to show an interest in the broader picture of music teaching as it related to education and society in general. In 1962, Fowler moved to Boston and began work toward a Doctor of Musical Arts (D.M.A.) in Music Education at Boston University. 1 His doctoral dissertation, titled ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education,? was completed in 1964 and offered the first full-scale glimpse into his thinking about music education as it related to society. 12 In this nearly 600-page manuscript, Fowler explored the philosophy of reconstructionism as it applied to music education. He argued for greater support and understanding of music education to the greater community and the valuable role music could play in improving society. Once Fowler completed his D.M.A. in Music Education, he took a position for one year at Northern Illinois University at DeKalb where he began to work on publications that represent important early works. A principal article he prepared that year was on the poor quality of elementary and junior high music textbooks commonly used in school music classes. 13 This article, which was quite controversial at the time, launched his publishing career and was influential in earning him the position of editor of the Music Educators Journal (MEJ) at the Music Educators National Conference (MENC). Shortly before publication of the article, Fowler received a letter from Bonnie 6 Kowall, then editor of the MEJ, discussing the comments of the editorial board. In a letter to Kowall, Fowler wrote back that he was pleased with the discussion the article was creating. 14 This seems to indicate that he was not afraid to raise controversial issues if he believed they were important and contributed to the greater good of music education. Although his primary responsibility at MENC from 1965 to 1971 was as editor- in-chief of the Music Educators Journal, he also published several important articles that more clearly demonstrated his interest in what we know today as music education advocacy. They included articles about the discovery method and its relevance to education, 15 another in which he argued that music education was not reacting to current trends of the time and needed to be more relevant in mainstream education, 16 and an article on aesthetic evaluation published in The Journal of Aesthetic Education. 17 The fact that he was now beginning to write about the arts in journals outside of his primary field of music education is very instructive to his viewpoint concerning the importance of the arts in general education and society. Toward the end of his time as editor, he published, ?Facing the Music in Urban Education,? which brought to light the issues facing urban and minority students studying music in the late 1960s. 18 Although many have said that the MEJ enjoyed some of its most productive and intellectually compelling years during Fowler?s tenure, 19 in 1971 he moved on to become an independent consultant. During the years 1971 to 1973, he published two articles related to arts education. One addressed the editor as advocate and the role an editor plays in shaping the viewpoint of publications. Another was an interview he granted for the American Association of University Women (AAUW Journal) about the arts in American schools. 20 He also completed a brochure for the Pennsylvania Department of Education 7 on the arts process in basic education. 21 By this time, his interest in arts education and advocacy had expanded not only to visual artists, musicians and arts teachers, but also to those outside the field?administrators, superintendents, school board and community members, and business people, among others?who were influencing arts policy and thinking in the larger field of general education. As a result of meeting Norman Redmon, then editor of High Fidelity/Musical America (HiFi/MA) in the late 1960s, Fowler considered writing a column for the magazine. This decision illustrates his desire to reach others outside of music education and expand his message to a wider audience. Several years later, in 1974, Fowler began what would become some of his most widely-known work over the next fifteen years, as editor of the ?On Education? column for Musical America. 2 (At this time, Musical America was published inside High Fidelity. Fowler wrote only for Musical America.) In a note he wrote to himself around 1969, he stated that in order to be published in Musical America (MA) he would have to create articles that would interest readers. 23 Even though this would seem to be a given, there had been no articles or columns about education in Musical America before, so he realized that to create a regular segment about music in education, he must understand how to reach this audience. Fowler had determined that the way to a broader understanding and acceptance of the arts in education and general society was to reach audiences outside of arts education. Writing the arts education column for MA contributed to accomplishing this task. During his time at Musical America, he wrote an average of ten articles a year on numerous topics relating to music education, advocacy, and its importance in the schools. He also published other important works during this time, including a follow-up text to 8 the Arts, Education, and Americans Panel funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, titled Coming to Our Senses: The Significance of the Arts for American Education. 24 Fowler?s book, titled Can We Rescue the Arts for America?s Schoolchildren? Coming to Our Senses?10 Years Later, was published in 1988. 25 During the last six years of his life, Fowler completed two capstone works: a general music textbook titled Music! Its Role and Importance in Our Lives, 26 and a detailed volume discussing the role of the arts in American education titled Strong Arts, Strong Schools: The Promising Potential and Shortsighted Disregard of the Arts in American Schooling, which was published posthumously. 27 On June 11, 1995, Charles Fowler died at the age of 64 in Washington, DC, where he had lived for much of his career beginning in the mid-1960s. In addition to Fowler the scholar, writer, and advocate, he played many other roles during his long and productive career. He was an activist, an educator, clinician, presenter, editor, advisor, speaker, and consultant to multiple arts and educational organizations during the period of this study, from 1964 to 1989. Fowler was a broad, intense thinker who relished debate and dialogue about music education and the role of the arts in society. This passion for life, discussion, and substantive change was evident in the way he lived and in what he presented in his writings and other works. Fowler?s love of the arts was paramount to who he was as an individual and how his vision was portrayed to colleagues and others who encountered his work. Barbara Reeder Lundquist said of Fowler, ?He was a person of vast curiosity, of total delight in living, and of great joy and discovery ? and somebody with whom it was just so much fun to be with ? he was amazingly entertaining and was such a sensitive 9 and winsome personality.? 28 Timothy Gerber continued this sentiment by stating that Fowler ?had a remarkable wit and sense of humor. He loved to laugh, and he could find the funny side of so many different things. He really had a perceptive take on life and the unique people that came into his life.? 29 Although the primary focus of this study is his writings, his love of living, joy in his work, and participation in the human experience bear weight when considering his academic and artistic contributions. Description of the Problem Historical research provides unique opportunities to view work of the past and imagine it as a template to solve problems of the future. In looking at past experiences, we can see what did and did not work and cull those ideas into more effective methods for future practice. This now can be applied to music education, as well. In the 1950s and 1960s, those working in music education began to realize that advocating for music in the schools was becoming increasingly necessary. 30 This need for advocacy was also in large measure due to other educational trends, like the increasing emphasis on science and mathematics curricula that resulted, in large part, from political and related events such as the launch of Sputnik in 1957. According to Mark, early advocacy efforts achieved a certain result in the schools and over time were modified according to what was more effective. 31 Fowler was an important advocate in this period and one who recognized the value of reaching audiences through publications based on innovative thinking and actions. The fields of music and arts education have struggled since their beginnings in the 1830s to justify their role in public education. The initial, organized advocacy efforts in the 1950s began to highlight this problem. 32 Charles Fowler was ahead of his time as 10 perhaps the first and most notable full-time advocate for music and arts education in the schools. He devoted much of his career to the idea that music education has an important purpose in general education, in the development of children, and ultimately, in music education as an agent of social change. This study represents a window into the contribution of this important figure. While many of Fowler?s writings and ideas were published during his lifetime, they have not been analyzed or evaluated in any systematic way. In fact, there has been no scholarly investigation into his archival materials, save for the cataloging of his works for the Special Collections in the Performing Arts at the University of Maryland, where his Papers are housed. 3 More importantly, the reconstructionist philosophy that he proposed in his dissertation has not been examined. In his reconstructionist view of music education, Fowler approached education as an agent of social change and explored its exceptional role as a medium for transforming the lives of students and society. At the core of Fowler?s vision was to institute change in schooling with music education as a primary vehicle. He worked to achieve this through teaching, publication, and presentation, as formed through his early experiences as a music educator, writer, and editor. In illuminating Fowler?s work as a music educator and music education advocate, the most important purpose of researching, discovering, and revealing Fowler?s work is the examination of the vast amount of material he published, which promotes the value of arts education in the schools in an eloquent and meaningful way. Fowler brought a singular, unifying voice to his work as he spoke to the value of music education as social change agent. The study of his works provides a unique opportunity to look for patterns 11 that promote the thesis of music education and its social agency and value and to use the findings as a foundation for future advocacy efforts in music education. Fowler believed that music education could change the circumstances of those who encountered it, and he expressed this belief through his prolific writings during the course of his career. Significance and Purpose of the Study The importance of this study is five-fold. First, historical knowledge has value for its own sake. Looking at the life of Charles Fowler and his works that have not been previously analyzed is important because the insights and perspectives not yet revealed can add to our understanding of music education and its history. This is important in itself and in expanding the educational research knowledge base in music education. In pragmatic terms, by looking at past practices, I hope to improve current and future advocacy efforts, better understand how music education can be a change agent, and reframe the purpose of music education from such a perspective. Second, Fowler advocated the unique role of music in general education: to give a voice to those students who are still searching for ways to speak, to allow their voice to be heard, and to allow for their contribution to themselves and others to be appreciated. In essence, he was saying that music education could assist in understanding our own development in the midst of the changing world around us. As Fowler stated: I believe that engagements with the arts can contribute significantly and uniquely to personal development in several essential ways, changing people?s inlook and outlook, thought processes and abilities, and generally making them more capable of coping with the world around them. 34 Third, is the concept of music education as critical connection to living history. Artistic output is a creation that can be a masterpiece from the beginning and remain so even though every other area of life has changed radically around it. Cultural messages 12 created earlier are as alive today as in the past; music is a living snapshot of history that is otherwise gone forever. Fowler seemed to suggest, through his writings, that music education is the mechanism through which this vital link to the historical and enduring power of music can be passed on to future generations through the education of children. Since he is no longer with us to profess his views, this study offers an opportunity to keep his distinct and important voice in the dialogue of arts education. In other words, music education, traditionally seen as merely performance classes in schools, can now be viewed through a new frame that has a more vital purpose: to act as social change agent in improving the conditions of children and the greater society. Fourth, Fowler presented unique viewpoints and ideas, and this research connects us more closely with the important messages he attempted to convey through his writing. This work begins the initial research into the mind of this important figure in music education history. Such work will allow for better understanding of his work as a whole, important selected writings, and a clearer understanding of his unique vision for music education. Few others have devoted their full-time professional careers to advocating for music and the arts in schools as did Fowler. He was unique in this sense, and the current advocacy movement today should be thankful for his placing the value of school music in the center of the debate about reforming schools through better informed teaching and learning. Thus, his work begins here to be situated within the context of contemporary music education and to help in understanding how past practice can influence current teaching and learning. The fifth, final, and most significant purpose is simply to locate Charles Fowler in the larger world of scholarship in music and arts education. His work is compelling and 13 lesser-known to many in the profession who will benefit from his engaging arguments and views. Although his work might be in the background of current scholarship, this by no means indicates that its value is not present and strong. This research is an opportunity to open new doors of inquiry to a younger generation of practitioners and scholars who can utilize Fowler?s progressive ideas as a means toward reform and change within the field. In sum, several outcomes of the study are addressed in the following chapters. Since no one has researched Fowler?s work in a comprehensive way to date, the primary outcome of the study is to introduce Fowler and his important writings to the scholarly literature base and the community of music and arts education. Although Fowler is widely published, his work is lesser-known within the academy and that of the greater music education and arts community. The present study describes and synthesizes Fowler?s work from 1964 until 1989 and suggests how his writings reflect his goals for music education. It further situates the work in a broader context of his life and times during 1964 to 1989 and finally organizes his work and career into discrete units preparing the stage for continued research into Fowler?s output and publications. Research Questions The primary research focus is the identification and analysis of selected publications and works from 1964 through 1989. This time frame has been selected for a number of reasons. Fowler completed his dissertation in 1964, which outlined his vision for music education. Then he moved on to become editor of the MEJ, which represents the first large-scale application of his ideas to an important audience in music education. 14 Lastly, this is the beginning of the second period of his career, which will be discussed in some detail later. The secondary focus is to understand these works in the context of his vision for music education. This vision was outlined through several objectives, which are based on a model of reconstructionist thought that he proposed in his dissertation. These objectives addressed the primary principles, which I suggest guided Fowler throughout his career in his writing, and further output on music education and its value in schooling. The objectives are addressed in detail later in the dissertation. The tertiary focus is to place the works in context of contemporary music education at the time in which they were written. This allows the reader to understand what influences were evident in Fowler?s writings and how they influenced the approach to his craft. A further consideration is how this context impacted the field and how Fowler?s writings may have influenced the environment in which they written. The study ends in 1989, which represents the end of his third period, and is discussed later in detail. This study considers the relationship of selected representative works to Fowler?s vision for music education. Presenting a large ideal such as social change is complex and subjective; whereas, understanding the vision of a man through the prolific and specific words of his writing is a more suitable task to introduce this work to the academy and profession at large. These ideas point to the question of selection of works for analysis in the study. As has been stated, Fowler was a prolific and rich writer, and a review of his entire opus is neither practical nor within the scope of this study. However, since there are major periods of his career, important institutions with whom he worked, and 15 principal publications in the field in which he published, these are the initial guidelines to selecting works for analyis and why some are more relevant than others for this study. Another important outcome is to present the work of Fowler as a whole, so selection of representative works from the time-frame of the study offers a window into his mind and philosophy and provides evidence that these works do convey his vision for music education. Therefore, the research questions are: (1) What works are representative of Charles Fowler?s development as a scholar and arts advocate during 1964 to 1989? (2) How do these representative works reflect his vision for music education? (3) How are these works situated within the context of music education during their time? In addition to introducing the works of Charles Fowler as a body of literature, several major periods of his career are suggested, which may be used as a basis for future study into his contributions to the fields of music and arts education, along with a template for dialogue about reform within these professions. From the analysis of his works, patterns emerge to support the thesis that Charles Fowler?s vision for music education was deeply rooted in the reconconstructionist philosophy for music education that he initially defined in his dissertation, and later reflected in his prolific writings. I further suggest that the analysis of these works will contribute to better understanding their content and the value they hold for music education. Finally, I suggest that these works accurately represent the context of music education during their time and illustrate Fowler?s place and importance in the historical overview of music education during the period of the study. 16 There are, however, limitations to this effort. It is not possible to ask Fowler directly what he was attempting to say; yet we can hope to support assumptions through his many writings and ideas, which represent the primary sources for this study. More importantly, this study represents a first major effort to research his work, and consider, in a systematic and measured way, what Fowler had to say and why his writings are valuable to the field of music education. Scope and Context of the Study This study provides a window into Fowler?s vision for music education through his prolific writings and long career. The vision that he outlined through his dissertation is reflected through his writings over time. Can music education impact society in a positive way and improve the societal and intellectual conditions of those exposed to learning music? This is probable and serves as a basic assumption of this study. In short, music education can create change that is positive and beneficial to the children, schools, and communities that experience it. This is made clear once the writings of Fowler are reviewed, analyzed, and evaluated, and represent his unique voice and philosophy through his own words. The reconstructionist principles he outlined in his dissertation provide a good overview of his works to offer a better appreciation of their place in and value for music education. Charles Fowler said himself, ?We need more and better arts education to produce better- educated human beings, citizens who will value and evolve a worthy American civilization.? 35 In this quotation, Fowler identified a component he considered a clear purpose of music education: to improve the life-experience of those who engage in learning music. 17 It is further important to clarify the lens through which various ideas are viewed. First, I present definitions, followed by assumptions of the study. These are placed within the context of reviewing Fowler?s work through what I identify as his vision for music education. I use his dissertation from 1964 as the initial basis for his rationale and for analyzing important selected works through this lens. 36 Although social change is an overall theme of Fowler?s work through several decades, I do not posit this was his only vision for music education. The seven objectives from his dissertation, 37 discussed in substantial detail later, serve as the basis for his vision, but the following definitions are broad representations of these seven ideas. Music education should be generally understood via its traditional framework to appreciate how Fowler viewed it, with social change agent as one central component. Therefore, an important purpose of the dissertation is to show how Fowler viewed music education according to what I consider his vision for music education through his dissertation and later writings. Another valuable objective is to introduce the work and attempt to understand its value and perhaps inspire more consideration of Fowler?s writings and output while encouraging further scholarship into his philosophy and ideas. Definitions This brief discussion of terms and definitions will guide some understandings and perspectives for the purposes of this research. Most of the ideas clarified here are not outside the norm of traditional definitions. However, three concepts require a brief introduction and definition to clarify how they are viewed for the purposes of this study. These are vision (of music education), reconstructionism, and social change. 18 Vision: Fowler created a vision for music education in his dissertation and developed that vision throughout his career through his writings and other works. How is Fowler?s vision unique, and how should a term such as vision really be interpreted? I do not suggest this can be a clear and obvious definition. Fowler believed that performance should be only one goal of music education, as there is so much more to be experienced through the study of music. He held a broad, nearly utopian view that the study of music could help transform the lives of those who experience it, in whatever form was relevant and purposeful to them. Reconstructionism: Fowler was influenced by the reconstructionist philosophy of Theodore Brameld. 38 Fowler wrote his 1964 dissertation on the topic of reconstructionism, creating ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education.? 39 In the document, he created seven objectives, which outline music as an expansion of human understanding, culture, creativity, and experience. For the purposes of this study, I use the term vision to incorporate Fowler?s beliefs in reconstructionism and the seven objectives for music education that he presented in his dissertation. Social Change: For the purposes of this study, social change is understood as that which improves the conditions for children in the schools and communities in which they live and learn. Rather than representing one idea that can wholly transform society, social change refers to a level of change that improves societal conditions and elevates those who have been effected by an experience, in this case music. In this study, I am working to show that Charles Fowler believed in music education as a social change agent and I depend on his writings to convey the message, in the absence of interviewing him. The sheer volume of his work and many representative samples emphasize the power of 19 music and illustrate that Fowler believed music education could serve as an agent of social change. In uniting these three ideas, the term vision should be considered according to how Fowler viewed music education as a social change agent, as he outlined in the seven objectives of his dissertation. This is the vision that is considered throughout and it clarifies my assertion that Fowler believed in his reconstructionist philosophy of music education throughout his career. Fowler fundamentally believed in a larger than utilitarian view of music that music education served a grander purpose than only teaching children to perform well. Rather, he promoted the notion that experiencing and learning music helped to create value and agency in children, and aided in the improvement of the communities in which children lived. Fowler strongly suggested that music educators needed to open to students the world around them through the creative arts and the opportunities they provided. Assumptions Music education is generally seen as a class or program that occurs either during the school day or before or after school. It is usually designed to teach students how to play an instrument or sing, mostly by group method, and to understand the techniques behind their instruments while striving to create a musical and compelling sound or performance. In many schools, traditional groups include a band, string orchestra, chorus and jazz band, but other ensembles might include full orchestra, wind ensemble, marching band, drum corps, show choirs, chamber music programs, musicals, and others. While most music teachers strive to work on technique as well as performing and other skills, often the main task of preparing students for public performances often 20 outweighs other goals in the busy schedule of public school music programs. In sum, the traditional view looks at music education as teaching students music, vocal or instrumental, to a capacity that allows for public performance to show their skills and abilities. This is one view of many, but helps to clarify the differences between the traditional view and the reframed view suggested by Fowler through his writings. For the purposes of this study, I am asking the reader to embrace the Fowlerian view of music education. The traditional frame represented by the music programs described above includes working with children, teaching them to play or sing, and performing in public settings. I argue that Charles Fowler considered another point of reference that suggested music education could serve other purposes, in this case, as social change agent according to reconstructionist philosophy. Based on review of many citings of the terms reconstructionist and reconstructed written by Brameld and others, it is further assumed that these two terms are one and the same. Reconstructed means a re-organized and newly built approach, and reconstructionist is one who believes in that approach or another way of stating it. This perspective is also reflected in the seven objectives of Fowler?s dissertation, discussed in further detail later. 40 Music education can serve many purposes and help students achieve many goals. In this study, I present Fowler?s innovative view that music education holds the power to transform those who learn and experience music. This could happen in diverse and myriad ways, and certainly a wholesale social reorganization is not possible nor planned. A critical idea, however, is that music can improve the lives of those who experience it, 21 and reconstructionist philosophy suggests positive and constructive objectives and outcomes. It is further assumed that while I am working to show that Charles Fowler believed in the transformative power of music education, his writings convey the message in the absence of interviewing him. Fowler?s view of reconstructionist music education is illustrated through the large volume and diverse nature of his work, which emphasized the power and purpose of music in general education. Outline of the Narrative The organization of chapters is structured chronologically moving from 1964 until 1989. Chapter One serves as the introduction, Chapter Two provides an overview of related literature, and Chapter Three describes the methodology. Chapter Four includes an analysis of the second period, or the years 1964 to 1973. Chapter Five addresses a portion of the third period, from the years 1974 to 1982, and Chapter Six covers the remainder, 1983 to 1989. These divisions allow for more compact reading as the amount of material to be reviewed is vast, even with the selection process focusing on the most central works of each time frame. Chapter Seven synthesizes and evaluates themes, offers assertions and conclusions of the study, and provides recommendations for further investigation and research. Summary In this chapter, I introduced the study as an analysis of the writings of Charles Fowler with the goal of deepening the understanding of his vision for music education. To help clarify the main purpose, a biographical sketch was included prior to a statement of the problem and the research questions. The significance and purpose of the 22 dissertation were followed by scope and context, which are both grounded in the definitions and assumptions of the study. With these areas in mind, this first chapter establishes Fowler?s career in music education along with the importance of inquiry into his professional contributions. Chapter Two places Fowler in historical and theoretical context, while Chapter Three presents the methodology of the study. 23 Chapter One Notes 1 Michael L. Mark, ?A History of Music Education Advocacy,? Music Educators Journal 89 (January 2002): 44-48. 2 Michael L. Mark, ?A History of Music Education Advocacy,? Music Educators Journal 89 (January 2002): 44-48; Craig Resta, ?Arts Advocacy at Its Infancy: The Early Writings of Charles Fowler,? (Unpublished manuscript, 2003). 3 Edward Hermann, The Music Teacher and Public Relations, Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference, 1958; Joan Gaines, Approaches to Public Relations for the Music Educator (Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference, 1968); Michael L. Mark, ?A History of Music Education Advocacy,? Music Educators Journal 89 (January 2002): 44-48. 4 Charles Fowler, Strong Arts, Strong Schools: The Promising Potential and Shortsighted Disregard of the Arts in American Schooling (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996); Charles Fowler, Can We Rescue the Arts for America?s Children? Coming to Our Senses ? 10 Years Later (New York: American Council for the Arts, 1988); Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964). 5 Gale Reference Team, ?Charles Bruner Fowler,? Contemporary Authors Online (Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson and Gale, 2004). 6 Ibid. 7 Lynn Jacobsen and Bonnie Jo Dopp, Charles Fowler Papers Finding Aid, (University of Maryland Libraries, 1999). The Finding Aid is an index of the contents found in an individual historical archive or special library collection. It generally includes scope and content, series descriptions, topical contents, a chronology, and a detailed listing of the specific documents housed within the collection of archival materials. In this case, there is also a brief biography of Charles Fowler, along with the index and list of holdings. This particular document was prepared well and aided by the fact that Fowler himself was involved in the donation of his materials to the University of Maryland Special Collections in the Performing Arts. 8 Lynn Jacobsen and Bonnie Jo Dopp, Charles Fowler Papers Finding Aid, (University of Maryland Libraries, 1999); Gale Reference Team, ?Charles Bruner Fowler,? Contemporary Authors Online (Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson and Gale, 2001). 9 Charles Fowler, ?Some Creative Approaches to the Musical Training of the Prospective Elementary Teacher: A Practical Guide,? (Unpublished manuscript, 1961). 24 10 Charles Fowler, ?Survey of the Main Philosophical Concepts in Education and Music from the Romans Through the Renaissance,? (Class Paper from Boston University. 1962). 1 Lynn Jacobsen and Bonnie Jo Dopp, Charles Fowler Papers Finding Aid, (University of Maryland Libraries, 1999); Gale Reference Team, ?Charles Bruner Fowler,? Contemporary Authors Online (Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson and Gale, 2001). 12 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964). 13 Charles Fowler, ?The Misrepresentation of Music: A View of Elementary and Junior High School Music Materials,? Music Educators Journal 51 (May 1965): 38-42. 14 Charles Fowler to Bonnie Kowall, Washington, DC, 28 February 1965, Charles Fowler Papers. 15 Charles Fowler, ?Discovery: One of the Best Ways to Teach a Musical Concept,? Musical Educators Journal 57 (February 1970): 25-30. 16 Charles Fowler, ?Music Education: Joining the Mainstream,? Music Educators Journal 54 (November 1967): 49-80. 17 Charles Fowler, ?Perspectivism: An Approach to Aesthetic Evaluation,? The Journal of Aesthetic Education 2 (January 1968): 87-99. 18 Charles Fowler, ed., ?Facing the Music in Urban Education,? Special Report, Music Educators Journal 56, no. 5 (January 1970). 19 Those who were interviewed for the study, in every case, stated that Fowler helped produce some of the most compelling and progressive issues in the Journal?s history. Those interviewed for the study are listed in the bibliography and include eight prominent figures in music education research, advocacy, and practice. These individuals are quoted in future sections of the dissertation. 20 Charles Fowler, ?The Arts in American Schools: A Conversation,? AAUW Journal 66 (February 1972): 2-6. 21 Charles Fowler, The Arts Process in Basic Education (Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Education, 1973). 2 Lynn Jacobsen and Bonnie Jo Dopp, Charles Fowler Papers Finding Aid, (University of Maryland Libraries, 1999). An editorial note about how these articles are organized in the bibliography. Since there are 15 years of articles at the same publication almost all by Fowler, they have been listed in chronological order rather than alphabetized. The rest of 25 the bibliography follows standard alphabetic organization, including the guest articles by other authors at Musical America. It is hoped this will assist the reader in more quickly locating titles within the long list of roughly 135 articles that he wrote during his tenure at the magazine. 23 Charles Fowler, Note about meeting Norman Redmon at MA regarding possible future MUED articles, __ July 1969, Charles Fowler Papers. Fowler had met Norman Redmon, then editor of High Fidelity/Musical America, and considered writing articles that would interest readers of this combined publication. This note is another instance of how Fowler was constantly thinking of how to reach a larger and broader audience. The articles that he would ultimately write for Musical America occurred during his third period, which I have suggested was when he reached a wider audience outside of music education. 24 Arts, Education, and Americans Panel, Coming to Our Senses: The Significance of the Arts for American Education (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977). 25 Charles Fowler, Can We Rescue the Arts for America?s Children? Coming to Our Senses ? 10 Years Later (New York: American Council for the Arts, 1988). 26 Charles Fowler, Timothy Gerber, and Vincent Lawrence, Music! Its Role and Importance in Our Lives (New York: Glencoe Publishers, 1994). 27 Charles Fowler, Strong Arts, Strong Schools: The Promising Potential and Shortsighted Disregard of the Arts in American Schooling (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). 28 Barbara R. Lundquist, Telephone interview with author, 6 August 2007, Seattle, WA. 29 Timothy Gerber, Telephone interview with author, 8 July 2007, Westchester, PA. 30 Edward Hermann, The Music Teacher and Public Relations, Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference, 1958; Joan Gaines, Approaches to Public Relations for the Music Educator (Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference, 1968); Michael L. Mark, ?A History of Music Education Advocacy,? Music Educators Journal 89 (January 2002): 44-48. 31 Michael L. Mark, ?A History of Music Education Advocacy,? Music Educators Journal 89 (January 2002): 44-48. 32 Ibid., 44. 3 Charles Bruner Fowler, Charles Fowler Papers, Special Collections in the Performing Arts, Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland, College Park Maryland. 26 34 Charles Fowler, Strong Arts, Strong Schools: The Promising Potential and Shortsighted Disregard of the Arts in American Schooling (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 57-58. 35 Charles Fowler, Can We Rescue the Arts for America?s Children? Coming to Our Senses ? 10 Years Later (New York: American Council for the Arts, 1988), 152. 36 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964). 37 A major premise of this dissertation is that Fowler based his vision for music education on seven principle objectives he set forth in his 1964 dissertation, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education.? These objectives and the details of his dissertation are covered in some detail in the following chapters, and are only mentioned here as part of the introduction to Fowler?s work and the structure of the present research. 38 Theodore Brameld, Toward a Reconstructed Philosophy of Education (New York: The Dryden Press, 1956). 39 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964). 40 Ibid. 27 Chapter Two: Charles Fowler in Historical and Theoretical Context Introduction to Related Literature The contributions of Charles Fowler are now placed in historical and theoretical context. This is done through consideration of related literature addressing historical, philosophical, and theoretical foundations that influenced Fowler and which he later promoted himself. The review of related literature is organized around several topics. These sections are intended to address how Fowler formed his thoughts on reconstructionism and how his ideas were placed within music education foundations. Also included is an introduction to the periods of his career that are the basis for organizing this and future studies. First, I situate Charles Fowler?s ideas in a theoretical context and, specifically for this study, within Brameld?s reconstructed philosophy of education that was the basis for Fowler?s reconstructionist philosophy of music education. Then I discuss Brameld and his work and consider Fowler?s dissertation based on Brameld?s ideas. Second, I situate Fowler within music education foundational study: history, philosophy, and sociology. Third, I introduce my suggested four principal periods of Fowler?s career. Using these periods, I study his publications with the primary goal of understanding the relationships between his writings and where they fit in his thinking and in the profession at large during the time they were produced. The literature summarized here locates Fowler?s work within the general field of education (in this case, reconstructed philosophy) and music education (foundational studies). In order to keep the scope of the study narrow, I investigate his works during the 28 time period of 1964 through 1989 and not the entire opus of his career. Although only the two middle periods are considered, all four are introduced, as this is a first study of Charles Fowler and his writings. These four periods are discussed in detail later in the chapter. Therefore, this review of related literature situates Fowler?s works within the fields of education and music education to better understand why the study is relevant and connected with educational ideas current during his lifetime and today. As a traditional literature review looks at research findings to provide support for the value of an ongoing study, this compilation will place Fowler within important trends and considerations during his lifetime and career as related to music and general education studies. Theoretical Foundations of Fowler?s Thinking In order to understand where Charles Fowler fits with the scholarly foundations of general education and music education, it is useful to study how his overall thinking was influenced by certain philosophies and trends in these two fields. Such an approach helps in setting a contextual framework through which to observe and consider the principal publications of his career. In terms of general education, first I provide an introduction to Theodore Brameld, the noted educational philosopher who developed a reconstructed philosophy of education and whose ideas influenced Fowler strongly. Fowler wrote his dissertation using Brameld?s ideas by applying them to music education. Second, Fowler?s work is situated within the context of music education history, philosophy, and sociology. This provides background to the thinking in music education that is considered foundational to the field. While other philosophies and viewpoints may have influenced 29 Fowler, one of the purposes of this study is to better understand the impact of reconstructed philosophy on Fowler?s ideas and how it led him to the notion of music education as social change agent. Theodore Brameld and Reconstructionist Philosophy The author of the reconstructionist philosophy that influenced Fowler is Theodore Brameld (1904-1987) who was an important philosopher and writer on education throughout his career. Fowler became acquainted with Brameld when he was a doctoral student at Boston University where Brameld was on faculty. Brameld?s philosophy suggested that education and its influence on students and communities held the power to affect social change. This is evident in his major book publications from the 1950s and 1960s, including Education for the Emerging Age, Philosophies of Education in Cultural Perspective, Cultural Foundations of Education, The Use of Explosive Ideas in Education, and Education as Power. 1 The reconstructionist philosophy of education advocated the notion that schools can act as agents of change, thereby transforming the lives of students who attend them and ultimately helping to improve the societal conditions in which they live. With ideas like this in mind, Fowler believed music education could act as a conduit to better utilize schools as social change agents. In order to place reconstructionism within the framework of this study, I turn to Brameld?s and Fowler?s definitions as a way of understanding the lens through which they considered this philosophy, since they are the important figures in the discussion here. Brameld spoke of the value of a reconstructed philosophy: The culture of America and the world is passing through one of the greatest periods of transformation in the history of mankind. This is our major premise. Our minor premise is that education, broadly understood, is a fundamental agency of culture. If these premises are true, the conclusion follows that education will be 30 transformed no less thoroughly than the culture which sustains it and upon which it exerts enormous influence. 2 Perhaps Brameld?s best-known book describing his philosophy of educational reform, published in 1956, is titled Toward a Reconstructed Philosophy of Education. In this work, he espoused a theory of reconstructionism, arguing that the schoolteacher, as part of the educational firmament, can be agent of social change in the lives of her students. In his Preface to the book, Brameld stated the need for a reconstructed philosophy: As a matter of fact, the prevailing mood in the sixth decade of the twentieth century, even among American intellectuals, may be termed a neoconservative one. With some exceptions, of course, the interpretations of problems of our culture that have recently won popular acclaim have tended to disparage radical (or even liberal) diagnoses and prognoses. Yet our contention is that the neoconservative mood is likely to be transitory. We believe it is more the diffused reflection of cultural pressures and bewilderments than the product of clear understanding or forthright acknowledgment of issues and imperatives. Reconstructionism, to put it in another way, is not a philosophy of education that is eager merely to acclimatize itself to current cultural conditions. 3 Brameld went on to say: Reconstructionism does, however, believe that the great majority of human beings, were they helped to perceive the crucial role that education can and ought to play in behalf of their own interests, would repudiate the views of those who disregard or belittle too many of those interests. Many people throughout the world already recognize that the hydrogen age is upon them and that civilization may therefore end abruptly. But increasing numbers also recognize that the threat of destruction is a supreme opportunity for reconstruction?indeed, more than an opportunity: an imperative. 4 Brameld created his reconstructed philosophy (also called reconstructionist philosophy or reconstructionism) grounded in other philosophies and expanding on their views. The book was written in two parts, first addressing the underlying philosophical beliefs found in reconstructionism, including essentialism, perennialism, and 31 progressivism. The second section laid out a framework for his newly reconstructed or reconstructionist philosophy of education. Basic tenets of reconstructionist philosophy include school as social vanguard, learning as social self-realization, and education as democratic power. 5 Related issues that Brameld addressed were the world at war, oppressive governments, neoconservative ideologies, racism, and consumerism, among several others. Brameld also suggested ideas for curriculum, which displayed a strong leaning towards substantive change and the idea that reconstructionism urges rebuilding, restructuring, and changing education and the world around it. It is meant to do something, to improve something that ultimately leads towards educational and societal change. With Brameld?s views in mind, how did Charles Fowler view reconstructionism? First, he followed Brameld?s view that education is influenced by and plays a role in shaping the society and culture around it. Second, he believed the world was in a state of crisis and that reconstructionist philosophy could aid in addressing it in some way. Third, he believed that culture played a role in education. Fourth, there was a belief in the role of education to contribute to civilization. Fifth, and finally for the purposes of definitions, he offered a reconstructionist view of music education: The reconstructionist philosophy of music education is based upon the educational philosophy of reconstructionism and upon the esthetics of reconstructionism. The need for esthetic education and the objective of music education are justified by the esthetic defects of American culture and by the goals and values of that culture as formulated by reconstructionism. 6 Fowler then continued the description of his reconstructionist philosophy of music education, but that is for later discussion. Further note the connections with esthetic (aesthetic) education that would later be espoused by Bennett Reimer, an important music 32 education philosopher, who also was a later influence on Fowler?s thinking. 7 Suffice it to say, however, that he was deeply grounded in reconstructionist thought and that the ideas and objectives discussed in this chapter will serve to clarify his viewpoint and understandings when evaluating his writings. The books, quotes, and ideas listed above illustrate Brameld?s view of the need for education to be a powerful mechanism for change. How these ideas impacted Fowler is considered next along with the influences that led to his vision for music education as presented in his dissertation. Brameld and His Influences on Charles Fowler A principal premise of Fowler?s dissertation was that music has the capability to be an agent of empowerment and change. Fowler?s dissertation, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education,? outlined how music education, viewed through the lens of reconstructionist philosophy, has the power to positively impact the lives of those who experience music, which can lead to improved schooling in the midst of changing societal events. 8 He further clarified this theory by listing his ideas in seven objectives, which I use as the initial basis for analyzing his writings from 1964 to 1989. Fowler?s dissertation drew on Brameld?s reconstructed philosophy and situated music education within a reconstructionist framework. Fowler took it a step further and believed that music could play an important role educational change as well. To put it more directly, Fowler?s dissertation provided supportive evidence that music education could be a social change agent using Brameld?s philosophy to craft a reconstructionist philosophy of music education. 9 33 Otherwise it seems unlikely he would devote so much time to this topic in a dissertation which encompassed close to 600 pages of material. As Fowler wrote in the Acknowledgements to his dissertation, ?I am especially grateful to Professor Theodore Brameld, upon whose ideas much of this study depends. His knowledge of sources, his suggestions, and his encouragement were invaluable.? 10 A dissatisfying note is that while Fowler used Brameld?s ideas to create a reconstructionist philosophy of music education, it was not readily adopted within the mainstream of music education scholarship. Fowler?s Dissertation and Its Philosophical Connections The purpose here is to link ideas presented in Fowler?s dissertation to his philosophical beliefs that provided grounding for his vision for music education. Several unique arguments were presented in Fowler?s dissertation, some of which might still be considered relevant in the context of music education today. For example, Fowler laid out several principles related to his reconstructionist philosophy of music education that were general standards for educational practice in music education and foreshadowed the current National Standards for Music Education. 1 Other areas have been listed in chapter one when situating Fowler in the context of current trends in music education. A goal of this section is to connect Fowler?s reconstructionist views from the 1960s to the 1990s with more recent music education philosophies. While most of his career can be considered according to the aesthetic philosophy of Bennett Reimer, Fowler also had connections with the later praxial philosophy. Fowler met one of its best-known proponents, David Elliott, toward the end of his career in 1993. Fowler did appreciate the early ideas of Elliott, illustrating the progressive nature of his views of music education and its impact on children and society. 12 34 During the 1950s and 1960s when Fowler was beginning his career and developing his ideas on music education, the state of university research was strongly grounded in the positivistic paradigm. At the same time, deconstructionists began to critique research practices and more importantly, reject meta-narratives, a foundational principle of objectivist, quantitative research. 13 One result was endless discussion of looking to uses for research and how it could impact and improve education, society, and other disciplines. Brameld, and later Fowler, believed that educational research could serve these purposes. Brameld?s idea of education as social change agent and Fowler?s intrinsic belief that music education could better students? lives both fit into this new reconstructed philosophy for education. Their writings clarified this message and illustrated how reform-minded thinking could lead to more substantive improvement in education and society. 14 Fowler?s Dissertation and Its Objectives The discussion now focuses on Fowler?s dissertation in order to present the basic tenets of his thinking that I propose were the grounding of his philosophy throughout his career. The 1960s in America and the world was a decade of great political and social upheaval. Politics, war, and social structure were under the microscope of the critic? whether the layperson or the academic. With these ideas in mind, it is more evident why a reconstructionist view was becoming present in higher education at the time. Charles Fowler boldly stated the need for a progressive practice that reconstructed music and education in the schools, which worked toward improving student conditions. By this point in his career, he had considerable experience in music education and saw a gap between the researcher, teacher, and student, and the passive education system 35 that viewed the arts as frivolous in a world involved in a desperate struggle to understand and save itself. Fowler wrote: Therefore it seems obvious that the first concern of the music educator shouldbe to understand the basic issues and problems of the United States in today?s world. 15 He went on by stating: Thus the role of education becomes apparent. If philosophy is a critique on existing aims and values and a formulation of new aims and values which will direct future social action, then success in these tasks depends on educational equivalents. 16 Fowler?s dissertation was organized around a detailed and thoughtful description of Brameld?s reconstructed philosophy of general education. 17 He applied Brameld?s reconstructed philosophy to music education while creating curricular material to put into practice the tenets of the philosophy. This is a pragmatic approach that Fowler continued throughout much of his later career. Although Fowler was interested in broad views of general education and other content fields, he was specifically grounded in music education, as both of his degrees to this point were in music education from two well-regarded schools in the field: SUNY- Potsdam and Northwestern University. He had taught music in the public schools in Rochester, NY, worked as a music supervisor in Mansfield, PA, and also served as an assistant professor of music education at Mansfield State College. 18 Just as Fowler was intrigued by Brameld?s views on general education, he was equally influenced by Robert Choate, an established scholar in music education, who coordinated The Tanglewood Symposium and edited its Documentary Report. 19 Choate was Fowler?s dissertation advisor and a primary reason he chose to pursue doctoral studies at Boston University. In a 1975 speech scheduled for Boston University, Fowler remarked how important 36 Choate?s contributions had been to his professional development. 20 Although the speech was not delivered due to Choate?s untimely death, Fowler commented about the relationship with his mentor: Dr. Robert Choate was one of my great teachers?and the reason I went to Boston University for the doctorate. I asked?and was granted?a weekly consultation with him during my two-year residency there (1962-64) on a Danforth Foundation Teacher Study Grant. During these sessions, Dr. Choate probed and challenged my mind?what I believed and how well I substantiated it?. He had a very important influence on me professionally that has fortified me to this day. 21 The seven objectives upon which Fowler based his dissertation are used in this chapter as the comparative points to show how his later writings on music education are rooted in his thinking at this early stage of his scholarly career. As outlined in his dissertation, Fowler presented these objectives as part of the program of his reconstructionist philosophy of music education. They clarify an over-arching vision that Fowler developed regarding the role of music in education and society. These objectives are listed below along with a description and purpose of each. The rationale for the objectives comes from the principles of Brameld?s earlier work, and Fowler analyzed, adapted, and composed them to describe his newly created reconstructionist philosophy for music education. A primary purpose of the objectives was to consider music as a means to reconstruct and support schools, children, and community through the study of music in the classroom. (1) The first objective of music education is to justify the inclusion of music in education by relating music to the esthetic and cultural needs of man. 2 Fowler suggested here that the mechanization and materialization of society had limited or removed the need for an appreciation of the arts in the era of the 1960s when he wrote his dissertation. The concept is that music education supports a better 37 understanding of music and appreciation of the arts in general. In the 1960s, there was a strong emphasis on quality of life and enacting reforms that helped improve societal conditions for all. For many, the arts were perceived as a way to experience one?s environment and better understand how to appreciate and change circumstances affecting it. Fowler commented on the state of life and his view of how aesthetic needs and understanding were not being addressed at the time: The esthetic and cultural flaws in our present culture demand that the public be educated toward esthetic and cultural consciousness and responsibility. The mass media all too frequently present shallow, stereotyped and mediocre models of the good life. The public is too seldom able to discriminate among the barrage of music that bombards them, to judge design in the goods they buy and the things they produce. They are too often persuaded by the passing fads, and by the judgments of others. 23 Fowler continued his commentary on the era: In an age which builds slums and calls them housing, in an age which neglects its parks and destroys the landscape, in an age in which the machine blots cut man?s inner nature and denies his self-respect, esthetic education is necessary for the reconstruction of higher values and purposes. 24 These statements suggest Fowler believed society at the time was not considering ideas of aesthetic and artistic beauty with a seriousness or sense of purpose. Fowler clarified his view even further when he stated: The purpose of esthetic education is not essentially vocational, but for higher ends. Esthetic education provides a person with the means he needs to satisfy the practical purposes in life: of selecting wisely among esthetic alternatives, of enriching one?s life and leisure, of gaining insight into existence, of extending the range and the worth of one?s values. Esthetic education is essential to the attainment of world civilization. 25 Fowler promoted this idea and expressed concern that the American education system was not valuing the arts and their benefits to students. Music education was the focus of his dissertation, but Fowler held an even broader view. He believed that study of the arts 38 and music was integral to the reconstructionist idea of education serving the cultural needs of humankind, which would help to effect positive community and societal change. (2) The second objective of the music education program is to utilize music as a means of social-self-realization. 26 Here Fowler stated that ?not only must music relate to culture, it must react with it. If the school functions as an agency for social betterment, then the music program is committed to contributing to that same goal.? 27 If schools are to be an agent of change, they must include mechanisms that encourage and allow students to self-realize their role in that change. This seems a primary purpose of the second objective?to value and support social self-realization in students. Fowlers spoke here about the role of music teachers and students in schools, and the larger function of music in schooling and society. He presented this view by saying: Music teachers must operate on the sources of difficulties which stand in the way of true understanding, creativity, and appreciation of musical art. Treating the symptoms one finds in schools is not sufficient to solve the problem. It is imperative that music teachers go to the root of the difficulty which often lies outside the school, in society, and in the culture itself. The music teacher cannot close the classroom door and teach music with any success, but is obliged to operate on the community level, for these influences are often dominant in the student?s musical life. 28 Fowler also charged students to think of their responsibility: The student, too, must begin to understand those elements of culture which intentionally set out to mold and control his taste. He should learn how to cope with esthetic propaganda, resisting its tendency to dominate. He should work towards eliminating pressures towards esthetic conformity in the mass media and learn to appreciate and to perpetuate music which does not simply pacify, but disturbs. The student and the music teacher should come to value music which challenges old values. Great music does not simply pat the audience on the back. It has a reconstructive function. 29 In support of the second objective, Fowler argued strongly that music teachers 39 serve a larger role, that is, to address issues external to the music classroom and that students have a responsibility to question what is happening inside it. The goal of this objective is to learn information and expand one?s thinking, and to put it into practice by considering a larger role in education for music and the arts. In essence, the broader idea that music helps students better understand their place in the world around them. If students and teachers are working toward substantive reform because they better understand themselves and the role they have in creating change, they have moved closer to considering this self-analysis and its educational purpose. As further evidence that Fowler believed in a reconstructionist view of music education and how the objectives should work to reflect this focus, he went on to say: The social and the self aims of music education should in no way conflict with the esthetic aims. Music can only function to renew integrity, refresh values, and re- enforce humanity, if it is created and performed with sensitivity and understanding. Through music man renews his power to feel, which is the basis of all human relationships worthy of the name. Music can provide the means for developing a sensitivity towards the affinity, the control, the movement, and the color in music, which will be reflected in a generally more concerned attitude towards life. 30 Fowler suggested here that music helps students to better know themselves through the study of it. By learning of the inner self through musical understanding, they can better affect their external world through reform and social change. (3) The third objective of music education is to understand music as a means of communication. 31 In this objective, Fowler conveyed the idea that music can help better understand and communicate with others. This allows music to be a means of understanding between different peoples and cultures and also a way to bridge differences between them. Music offers a way to communicate important messages regardless of the audience and their 40 training in music. It serves as a cross-cultural mechanism for understanding and for multi-partisan appreciation of differing views. Fowler clarified this view in saying that: Unless the student obtains something from music, he will rightfully not value it. Music is only worth what it conveys to the listener. The province of music education is to provide the student with tools which will enable him to become competent at musical communication as both a means of expression and as a means of understanding. 32 A possible explanation here is that music education is far more than performance alone. One role of the music educator should be to express to students how music can provide ways to communicate with themselves and their peers with whom they are making music, but also with those listening to and experiencing their musical performance and creation. Reconstructionist philosophy suggests that students and teachers should think clearly about messages they convey through teaching, learning, performance, and understanding and whether they are reaching a wider viewpoint than merely presenting a good concert. On communication in broader terms, Fowler went on to say that: The music teacher should provide a background for the music of other societies and countries. The concept of world citizenship can only be established through the realization of mankind?s fundamental unity. The concepts of affinity, control, movement, and color are found in the music of all people. These are ?life? concepts which are fundamental to people everywhere. 3 Consequently, the fundamentals of communication are an important purpose of what music can provide and through which students can learn to engage in dialogue with others, especially those with whom they may need better understanding, leading to a more holistic perspective on the human condition. (4) The fourth objective of music education is to work towards the attainment of a democratic art. 34 41 In this objective, Fowler argued that music has a role in challenging musicians first, to understand the music they learn and perform and second, to teach laypeople an appreciation of music other than that related to popular culture. The role of music is to challenge traditional views of artistic output that can and should occur first amongst musicians, and then with those outside their musical world. In essence music must be democratic, and music education systems must allow for multiple types of music to be learned, performed, appreciated and valued. Here there is an emphasis on contemporary music, considering the past as a means of understanding the new that is more closely related to modern society. This objective presents contradictions. One perspective of the objective seems elitist in stating that appreciation of high art is important to true cultural understanding while another view suggests this is to better understand contemporary art and its relationship to modern society. It is laudable that Fowler presented this objective because he encouraged tradition and progressive change at the same time. He encourages understanding of progress through innovative reconstruction of the past. This is similar to using classic works of literature to re-evaluate the problems and discussions of the present-day, whether it is 1964 or the present day. Fowler stated the purpose of a democratic art succinctly: The differences between elite and mass art must be realized. The elite artist should be respected as a leader who guides all people toward the realization of new and richer values. The average person may not be quite ready for the best in music, but he should have the opportunity to find out, to learn such values if he cares to, to choose the highest standard, if that is his desire. The music teacher must encourage the mass of people to develop, cultivate and exercise continually more discriminating and cosmopolitan taste. 35 42 As to the continuing discussion over how these objectives present a vision for a better system of education that equalizes and improves the musical experience, Fowler also suggested that: In working towards the realization of a democratic musical art, the music teacher?s duty is to help others to unlock the meaning and import of musical symbols and sounds. The music education program is responsible for teaching people how to evaluate, and not simply accept the music they experience. The technical triumphs in the reproductive arts, like phonograph recordings, have tended to flood us with sound, overwhelming us by sheer repetition, progressively eliminating the powers of human choice, narrowing human response, and intensifying the purely sensational aspects of the music. The music teacher must provide people with the tools to cope with not only the great quantity of music, but with all types of music. 36 In looking forward to reconsider works of the past, Fowler hoped that music could be a way to help democratize how people viewed one another through the arts and lead toward a parity and respect for all of those in community and society. (5) The fifth objective of music education is to provide a means of esthetic evaluation for the development of a discriminating musical taste. 37 Fowler challenged the reader not merely to accept what is given to them, but to understand and decide what is useful and better for the self and others. This represents critical thinking about music where Fowler urged teachers and musicians to analyze and discern musical taste and the elements that are a part of it. Democratic music is not a mere representation of multiple views, rather determining value through critical analysis. Looking at the world through a diverse lens helps students to better discriminate right from wrong in the world around them. Fowler made this point: Education for democracy means not only the development of loyal supporters of the democratic system, but the development of a spirit of criticism. Without critical thought democracy cannot survive. In every realm the student should be provided with the means of evaluation. Students must learn how to make judgments and decisions in many areas. The development of esthetic evaluation will affect the quality of music and art enjoyed, and the quality of life in general. 38 43 In order to address the role of music education in this endeavor, Fowler later said: Music education has the responsibility of developing in students a system of critical judgment based on sound reasoning. To educate for a general esthetic revelation of the world is to design a system for the automatic guidance of esthetic evaluation. People must understand what they value and why, and they must come to appreciate music which reveals new values. Music education must stress the development of the ability to be discriminating, to judge keenly, sensitively, with a growing insight into the esthetic qualities of music. 39 An important addendum, however, is that Fowler did not want a quantitative rubric or assessment to determine discriminating taste or thoughtful import into the discussion. Rather, he envisioned a music education system where students would be taught ways of thinking and broad values to assist them in forming their own discriminating views. Of this he said, ?it is not the place or function of music education to dictate tastes or esthetic values. But it is the duty of music education to provide a framework by which people can determine their own esthetic tastes and values, and help them to evolve into more refined formulations.? 40 Fowler?s view, ahead of its time, argued that students should be taught independent thinking so that a better and more formulated discriminating taste could empower their musical experience to encourage them to make changes to the world around them. (6) The sixth objective of music education is to provide a means for the development of a more cosmopolitan musical taste. 41 To bring together a democratic art (objective five) and critically understand and challenge it (objective six), one must also be concerned with comprehending the wider view beyond what students know or have experienced. Just as music can act as conduit for understanding culture (objective three), the musician and teacher must make the effort to grasp ethnomusicological results of music study and the diversity illustrated by them. 44 This objective, in essence, applies anthropology to music education. To think of music education as an ethnographic field was relatively new in the 1960s, and illustrated Fowler?s holistic view of how music related to multiple parts of society and not simply in a social realm that is narrow or elite. According to Fowler, in understanding culture of other societies, we have a more informed way of communicating with them. A cosmopolitan taste is a global and experienced one, not elitist or exclusionist. By encouraging understanding of all views, low and high, Fowler supported the musician and teacher as purveyor of strong relationships among multiple views and peoples. Fowler defined this objective in these terms: Any education dedicated to world civilization must be concerned with anthropological questions of similarities and differences among cooperating cultures, the crosscultural role of the arts, religions, sciences, and other creative achievements of highly diverse peoples, and the gigantic obstacles that impede progress toward that goal. The study of music has an important contribution to make to the widening of people?s understandings and appreciations beyond their own regional, parochial, or narrow provincialism. 42 Fowler also stated clearly how elite and popular music can play a role in this anthropological understanding of societies at every level from multiple cultures: When the majority of people learn to appreciate both popular and elite music, we will have achieved a truly democratic art, which will be popular in the sense of widely enjoyed and elite in the sense of offering individuality, excellence and edification. 43 Fowler concluded his discussion of this objective by commenting on the role of music education in encouraging students to think clearly about what makes good music due to its quality, not its provenance or social or academic standing. In truly possessing a cosmopolitan taste: Music education must provide students with a great range of experiences which would enable students to find pleasure in many given types of music. The music teacher must realize that ?good? music is a social norm and that the taste which 45 approves it is a pattern of preferences which follows social and cultural patterns, folkways, and pressures. Music teachers must lead the public towards a new and superior musical orientation. Those who would just teach the ?classics? are as narrow in their approach as those who would teach only what readily appeals. The social ?norm? for musical taste should be not only to evaluate music in terms of its many values, but to discriminate over the entire range of musical output. 4 This objective expresses clearly that Fowler was not an elitist and supported multiple styles of music for the classroom. If students were engaged and actively involved in music-making and learning, then this objective would be achieved, but only if they could intelligently understand and describe why the music was a good representation of its genre. Cosmopolitan taste does require a value judgment, but a reasoned and informed one. Fowler wished students and teachers to think about music and its role in society, and if it could impact positively the life-world of students experiencing it, then music education would serve its larger role in the general education of children. (7) The seventh objective of music education is to develop a creative life orientation in all students. 45 In the seventh objective, Fowler suggested that, ?it is not enough to develop taste; schools must provide opportunities for it to be expressed in behavior. People must exercise their taste in making judgments and creating art.? 46 If students are not encouraged to be creative and unique in their musical expression, then it is difficult, if not impossible to pursue the other six objectives identified here. A creative person looks at life through multiple lenses and views perspectives through the prism of the rainbow rather than the black-and-white world of mechanized culture. In further defining this objective, Fowler suggested: Developing creativity through the music education program means not only that students learn to create their own music, but that they create their own interpretations for the music they perform and that they put their esthetic values to work creatively in the community. If students are to embrace creativity as a basic 46 orientation to living, tone must become a plaything of the masses just as painting has. The craft of musical composition must be offered to the students from their entrance into the public schools and throughout their education. Creativity in the music classroom must a part of every lesson. 47 Fowler expressed concern that those who merely conform cannot change conditions around them if they are not allowed to distill information and alter the needs of situations they encounter. Music, unlike few other aspects of modern education, allows for an academic and structured method of acquiring knowledge that then can be applied in multiple and compelling ways. This is a primary value of creativity, which is to consider challenges through multiple lenses and utilize unique approaches to conquering them. This view of expressing creativity can begin with work in the music education classroom and continue throughout all aspects of a child?s education. In sum: The music teacher must provide an environment which permits students to learn by discovery. Man must come to respect his own creative potential. The music classroom must become a place of self-involvement. Children learn to create because they are thrust into a realm free of decisions already made for them by adults. They create when they find they must make their own decisions and judgments. 48 In this seventh objective, Fowler challenged the reader to place education clearly outside of a colorless and quantitative view and celebrate its value as a progressive means to improve society through education and understanding. Students thinking creatively and in innovative ways help to support the idea that reconstructive change can happen through pragmatic application of concrete knowledge learning in schools. To bring together the meaning and implications of the seven objectives, especially as they relate to the reconstructionist view of music education, Fowler provided a valuable synthesis of their meaning as a singular idea of many parts. Upon completing his discussion, he reflects that, ?these objectives reflect the needs of American culture, the 47 relationship of the arts to contemporary crises, and commitment to the goals of quality and democracy.? 49 He went on to say: The day has yet to dawn for music education. The clouded half-light of music programs smothered and over-shadowed by ?content? curriculums, of programs designed to serve too narrow ends, of programs shuttered and isolated within the music classroom, and of programs designed to serve the status quo, represent an interim state. The new sun of connecting music and culture, of bringing the composer to his public, of broadening the communicability of music, of recognizing music as a social force, of developing man?s creative potential, throws a bright light across the human landscape. Through music the teacher can operate upon such social problems as conformity, alienation, mechanization, leisure, psychological anxiety, tension, materialism, and poor taste. Music can assist man in grasping the wholeness and unity of life, rather than be trapped by fragmentation and specialization. The perfection and beauty of music can lend purpose and meaning to existence. In its values music is a tremor of the future, compelling man towards a more satisfactory life. These are the promises of the reconstructionist music education. 50 These objectives are now considered as a template for his thinking and subsequent writings. His vision for music education seems strong, and it could serve a powerful force in Fowler?s thinking as he worked toward social change through music and arts education for the remainder of his career. The analysis in this and following chapters point to this vision as a rubric for his belief in the power of music and the arts, and how they reflected this vision?Charles Fowler?s vision?for music education. Charles Fowler and Music Education Foundations Next I situate Fowler?s work in the fields of music education history, philosophy and sociology. By extension, I discuss pivotal events that influenced not only Fowler, but music and education professions, as well. This highlights how Fowler?s ideas relate to music education thinking and the influences that may have come from them. When Fowler completed his dissertation in 1964, music education philosophy and sociology were in their infancy, with history not too far behind. While work had certainly been 48 done in these areas, there was not the structured view that exists in contemporary context. At the same time, it is important to understand these fields as they stand today because it helps to place Fowler?s work in music education foundations, which contained elements of all three disciplines. Fowler?s writing and views were both relevant for their day and progressive in their thinking. It is important to hear about these foundations, even in later iterations, because, although Fowler was influenced by early scholars and writings in these areas, he could not have seen the larger picture as it exists today. Therefore, I suggest that comprehending music education foundations as currently known will help us better appreciate Fowler?s work and the progressive ideas he was attempting to put forth. Connections with Music Education History The biography of Fowler?s life presented earlier places him in music education history from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s. In some ways, Fowler?s career is an integral part of music education history due to his participation in pivotal music education events during the 1960s and beyond. The larger purpose, however, is to ground his views and writings within the context of historical events in music education to better support why he is an important figure to study. Fowler began his career at a particularly interesting time in the history of music education as it was undergoing much change and development. Just as he was questioning the place of music education in society when he wrote his dissertation during the early 1960s, music educators were moving towards a broader understanding of their role in society. 51 His participation in the major music education event from that era, The Tanglewood Symposium in August 1967, is a prime example of his work at MENC from 49 1965 to 1971. The concepts discussed in this Symposium included the role of the arts in society, the arts and communities, looking to the future of music education ? including its relationships with television, symphony and opera, and perspectives on music and the individual. There were other issues considered as well, and these included economic and community support, contemporary and popular music, and general committee reports and the problems and responsibilities coming from the meetings. The Tanglewood Symposium is significant to Charles Fowler and his work for a number of reasons. First, it brought together all of the major figures in music education perhaps for the first time with the purpose of defining the role of music in society since the first Music Supervisors National Conference meeting in Keokuk, Iowa, in 1907. Second, it created The Documentary Report of the Tanglewood Symposium that was connected to a period of significant growth in the field of music education in America since its inception in the 1830s. Third, it represented a strong reaction to the social and political events that were influencing all of education and society in the 1960s. Fourth, it presented music education to those outside the field for one of the first times in the history of the profession and developed a template for communicating with the larger community of educators and musicians. 52 Charles Fowler was in the midst of this maelstrom of change of the 1960s, and perhaps this in part led to his interest in social change and music education. He came under the influence of Robert Choate during doctoral studies at Boston University. Choate, who was editor of the Tanglewood Symposium Report, was Fowler?s dissertation advisor. Fowler spent two years at Boston University engaging with scholars such as Max 50 Kaplan, Theodore Brameld, and Dr. Choate, formulating his ideas that I suggest later represent his vision for music education as observed through his writings. Connections with Music Education Philosophy Charles Fowler is an important figure in contemporary music education philosophy because he considered multiple viewpoints, including praxial and aesthetic ideas. He was schooled in reconstructionist philosophy, worked during the prevailing aesthetic philosophy for most of his career, and embraced the newer praxial philosophy later in his life. In essence, he believed that music education could empower and change education by understanding the beauty of music and the importance of practicing and engaging in its making. Aesthetic philosophy, or music education as aesthetic education, 53 was addressed by Fowler in his 1964 dissertation and applied primarily to the work of the majority of his career. He argued for both the social and aesthetic functions of music and valued understanding and involvement with music for all children in the schools. Philosophy was an important component of his thinking, and he felt it lent a grounding of principle when arguing for inclusion of music in the schools. Bennett Reimer wrote his aesthetic philosophy in 1970 and it was the standard philosophy about music education until 1995. David Elliott?s book from the latter year, Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education, provided another philosophical viewpoint in music education. 54 Fowler was a unique figure in the sense that he embraced both philosophies throughout his career. Fowler operated under the ideas and concepts of Reimer for most of his career, but later was introduced to the beliefs of Elliott and appreciated his ideas. It is important to note Fowler?s connection with the praxial view 51 not only because the two men met before Fowler died, but also to situate him within the standard literature of music education philosophy during his lifetime. The following discussion considers the context of music education philosophy in the 1960s through the early 1990s. Among the principal figures in music education philosophy during the decades of Fowler?s career were Charles Leonhard, Bennett Reimer, and much later, David Elliott. Charles Leonhard and Robert House wrote what is considered the first foundations text in 1959, Foundations and Principles of Music Education. This work presented philosophical views in music education, among other areas. 5 Bennett Reimer completed his initial philosophy of music education in 1970 with revised editions published in 1989 and 2003. David Elliott has contributed significant publications in music education philosophy since the mid-1980s, and most notably Music Matters: A New Philosophy for Music Education. In comparing and understanding Fowler according to these principal thinkers in the field, a relationship can be found to the broader context of music education. Again note that while some of these publications are past 1989, they are standard to the literature of music education and place Fowler?s work in context to the thinking of music education research during his career, as well as the time-frame of the study. This is important to show that Fowler was still strongly connected to music education scholarship and current trends within the profession. While Fowler met Elliott at the end of his career and was introduced to him only a few years before his death, Fowler appreciated Elliott?s work. At the first Fowler Colloquium on Innovation in Arts Education in 1993 at the University of Maryland, College Park, Elliott was a highlighted speaker. As a praxialist, Elliott values 52 participation in music making as an important component of music education. As an advocate, Fowler agreed, arguing that students should be actively participating in music programs that are fully supported by school systems and communities. While in a strict sense, Elliott?s view of practice, or ?musicing,? and Fowler?s desire that students be involved with music in some form, may represent slightly differing philosophical viewpoints. However, Fowler?s work as an advocate suggested that participation is paramount, and Elliott?s view of the nature of music suggests that active involvement creates true appreciation. Perhaps a connection between the two can be found when Elliott suggests that, ?in this praxial view, music making is inherently valuable.? 56 Fowler embraced multiple points of view and espoused ideas which he put forward for most of his life: that music education practiced and appreciated can enrich the lives of those who encounter it. He was connected to the music education as aesthetic education philosophy and operated under the paradigm that musical understanding was a component of education that was critical to the whole education of a child. 57 Connections with Music Education Sociology From the 1950s through the late 1980s, a dramatic change was experienced in American society. After the end of World War II, America began a new era of productivity and change like few other times in world history. As the United States superpower moved in a period of profound and rapid change, so did the progress of education and music in America. Many forces were influencing general and music education, and societal changes outside of the classroom undoubtedly impacted what was happening inside the schoolhouse. 53 In the late 1950s, as the Soviet Union sent Sputnik I to space and began the march toward scientific dominance in the Western World, America was at its peak progress militarily and politically. This competition between the two super-powers at the time, the Soviet Union and the United States, was also creating the most serious and world- threatening tension known to humankind. It also changed the agenda for education in America and how education was to be viewed for many years afterward. 58 Brameld and Fowler mentioned the crisis of world events that provided evidence of the need for a reconstructed philosophy. 59 To set the stage for the 1960s, while drawing on the decade in which Brameld formed his philosophies, a look at a capstone event towards the end of the 1950s helps set the context. In 1959, Dwight Eisenhower left office with a unique statement to the United States through the first televised exit speech of any sitting President. In this now critical, yet little-known speech, he coined the term ?military-industrial complex? and warned America of the pending disaster of emphasis on singularly military goals and objectives for the country. These were strong words from a President of the United States, who was also a major General from World War II. In the 1960s, social change in America began to dominate the scene and events that shaped history happened at a new pace. As Todd Gitlin mentions in his book, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage, the ?movements of the Sixties produced an incomplete Reformation ? undermining illegitimate power, encouraging us to honor the unity-in-diversity of the human project.? 60 From the election of John Kennedy in 1960, the Bay of Pigs in 1962, Kennedy?s assassination in 1963, and the advent of television in the media and politics, American society began the rapid change that elevated the 1960s into a place of prominence among the decades of the 20th-century. Other critical and 54 tragic events include the murder of civil rights activist Medgar Evers in 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968, and Robert Kennedy in 1968. The other crucial event of the 1960s was the Vietnam War. The war and other events such as civil rights, political upheavals, marches, and youth protests, polarized the nation and changed the country. 61 These events and developments set the stage for the decade that brought Fowler onto the scene and illustrate the environment in which he devoted his thoughts to reconstructionism and social change, within the ferment of societal upheaval happening around him. In this atmosphere, Fowler began to question the role of music education in the larger scheme of society. He wanted music education to have an impact on how people viewed one another, and he believed the arts were a mechanism through which to create positive social change. His dissertation was a clear statement of philosophy and method to work toward social change. This viewpoint came from a sociological perspective that was influenced by Theodore Brameld, Max Kaplan, Robert Choate, and others. 62 The social climate of the 1960s provided an impetus for Fowler to write the dissertation he did, and he argued for sociological change through the philosophical viewpoint of reconstructionism. In this way, he was ahead of his time, as sociology in music education was not known as a separate field until much later in his career. While sociology, as applied to education and music education, was in development during the 1950s and 1960s, 63 the notion of sociology in music education was not in mainstream thinking within the field during the time Fowler was completing his dissertation and years at MENC, from 1965 to 1971. Some might argue it is still relatively lesser known in the panoply of research in music education. Areas of relevance to the sociological 55 study of music include emotion, aesthetic enjoyment, entertainment, communication, symbolic representation, enforcing conformity to social norms, validation of social institutions, contribution to the continuity and stability of culture, and contribution to the integration of society. 64 An article written by Fowler that considered a sociological focus is titled ?The Misrepresentation of Music: A View of Elementary and Junior High School Music Materials.? 65 This was important to his career as it was controversial and caused many in the music education community to begin the debate about which materials are most appropriate for the classroom. When this article was published, Fowler was propelled into the sociological spotlight, and his years with MENC and the MEJ cemented his role as a proponent of social change through music and arts education. Fowler later wrote, ?Our mission is not art for art?s sake, but for humanity?s sake.? 6 If one considers the study of humanity and people as members of the larger community that is society, Fowler?s views and writings most clearly were representative of sociology and its underpinnings. In their 1984 text on foundations of music education, Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman included developing sociological perspectives in the field, among other views. 67 A brief review of some of Fowler?s writing presents an initial link to sociological connections. This merely suggests and provides a broad introduction of Fowler?s connections to sociological thinking, and further discussion later offers a more detailed analysis of his writings as evidence. Fowler?s editorial work at MENC from 1965 to 1971 was, in some ways, a study in sociology itself. Through his editorial work, he set about changing the direction and agenda of the journal to reflect more closely what was happening in the field of music 56 education as it related to society. During this time, Fowler urged music teachers to be connected to their subject matter and then assist students in understanding the aesthetic, praxial and cultural value of the music they were studying. Fowler believed every child had a right to understand and appreciate his or her musical heritage and know its value to their lives and experience. While one might say that a professional journal in its entirety (or in part) cannot constitute a study in sociology, research into his publications and focus over time can show a leaning and orientation on the part of the editor, in this case Charles Fowler. The topics he addressed in the Music Educators Journal, a change in the look and character of the journal, the focus on substantive change and progressive thinking, the cover images he chose, the content he put forth, are all evidence that he viewed the MEJ as not only a publication for practicing music teachers, but also a means to address and advertise a message, philosophically and sociologically. Another sociological example is a special report that he edited on ?Facing the Music in Urban Education.? 68 In this issue, he reported interviews with several African- American music teachers who were working in urban settings. He discussed their plight and mission in working with minority youth in public education. This was a particularly powerful issue and unique for its time because it was published outside of the usual subscription of the MEJ. Fowler had long been an advocate for the disenfranchised and felt this piece was an opportunity to put the issue into the mainstream thought of music educators. It was a bold move at the time and showed an entirely different view of music education than what was commonly held. Again, in the context of the late 1960s and early 1970s, this 57 material was of public concern, and Fowler knew that as the arts are a positive vehicle for social change, this was a way to show that the arts were contributing to the betterment of society. He also considered the areas of validation of social institutions, contribution to the continuity and stability of culture, and contribution to the integration of society. From his own personal notes, he considered this article his crowning achievement as editor of the MEJ and one of his most important publications to that date. Fowler later remarked in personal notes his disappointment that this article was not given more attention by members of the profession, as he believed this was an important opportunity to create change in the field. Sociological inquiry and change were at the heart of his writing, and he believed that all members of the community of music and public education should take responsibility to teach children to affect a better course for their life development. Fowler was interested in sociological view, and many of his writings addressed issues of how music education, arts appreciation and the value of human culture and connection could contribute to the betterment of society. During his career, Fowler was writing much of the time from a sociological basis, although it was not named as such during those years. While sociology in music education was not a focus for scholars during the time of this study, later work reveals its importance to Fowler and sociological inquiry. One long-time colleague of Fowler interviewed for this study was Barbara Reeder Lundquist, who spoke of Fowler?s sociological view of music education. 69 In her chapter, ?Music, Culture, Curriculum, and Instruction,? from the New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, she addressed multiculturalism in music education, diversity, curriculum and its content, instruction and achievement, ethnicity 58 and identity, authenticity, and teacher preparation and professional development. 70 Fowler addressed many of these ideas during this period and his career, and it is a purpose of reviewing the dissertation to find similar examples, as they are supportive areas in social change and agency. Another connection with sociology in music education comes from a recently published book by Hildegard Froehlich, Sociology for Music Teachers: Perspectives for Practice. 71 Again, though this is somewhat outside the scope of the study, it establishes an important link of Fowler to contemporary thought in music education and therefore important to the profession. A purpose of Froehlich?s text is to present a sociological orientation for music teachers and offer pragmatic suggestions for better informed practice in the classroom. In the first few pages of the text, she directly quoted Charles Fowler from a later work in his career and mentioned that his view was ?even timelier than when it was written.? 72 Fowler?s quote, which suggests that new concepts and views are needed in music education, is followed by Froehlich saying, ?One of those new and imperative concepts may be that music teachers learn to trace and understand their own role in the instructional process from a sociological perspective.? 73 As in many things, Fowler was progressive for his own time and timely for our own?thus a cogent argument for the current review and further research into the intellect of Fowler and his prolific work. The Four Periods of Charles Fowler?s Career A primary purpose of this study is to address Fowler?s writings from 1964 to 1989. As mentioned earlier, however, an important purpose of the dissertation is to introduce Fowler?s works to the profession. What follows here is an initial review of 59 Fowler?s writings, which will include a few selected works from each of the four periods of his career to establish the writings as a basis for future study. In order to categorize more clearly his nearly 40 year career, I have classified four principal periods of his output that are based on the works themselves and important events in his career that surround them. The writings I review here are a small sampling to clarify some ideas that make each period unique in the development of his ideas during those years. More of his work will be reviewed in greater depth of the dissertation itself. Emerging patterns and themes support the questions of the study. The purpose here is merely to provide a sample and indicate a general idea of how the periods were determined by analysis of Fowler?s life and his writings. The Four Periods: An Introduction The four periods are based on significant segments of Fowler?s career and consist of a body of work that reflect his career circumstances, goals, and output during each of them. The first period, from 1948 to 1963, is titled ?Roots of a Philosophy.? The second period, from 1964 to 1973, is called ?Making a Statement.? The third period, 1974 to 1989, is named ?Reaching a Wider Audience.? The fourth period, 1990 to 1995, is identified as ?Bringing it All Together.? 74 The selection of these periods and their relevance are based on a comprehensive reading of Fowler?s works and themes I have observed in researching his work since September, 2003. There are also important career events that occurred around the dates of these periods that help mark them as important points in his life. The designation of these periods come not only from his writings, but also from pivotal events in his career that 60 include professional employment, transitions from one arena to another, events outside of music education that impacted his work, and changes in his thinking over time that affected his view and consideration of the world around him. The First Period: Roots of a Philosophy The primary body of work from the first period is in the form of class papers, personal diaries, initial work documents, information about his early work as a public school music teacher, music supervisor, university professor and so on. Although much of this material is not formally published, these works show intellectual influences, courses he completed, discussions and topics he worked through during his student years, academic choices which impacted his views, teaching, and professional experiences before he began as a writer and editor, among others. These seminal experiences are useful to aid in better understanding how Fowler?s beliefs were formed to appreciate his later views as he presented them writing, editing, speaking, and publishing. All of this leads up to his time at Boston University, where he completed doctoral studies on a Danforth Foundation Grant, working with Robert Choate, his advisor and professor, and an important figure in music education history of the 20th-century. In his dissertation from Boston University, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education,? Fowler examined the place of music education in the greater society. This can be considered the capstone work of the first period and transitional into the second. At this point in his career, and based on his teaching experience, Fowler saw a passive education system that was seeing the arts as frivolous in the grander scheme that seemed to be falling apart all around them. Fowler wrote, ?therefore it seems obvious that 61 the first concern of the music educator should be to understand the basic issues and problems of the United States in today?s world.? 75 He went on by stating: Thus the role of education becomes apparent. If philosophy is a critique on existing aims and values and a formulation of new aims and values which will direct future social action, then success in these tasks depends on educational equivalents. 76 Fowler was to enter his second period with a wealth of personal, professional, and scholarly experience to expand his horizons and challenge the status quo. The Second Period: Making a Statement The second period begins after completion of his D.M.A. degree at Boston University in 1964. During 1964-1965, he worked for a year as a university professor at Northern Illinois University. During this time he wrote an article, ?The Misrepresentation of Music: A View of Elementary and Junior High School Music Materials.? This article was seminal to his career as it served as the transition from his work as student and teacher to that of a writer and editor. 7 Fowler later commented in a note written in 1992, and found within his archival material: This turned out to be a very important piece in my life. It constituted the reason I was invited to become editor of the MEJ. It was pivotal in that it changed my career from teaching to editing ? the latter skill I had never recognized in myself. The editorial responses are interesting, but the notes from Vanett Lawler are revealing. As Exec. Secy. (later Exec. Director) of MENC, she was always a reacher [sic]. She embraced the larger world viewpoint consistently and forthrightly. Her note to BK [Bonnie Kowall], then editor of MEJ ? reveals her desire to see the journal embrace the provocative issues of the field and her involvement in these decisions. She really cared about the field. 78 In a letter he wrote to Bonnie Kowall, Fowler had this to say about the comments of the editorial board: I find the comments of the editorial board just the sort of grist that will provoke thought, stimulate healthy controversy, and encourage consideration of new 62 viewpoints. MEJ serves the music education profession well when it provides its readers with such a challenge to its thinking. 79 He took this line of thinking further in November 1967, with his article, ?Music Education: Joining the Mainstream.? 80 His principal goal was to address the direction of music education at the time and identify the ideas needed to bring the field to the next level of success. The major topics included The Changing Audience, The Changing Aesthetic, and The Changing Goals. This article, from the Tanglewood Symposium brief report, was printed within the MEJ. His main thesis was that music education did not respond to current trends of the time and that it needed to be more relevant in mainstream education. His primary points, which he wrote should be addressed within music education, were three important areas: the changing audience, aesthetic, and goals. He concluded the article by saying: Increasingly, it is becoming apparent that the leadership role in the arts in American society is emerging as the responsibility of educational institutions. Music educators in large measure control the destiny of music in the lives of Americans in the coming generations. Their expectations must accelerate until they equal the aesthetic needs and potentialities of the American people. If the nation is to achieve a quality civilization, the musical arts will be present and abundant. When music educators enter the life of the community and accept their full role and responsibility, the musical arts may leave the periphery and enter the mainstream of American society. When this happens, American will not only have achieved a new level of sensitivity and perfection in living, they will also have shown the world a new and compelling aesthetic dimension of democracy. 81 Several themes are evident in this quote and include arts and its leadership role, the influence of the arts on society, quality civilization and the role of the musical arts in it, and the importance of an aesthetic dimension in democracy. These themes resonate with the notion of music education as aesthetic education from one perspective, and support the notion of music education as social change agent on the other. 63 Although mentioned earlier, an important work from this period was his article, ?Facing the Music in Urban Education.? Fowler had long been an advocate for the disenfranchised and believed this was an opportunity to raise awareness of the plight of urban education and place it into the mainstream thought of the music education community. 82 Another publication from this same year was ?Discovery: One of the Best Ways to Teach a Musical Concept,? 83 based on an earlier work in this period of a similar name. 84 As Fowler?s tenure as editor of the MEJ was ending its sixth and final year, he had another article published outside of music education titled ?The Editor as Advocate,? in College and University Journal. 85 This was a particularly interesting exposition of his ideas because it incorporated several career roles he had developed. He had been an editor and writer for six years and was writing more and more about the arts and their value in public education and society. At the time, he was leaving MENC and reflected that he hoped to continue the kind of work he had done at the MEJ. He also saw first hand the impact it had on the field. As one who had never been afraid to raise controversy, he saw the position of editor as an important advocacy tool for music and other fields. He wrote: Advocacy is sometimes shunned because we fear the controversy it might stir up. Living as we do in this world of the 1970s, I suggest that we can no longer avoid controversy. As editors it behooves us to know when to use it. 86 The concept of ?Making a Statement? is defined clearly by this quote. He had been pushing boundaries of traditional thought during his time at MENC and believed it was part of an editor?s role to challenge the thinking of those around him as well as the readership. This is the attitude of a proponent who believed in a philosophy and an 64 advocate who promoted it. Fowler had worked diligently to shape a message of reform and change while at MENC, and would now look to new ways to spread his message of music and arts education as a mechanism for social change. The Third Period: Reaching a Wider Audience As Fowler?s career expanded during the third period, from 1973 to 1989, he was often writing about arts education advocacy in the broader scheme instead of music education advocacy in a strict sense. While music education is the focus of this dissertation, comprehensive arts education goals will include music education as part of its mandate. When analyzing the evidence, however, I center on music education, as this is a primary focus of the study. The seven objectives will be used as the initial lens through which the selected writings are reviewed to show how his later work reflected his vision for music education and how he carried out that vision in practice through his professional work and writing. The third period further marked his departure from direct involvement within music education to expanding his work to the larger music and arts community. In a publication from his third period, ?National Survey of Musical Performance,? Fowler discussed a recent assessment of music education that was damaging to the profession. 87 The history and certain details of this exam and Fowler?s article are discussed later in the study but show his interest and involvement in national issues affecting music education. With his work just beginning at Musical America, Fowler was able to reach a much wider audience with his philosophy and other ideas conveyed through his writing. The issue of assessment in the arts and its impact on improving the credibility of the field was not 65 explored in detailed measure until many years later and again shows Fowler?s progressive thinking. This period included his work at Musical America, which allowed him to reach his widest audience. He wrote a monthly column, titled ?On Education? for fifteen years from 1974 to 1989. 8 While the articles are explored in further depth in later chapters, a look at titles from the period emphasizes his continuing view of music education as a medium of social change. Examples include ?Aesthetic Education: New Thrust at Lincoln Center,? ?Valuing Our Cultural Treasury,? ? More Arts for the Handicapped,? and ?A New Rationale for Arts in Education.? Other columns from Musical America included ?The Tanglewood Symposium Revisited,? Funding for Arts Programs: The Total is Not So Bleak,? ?Ferris State College: Where the Arts are for Everyone,? ?Music in Our Schools: An Agenda for the Future,? and ?Arts in the Schools: A Comprehensive View.? These articles, and others during his fifteen year tenure at Musical America point to his continuing belief and work towards the notion of music education as social change agent, among its other important virtues. The Fourth Period: Bringing it All Together The fourth period contained Fowler?s deepest reflections on music education as a social change agent. Fowler knew he was coming to the end of his career and wished to complete his thoughts in a concrete way so his message would be clear, concise and powerful. He considered this period of work his last opportunity to present his message on the value of the arts in the schools. He published two principal works during this period, one of which is perhaps his best-known work: Strong Arts, Strong Schools: The 66 Promising Potential and Shortsighted Disregard of the Arts in American Schooling. 89 In this text he outlined his vision for arts education through four principal themes: Conditions, Justification, Curriculum, and Reform. The other publication is Music! Its Role and Importance in Our Lives, 90 which is a secondary general music text that presented a sociological approach to teaching, learning, and understanding music in the broader context. The fourth period of his career was the shortest, but perhaps most concise in terms of his output. When considering the research questions of important representative works, how they illustrate Fowler?s vision for music education, and how they are contextualized during their time; the works here follow along a continuum of his belief in the application of reconstructionist philosophy to music education and the ultimate conclusion that he did view music education as a social change agent. In this final period he addressed his clearest and most powerful views on a vision for the arts and music in the schools (Strong Arts, Strong Schools) and also offered one example of a curriculum method to accomplish it (Music!). These ideas mirror the research questions of the study and the purpose of the dissertation to trace the influence of reconstructionist philosophy in his publications throughout his career. As a conclusion to contexualizing Fowler in historical and theoretical context, a question posed by Fowler sums up the essence of his primary goal for music education. Fowler asked the question that is a declamation which ties together not only the theory behind this research, but the philosophy Fowler himself worked with during his career: ?What is it about the arts that allows them to function as change agents in education?? 91 67 Summary This chapter addressed three primary areas. First, I placed Charles Fowler and his career in a historical and theoretical context, or more directly for this study, within Brameld?s reconstructionist philosophy. Second, I situated Fowler within music education scholarship: history, philosophy, and sociology. Finally, I introduced briefly the chronology and content of Fowler?s writings in order to organize the study of his output into four distinct career periods. In sum, this review of the related literature is used as a means to understand where Fowler?s work fits within the history and scholarly output of music education in the late- 20 th century. While he has been quoted by various scholars, his work as a whole, rather than single ideas, has not been captured in the mainstream of music education publications. Within this chapter, Fowler?s work was shown to have been influenced by important schools of thought related to music education research, and his further impact on the profession is addressed in later chapters. Chapter Three outlines the methodology of the dissertation and includes a description of historical method, validity of sources, document analysis, and other unique features of the research. The purpose is to describe how Fowler?s works are analyzed and presented in the remaining chapters of the dissertation. 68 Chapter Two Notes 1 Theodore Brameld, Education for the Emerging Age: Newer Ends and Stronger Means (New York: Harper & Row, 1950); Theodore Brameld, Philosophies of Education in Cultural Perspective (New York: The Dryden Press, 1955); Theodore Brameld, Cultural Foundations of Education: An Interdisciplinary Exploration (New York: Harper & Row, 1957); Theodore Brameld, The Use of Explosive Ideas in Education: Culture, Class, and Evolution (Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press, 1965); Theodore Brameld, Education as Power (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965). 2 Theodore Brameld, Toward a Reconstructed Philosophy of Education (New York: The Dryden Press, 1956), 3. 3 Theodore Brameld, Toward a Reconstructed Philosophy of Education (New York: The Dryden Press, 1956), 18. 4 Ibid., 18-19. 5 Theodore Brameld, Toward a Reconstructed Philosophy of Education (New York: The Dryden Press, 1956). 6 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964), 403. 7 Bennett Reimer, A Philosophy of Music Education (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, 1970). 8 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964). 9 Theodore Brameld, Toward a Reconstructed Philosophy of Education (New York: The Dryden Press, 1956). 10 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964), i. 1 MENC Taskforce for National Standards in the Arts, The School Music Program: A New Vision: The K-12 Standards, Pre-K Standards, and What They Mean to Music Educators (Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference, 1994). 12 Marie McCarthy, ed., Winds of Change: A Colloquium in Music Education with Charles Fowler and David J. Elliott: Proceedings of the Charles Fowler Colloquium on Innovation in Arts Education, 1993 (New York: American Council for the Arts, 1994). These proceedings are noted to show Fowler?s connection with David Elliott near the end of his life, and not an attribution that McCarthy stated the ideas listed. Although the colloquia series instituted in Fowler?s named occurred after the period of this study, it is 69 useful to point out that Fowler?s ideas were progressive for their day and are still relevant in the modern climate of music education. 13 Robert Floden, ?Research on Effects of Teaching: A Continuing Model for Research on Teaching,? in The Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. Virginia Richardson, (Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 2001), 3-16. 14 Theodore Brameld, Philosophies of Education in Cultural Perspective (New York: The Dryden Press, 1955); Theodore Brameld, Toward a Reconstructed Philosophy of Education (New York: The Dryden Press, 1956); Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964); Charles Fowler, Strong Arts, Strong Schools: The Promising Potential and Shortsighted Disregard of the Arts in American Schooling (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). 15 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964), 3. 16 Ibid., 6. 17 Note that a more detailed description of Brameld and his Reconstructionist philosophy occurred in earlier chapters. The discussion here focuses on how Fowler viewed Brameld?s ideas and transformed them to music education and its goals. Additionally, this outline clarifies his view of what music education could be and achieve when considered through this new and progressive lens. 18 Lynn Jacobsen and Bonnie Jo Dopp, Charles Fowler Papers Finding Aid, (University of Maryland Libraries, 1999). 19 Robert Choate, Documentary Report of the Tanglewood Symposium (Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference, 1968). 20 Charles Fowler, ?Speech for Boston University: Music Education from the Outside,? (Unpublished manuscript, 1975). 21 Charles Fowler, Note about Robert Choate?s personal influence on Fowler, __ July 1992, Charles Fowler Papers. 2 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964), 404. 23 Ibid., 405. 24 Ibid., 406. 25 Ibid., 408. 70 26 Ibid., 410. 27 Ibid., 410. 28 Ibid., 411. 29 Ibid., 411-412. 30 Ibid., 418-419. 31 Ibid., 422. 32 Ibid., 422-423. 3 Ibid., 425. 34 Ibid., 428. 35 Ibid., 428. 36 Ibid., 432-433. 37 Ibid., 437. 38 Ibid., 437. 39 Ibid., 439. 40 Ibid., 439. 41 Ibid., 442. 42 Ibid., 442. 43 Ibid., 442. 4 Ibid., 448. 45 Ibid., 448. 46 Ibid., 448-449. 47 Ibid., 450-451. 48 Ibid., 456. 71 49 Ibid., 458. 50 Ibid., 458-459. 51 Robert Choate, Documentary Report of the Tanglewood Symposium (Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference, 1968); Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964). 52 Robert Choate, Documentary Report of the Tanglewood Symposium (Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference, 1968). 53 Bennett Reimer, A Philosophy of Music Education (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, 1970); Bennett Reimer, A Philosophy of Music Education (2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1989). 54 David Elliott, Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). 5 Charles Leonhard and Robert House, Foundations and Principles of Music Education. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959). 56 David Elliott, Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 121. 57 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964); Charles Fowler, Strong Arts, Strong Schools: The Promising Potential and Shortsighted Disregard of the Arts in American Schooling (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). 58 Michael L. Mark and Charles L. Gary, A History of American Music Education (New York: Schirmer Books, 1992); Michael L. Mark, Contemporary Music Education, 3rd ed, (Belmont, CA: Schirmer Thomson Learning, 1996); Charles Fowler, ?Finding the Way to Be Basic: Music Education in the 1990s and Beyond,? in Basic Concepts in Music Education, II, ed. Richard Colwell (Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1991), 3- 26. 59 Theodore Brameld, Toward a Reconstructed Philosophy of Education (New York: The Dryden Press, 1956); Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964). 60 Todd Gitlin, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage (New York: Bantam Books, 1987), xii. 61 Todd Gitlin, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage (New York: Bantam Books, 1987). These and other events are discussed in Gitlin?s text about the decade of the 72 1960s. While a wholesale description of the historical and unique happenings of the era is not practical here, a general understanding of the philosophy and important activities of the time are useful in understanding why education professionals, like Brameld and Fowler, felt as if radical change was necessary in public education. Historical and social events obviously have an impact on the players of the time and are noted here for that reason. 62 Theodore Brameld, Toward a Reconstructed Philosophy of Education (New York: The Dryden Press, 1956); Max Kaplan, Foundations and Frontiers of Music Education (New York: Holt Reinhart and Winston, Inc., 1966); Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964). Fowler earned his doctoral degree at Boston University, where Theodore Brameld was on faculty. Robert Choate was Fowler?s dissertation advisor, mentor, and friend until his death in 1975. Max Kaplan is acknowledged in the Preface to Fowler?s dissertation as someone who had an impact on him and whose work he respected greatly. Fowler?s interest in sociology and relationships to music education are progressive for their time and show his ever forward thinking approach. 63 Stephen Paul and Jeanne Ballantine, ?The Sociology of Education and Connections to Music Education Research,? in The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, ed. Richard Colwell and Carol Richardson (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 566-583. 64 Harold Abeles, Charles Hoffer and Robert Klotman (Foundations of Music Education. New York: Schirmer Books, 1984). 65 Charles Fowler, ?The Misrepresentation of Music: A View of Elementary and Junior High School Music Materials,? Music Educators Journal 51 (May 1965): 38-42. 6 Marie McCarthy, ed., Winds of Change: A Colloquium in Music Education with Charles Fowler and David J. Elliott: Proceedings of the Charles Fowler Colloquium on Innovation in Arts Education, 1993 (New York: American Council for the Arts, 1994), 19. 67 Harold Abeles, Charles Hoffer and Robert Klotman, Foundations of Music Education, (New York: Schirmer Books, 1984). 68 Charles Fowler, ed., ?Facing the Music in Urban Education,? Special Report, Music Educators Journal 56, no. 5 (January 1970). Note that although the six volumes of Fowler?s work as editor are cited in the bibliography by year, this special report merits a separate entry due to its importance and Fowler?s belief that it was one of his most accomplished achievements during his tenure as editor of the Music Educators Journal. 69 Barbara R. Lundquist, Telephone interview with author, 6 August 2007, Seattle, WA. 73 70 Barbara R. Lundquist, ?Music, Culture, Curriculum, and Instruction,? in The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, eds. Richard Colwell and Carol Richardson (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 626-647. 71 Hildegard C. Froehlich, Sociology for Music Teachers: Perspectives for Practice, (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007). 72 Ibid., 6. The quote is from a Fowler chapter written in 1991 as part of the book Basic Concepts in Music Education, II, edited by Richard Colwell, and listed in the bibliography here. This was part of a book dedicated to looking at the upcoming decade of the 1990s and the role of music education in it. In this chapter (the first in the book), Fowler considered many ideas based on his career of reflecting on music education and its important role sociologically, philosophically, and historically. 73 Ibid., 7. 74 Based on my research over the past several years of Fowler and his work since 2003, I have determined these four periods based on pivotal events in his life and career. I introduce these as a way to better categorize his extensive and prolific writings, as well as a means by which further research can be organized, conducted, and analyzed. 75 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964), 3. 76 Ibid., 6. 7 Charles Fowler, ?The Misrepresentation of Music: A View of Elementary and Junior High School Music Materials,? Music Educators Journal 51 (May 1965): 38-42. 78 Charles Fowler, Note regarding importance of seminal MEJ article from 1965, 2 June 1992, Charles Fowler Papers. These personal notes, written by Fowler himself, are important and worthy of clarification. Fowler had a keen sense of seminal events in his career and wrote about these for future reviewers of his archive. The notes and reflections have assisted me here in not only understanding his thinking and writings better, but provided clear evidence of my assertions and why certain events are important and worthy of discussion. Generally speaking, the notes and comments are more informal than his other writings, and often colloquial words, terms, and punctuation are used to describe the sentiment Fowler is conveying in these messages. For this reason, [sic] is used sparingly since these examples are a direct reporting of the content and message of the notes themselves. Here, by using the term ?reacher,? he meant a progressive thinker who was articulating new ideas to enact substantive change and growth of the field. While the majority of the notes are obviously later than the events which they address, they are usually housed with the original documents to which they refer. These and other comments are especially beneficial to researchers because they provide a perspective on 74 important events during his life and career that cannot be as readily inferred from the published writings or other works themselves. 79 Charles Fowler to Bonnie Kowall, Washington, DC, 28 February 1965, Charles Fowler Papers. 80 Charles Fowler, ?Music Education: Joining the Mainstream,? Music Educators Journal 54 (November 1967): 49-80. 81 Ibid., 72. 82 Charles Fowler, ed., ?Facing the Music in Urban Education,? Special Report, Music Educators Journal 56, no. 5 (January 1970). 83 Charles Fowler, ?Discovery: One of the Best Ways to Teach a Musical Concept,? Musical Educators Journal 57 (February 1970): 25-30. 84 Charles Fowler, ?The Discovery Method: Its Relevance for Music Education,? in MENC Sourcebook III, ed. Bonnie Kowall (Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference, 1966), 126-134. 85 Charles Fowler, ?The Editor as Advocate,? College and University Journal 10 (February 1971): 25-26. 86 Ibid., 25. 87 Charles Fowler, ?National Survey of Musical Performance,? Musical America 24 (August 1974): 12-13. 8 These articles are discussed in detail later, but are listed chronologically in the present bibliography under Primary Sources / Articles at Musical America by Charles Fowler. Works at MA by guest authors are listed alphabetically under a separate category. This organization is designed to be helpful for the current reader and also for future researchers, since no specific citation list in this form currently exists in relation to Fowler?s articles written and edited during his 15-year tenure at Musical America. 89 Charles Fowler, Strong Arts, Strong Schools: The Promising Potential and Shortsighted Disregard of the Arts in American Schooling (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). 90 Charles Fowler, Timothy Gerber, and Vincent Lawrence, Music! Its Role and Importance in Our Lives (New York: Glencoe Publishers, 1994). 75 91 Charles Fowler, Strong Arts, Strong Schools: The Promising Potential and Shortsighted Disregard of the Arts in American Schooling (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 161. 76 Chapter Three: A Discussion of Methodology and Analysis Introduction to Research Methods The purpose of this chapter is to address the methodology that guides the dissertation research. First will be a description of the Charles Fowler Papers, which are housed in the Special Collections in the Performing Arts of the Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library at the University of Maryland, College Park. Then I will discuss historical method and document analysis, establish methodological precedent, and explain why the sources selected for review are valid for the study. I further explore why these specific documents have been chosen and how they are analyzed. Included in my overview of methodology are evidence and coding categories, which include objectives and categories that Fowler himself laid out in his writings and serve as initial points for analysis of his material. I also discuss the exegesis of the documents and the process from source to analysis to interpretation. This leads to a description of how the methodology serves to answer the research questions followed by a general outline of the narrative and remaining chapters of the dissertation. The Charles Fowler Papers All of Charles Fowler?s papers are housed in the Special Collections in the Performing Arts of the Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library at the University of Maryland. The Fowler collection comprises 236 boxes of materials that are 120 linear feet in size. Many of the principal writings are accompanied by related materials such as drafts of articles, editorial comments, personal and business letters and personal notes, among other artifacts. Other archival materials include cassette recordings of radio 77 interviews, video recordings of speeches, review of annotations of letters and published documents, pamphlets, brochures, photos, diaries, scripts, unpublished materials, and personal annotations and notes commenting on earlier achievements. Fowler organized his life?s works in a methodical manner that, along with the finding aid developed by the staff of the Special Collections, helps to facilitate work of the researcher. Fowler also saved much ancillary material that he wrote during the creation and publication of his important writings and works. He submitted the majority of his papers toward the end of his life, in July and October 1992, and the remaining papers were donated by others after his death, in December 1995. 1 An interesting note is that one purpose of donating his collection of papers to the University of Maryland was to endow a colloquium which now bears his name, The Charles Fowler Colloquium on Innovation in Arts Education. While it is not directly related to the focus of the dissertation, it is an important component of the Special Collections and of his Papers and illustrates his interest in furthering his ideas through research, study, dialogue, and practice. Historical Method and Document Analysis The primary work of the research involved reading, analyzing, and interpreting selected documents that are part of Fowler?s papers. While other relevant materials from the archives were considered for background knowledge, the primary research focus was to examine writings that were published between 1964, the year he completed his dissertation, and 1989, his last year writing for Musical America. This study covers the middle two periods of his career, 1964 to 1973, and 1974 to 1989. Historical method and inquiry, along with archival research, document analysis, and interviews are used to study 78 these materials. Bogdan and Biklen state, ?in some studies qualitative researchers use the same source material (data) as historians.? 2 They go on to say that in these same studies, ?such materials are just part of the information base,? while ?in others, qualitative researchers rely almost exclusively on historical material.? 3 So, while document analysis of historical archives is a methodology in itself, it is important to note that it falls under the larger heading of qualitative research. A further consideration is the process used from finding a source to analyzing and interpreting it. First I established the validity and relevance of the source/s. Second I considered what makes a document important and why it was selected for analysis in the study. Third I analyzed the source/s, and the fourth and final step was to interpret them. Although much of this method is covered in the following pages, it is important to note that roughly 11,000 pages of documents have been considered for this study, with review according to the research questions, and taking into account Fowler?s seven objectives and his vision for music education. In any historical inquiry, the decision to select certain documents and then show their relevance is paramount. The selection and analysis were based on objective elements, while interpretation was considered according to a more subjective view. Further thought was given to whether the research questions had been addressed and that the documents showed their importance to the study. The interpretation process was based on the research questions, but also was viewed according to experience with the material on my part as the author, the seven objectives, broader themes found in Fowler?s work, interviews of selected participants, and an abiding consideration of the usefulness of the materials for future study. 79 While it is generally accepted that historical research falls into the qualitative paradigm, there is some debate about its location as a methodology. 4 Gall, Gall, and Borg entered the discussion by showing less empathy for historical research methods. They used positivistic viewpoints to understand it in the context of quantitative methods. These scholars do, however, provide a reasonably thorough discussion of historical research in educational settings. They cover not only the modality in detail, but provide guidance for ensuring the validity and credibility of the research using historical methods. Historical research is defined in clear terms when the authors stated that it ?helps educators understand the present condition of education by shedding light on the past.? 5 Historical research, they claimed, also helps ?imagine alternative future scenarios in education and judge their likelihood? [of happening]. 6 To clarify that historical document analysis is a useful research technique, Creswell stated that ?a valuable source of information in qualitative research can be documents.? 7 He went on to say, ?documents represent a good source for text (word) data for a qualitative study.? 8 More important to the present study, Creswell continued by saying that documents can ?provide the advantage of being in the language and words of the participants, who have usually given thoughtful attention to them.? 9 A difficult issue in historical research was discussed by Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier, both historical researchers at Columbia University and the University of Ghent, respectively. Their concern was establishing ?evidentiary satisfaction,? described by the authors as knowing when enough evidence is found to establish the assertions of the study. 10 As a researcher, I provide strong and plentiful evidence from Fowler?s writings but cannot speak to the writer himself since he is no longer living. The 80 two issues here are to first select the right evidence and documents, and secondly, to show they are true to Fowler?s thinking. I am confident, however, that the depth and breadth of materials available in his Papers, and my experience researching his work for the past several years, will point to many examples of his writings reflecting his vision for music education. By looking to these experienced practitioners of educational and historical research, one can be guided by the fact that, ?while perfect certainty is never achievable, there are gradations of plausibility ? some kinds of evidence are better than others, some kinds of interpretations are easier to support.? 1 Given the rich material present in Fowler?s archive and the strong examples of his writing and views from each chronological period, I am confident that evidentiary plausibility is achieved. While the overarching themes for investigation of the research questions came from his dissertation and the seven objectives, these themes were flexible and emergent as the study progressed. However, through my initial review of Fowler?s work I was able to see ?patterns of recurrence and thus patterns of causality.? 12 In other words, Fowler?s consistency of message, along with the strength and volume of the content, confirm the thesis that his work from 1964 to 1989 represented and put forth his vision for music education. Finally, commentary from two important historians in music education establish historical inquiry as a valid and useful method for this study. In their chapter from the first Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, Bruce Wilson and George Heller described the value and process of using historical research in music education. They covered multiple topics such as understanding and researching history, refining the 81 topic, establishing the context, gathering evidence, verifying sources and overall design. Other topics in the chapter included writing history, proposing it, documentation, and outline of historical research design, among others. 13 This chapter provided a strong basis for the outline and construction of the present study and has been a guide in the preparation and undertaking of the dissertation itself. Establishing Methodological Precedent In order to show that historical research method is established practice, I have examined other authors and works that use similar modes of inquiry in their research. One cogent example is the dissertation of Marybeth Gasman, titled ?A Renaissance in Nashville: Charles S. Johnson's Use of Philanthropy to Build Fisk University in the Post- War Period.? 14 Gasman used historical inquiry and archival research to show how Charles Johnson used philanthropic efforts to improve conditions at Fisk University following World War II. This study is similar to my own in that the author used historical documents, interviews and archival research as important sources to examine the work of a single person. It is also a useful model because the focus is on the individual?s work, rather than being a biography. Gasman also examined material from several university archives similar to the Special Collections at the University of Maryland from which I have drawn and collected my documents and sources. A book later published by Gasman and colleague Patrick Gilpin, uses a similar method. The book, Charles S. Johnson: Leadership Beyond the Veil in the Age of Jim Crow, 15 is a model for the research I have undertaken. The analysis of the documents in both Gasman?s study, as well as my own, is designed to review and interpret information from primary and related sources that support the main thesis of the research questions 82 and outcomes. This dissertation illustrates the precedent of historical method in general education research, as those listed in the coming paragraphs establish the practice within music education scholarship. In a similar way, the study of Fowler and his writings are evaluated in my study to present his work and contextualize it within music education. After reading through each document, letter, memo, draft, note, and other examples, each piece was reviewed for relationships to the seven objectives outlined in his dissertation. The elements found in his writings, which represent these objectives, illustrate that his vision for music education was portrayed through his work. From this point, I situate them within the context and time they were written and published. Other examples of dissertations using similar historical method include those by Marie McCarthy, ?Music Education and the Quest for Cultural Identity in Ireland, 1831- 1989,? 16 and David Rozen?s ?The Contributions of Leonard Bernstein to Music Education: An Analysis of His 53 ?Young People's Concerts.?? 17 Both of these dissertations used historical method and archival research to analyze either a specific topic or an individual and how those primary source documents support a thesis. Other examples include David Crone?s dissertation, ?A Historical Descriptive Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Education Policy and Its Influence on the Music Education Curriculum in the New York City Public Schools, 1950?1999,? 18 and J. Scott Goble?s dissertation, ?Ideologies of Music Education: A Pragmatic, Historical Analysis of the Concept ?Music? in Music Education in the United States.? 19 While some of these sources are not directly about a specific individual, they clearly show that historical method is 83 established precedent in music education research and that this type of analysis is a valid means of contributing to the research literature of the music education field. In 1997, Victoria Smith completed a master?s thesis that reviewed documents relating to the 1971 to 1972 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) that was also published in 2000 as an article in the Journal of Historical Research in Music Education. 20 This was not only useful as support for historical inquiry and method, but as an aside, further outlined an event that Fowler considered very important to music education, assessment in education. This topic became more and more important in the lexicon and practice of general and music education and remains so to this day. A final source is a book written about Charles Leonhard, an important figure in music education history, by another well-regarded scholar, George Heller. Heller is known, among other things, for his work in the research and writing of topics related to music education history and its relevance to practice. This book, titled Charles Leonhard: American Music Educator, 21 is also a study of one individual by another scholar. The approach is similar to the present study and provides further evidence of historical method in music education research as accepted precedent for analysis. These studies illustrate precedent for use of historical method in music education research. They highlight that authors are using historical documents to analyze and interpret a specific problem or question and gaining answers by way of historical inquiry. The studies further support the view that all historical research need not be biographical in order to have value. Further, it is important to note that the analysis of large bodies of documents connected to a person, event, or concept bring to the surface new and 84 engaging ideas which can be of great import to the scholarly community, along with practitioners in the music classroom. Analyzing the Documents of Charles Fowler A primary purpose of this dissertation is to review the development of Fowler?s writings and related materials in an attempt to understand his perspectives over time. Analyzing primary source and other documents are central to this objective. The analysis began with an initial overview of his papers through the finding aid, followed by a reading of selected materials pertinent to this study. An important component of the present study is that it marks the first time research has been conducted on a large scale to investigate Fowler?s work and contributions. While his writings can be considered as early as 1948 and as late as 1995, the focus of this study is on publications and other writings produced between 1964 and 1989. Other works are considered to support or assist in understanding works within the considered time frame, but are not reviewed in depth as part of the research due to the scope and limitations of the study. Selected sources from the Fowler papers are reviewed to establish patterns in his thinking over time. I looked at this work through the lens of the seven objectives outlined in his dissertation, while considering themes from the writings which emerged over time during his career. Much of his ancillary, or non-published views and thoughts can be gleaned from his personal notes and other communications that are connected with the published works. First I discuss the documents themselves, how they were chosen, their relevance, validity, and other determining factors. Then, I present how they were reviewed, analyzed, and interpreted, including connections with research questions and the ?evidence categories,? which are the objectives of his dissertation. 85 I have initially chosen two large sets of documents to be evaluated. The first is his work as editor of the Music Educators Journal from 1965 to 1971 and the second, his articles from Musical America written between 1974 and 1989. Fowler, working at MENC, edited six years of the bi-monthly and monthly journals of the MEJ from cover- to-cover. The fifteen years as Education Editor and columnist for the periodical Musical America include 132 articles that Fowler wrote or edited for the magazine. There are also hundreds of letters, related notes, reference materials and other supportive documents with each article that tell a story of the context and circumstances of the articles, while also illuminating their content. Fowler wrote many other works that were considered, but these are two of his best-known collections of material. Some of these additional items include speeches, articles for other journals, personal letters, chapters from other books, and so on. The choice of these documents came from the four periods of Fowler?s career I have already established. 2 These periods were classified according to significant events in Fowler?s professional career and centered on important segments of work like the two just mentioned. While I considered other examples and did not intend to be prescriptive about the choice of documents to review, these provided a solid starting point for the study. Examining ideas presented by Fowler in his writing and other work provided deeper insight into his vision and goals for music education. Since detailed analysis of his output has not been done before, one purpose of this study is to organize his writings chronologically and bring to light and clarify his thinking over the course of his career. The four periods are based on significant segments of his career and a body of work that reflects his circumstances and goals at the time. 86 The numbers of documents and works presented here comprise a starting point, based on an initial review of his Papers and the content of a number of publications considered. Other sources and materials were reviewed based on the research and subsequent analysis. It was not possible to review every item he wrote or produced during the time-frame of this study, and while this was certainly not a goal, there were significant numbers of valuable primary and secondary source documents that warranted a detailed analysis and offered a comprehensive view of Fowler?s thinking and philosophy. Sources and Validity Now that the documents themselves have been introduced, I address why these sources are valid and relevant for the study. First, I turn to published research method to establish the validity of the sources. Second, a description of the professional organization of his Papers is discussed, along with the rigor with which they were archived. Then follows more information about the analysis of the documents themselves and how they were read, analyzed, and interpreted. Howell and Prevenier stated that there are three elements necessary for technical analysis of sources. The analysis of sources should be readable and comprehensible, carefully located in place and time, and authentic. 23 I apply this model to my evaluation of the validity of Fowler?s sources under consideration. The following discussion further mentions how this related to their analysis as part of the study. The Fowler documents are readable and comprehensible since most works are published, drafts are usually typewritten, and for those materials in Fowler?s handwriting, they are legible and can be understood within context. The documents are carefully 87 located within the span of his lifetime (1931-1995) and therefore, the range of this study, from 1964 through 1989. Finally, all of the materials that were reviewed are authentic as they are carefully situated within his archival papers at the University of Maryland, most of them submitted directly by Fowler himself. Fowler donated his papers to the University of Maryland in three installments?two in 1992, and a third he had prepared, but given by others following his death, in 1995. He was working with the Special Collections staff, however, to prepare the documents for archiving. Bruce Wilson, who was Curator of the MENC Archives and Head Librarian the Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library at the University of Maryland, was the individual who arranged for Fowler?s career documents to be housed at the university. Wilson had known Fowler since the late 1960s, and that knowledge, combined with his nearly 40-year career in music education research, library administration, and curatorial experience indicates a level of rigor that these papers are accurate, valid, and genuine. 24 As to the personal documents, notes, handwritten letters, and other sources?Fowler included a good deal of commentary on the papers themselves, which provided valuable insight to me as the researcher. I have gained beneficial additional knowledge that would be much less evident without them. Although most of the commentary notes are dated, for those where the date is unclear, he wrote the majority of them during the years 1991 to 1992 while preparing the first two installments of donated material. There are also others from 1993 to 1994 in preparation of the final submission of the collection. 88 From the way the Papers were organized as they were presented, along with the good deal of personal commentary from Fowler himself, it is clear that he was fully aware of the structure and content of his archive and much of the information he hoped future researchers would learn from his collected materials. This awareness, of course, further adds a level of rigor to the accuracy and validity of the documents. Historical research is also considered more credible when direct study of primary source documents is possible. The majority of documents under review in this research are primary source materials. Almost all of Fowler?s work was published in some form or another, and he included many drafts in his archives as well as supporting notes and documents. It is most likely that the majority of his published work was peer-reviewed since he was working with respected publishing firms and organizations such as Musical America, Educational Leadership, The Getty Foundation, McGraw Hill, and Oxford University Press, among others. As a result, many people were working through the editorial process with him and engaged in his writing, as well as many letters and comments received after publication. The work of Charles Fowler was often in the public eye of a large audience and content and controversies did not go unnoticed. This, in combination with his personal notes, letters and other documents, reinforces the message that I experienced a credible and accurate view when looking through his archival material. Furthermore, the evidence found has strongly supported my answering and responding to the research questions. Another important set of issues I considered was how the documents were analyzed and sources criticized. In other words, as stated by Howell and Prevenier, to evaluate the documents according to the tradition of source criticism, or the true 89 genuineness of the sources. 25 I have also contemplated several other elements in relation to each document. These four principal elements are: (1) the ?genealogy? of the document, (2) the genesis of a document, (3) the ?originality? of the document, and (4) interpretation of the document. 26 It was also important to bear in mind that the majority of the writings under review were published works and to a certain extent, the above four areas have been addressed simply by peer review during the publication process. In looking through the various articles, publications, speeches, letters, notes, and other writings, the first goal was to read and absorb, then present the material by way of summary; second was to review the documents according the methodological premises listed above; third was to consider their importance and relevance to the study, along with the context of music education events at the time; fourth was to analyze them in light of the seven objectives and how they represent the message of his dissertation; and fifth was interpreting them according to the research questions and presenting conclusions based on the final analysis. Connecting Research Questions and Methodology The purpose of the study is to describe and interpret selected works of Charles Fowler produced between 1964 and 1989. The research questions are: (1)What works were representative of Charles Fowler?s development as a scholar and arts advocate during 1964 to 1989? (2)How did these representative works reflect his vision for music education? (3) How were these works situated within the context of music education during their time? Also bear in the mind the value of introducing Charles Fowler?s writings as a body of literature along with the four major periods of his career. 90 I now strengthen the connection between research questions and methodology. The primary support comes from the documents and publications themselves, as well as other relevant documents within the archives, such as letters, memos, and personal notes written by Fowler. I assert that the documents and publications provide adequate evidence due to the sheer number of them and strong content of the material. I also endeavored to keep the scope of the study narrow in light of the vast material in the archive, especially with regard to the middle two periods under study. The documents were reviewed with the research questions acting as genesis for later interpretation. Important works were selected based upon established criteria as to validity, rigor, and genuineness. I further considered them in light of the seven objectives from Fowler?s dissertation that I believe represent his vision for music education. The documents are situated within the context of music education and his career at the time they were written. Strong consideration has been given to the content and value of the documents in order to provide robust support that the research questions have indeed been addressed. This assures that the later assertions of the study present a reasoned and strong argument for the final conclusions of the research. A final note regarding data analysis is necessary before moving on to coding categories. Since the material reviewed for the study was produced by Charles Fowler who is no longer living, how can further evidence be provided to emphasize the value of its content and relevance to this research? Since historical method and document analysis represent the principal methodology of the study, another method of collecting supportive data is useful, that of interviewing those who knew Fowler personally and professionally during his lifetime. These interviews are not listed as primary data because they are used 91 to support the content of the documents, the research questions, the scope and focus of the study, and the assertions that result. The interviews provided broad additional context and illuminated specific points from Fowler?s writings. The interviews were informal and open-ended and were used to enhance and support the findings that came from analysis of the archival documents. In preparation, a consent was drafted, and the University of Maryland Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the interview questions and format in July 2006. Standard interview procedures were followed according to IRB guidelines and suggestions of research methods texts such as Gall, Gall, and Borg, 27 Creswell, 28 Howell and Prevenier, 29 and Bogdan and Biklen. 30 I conducted these interviews with eight selected individuals during August of 2006, and June, July, and August of 2007. Each of the participants was given information about the project and his or her role in the research. From the responses provided by the participants, the purpose of the research was clarified, along with the analysis of Fowler?s career, his vision, and the selected writings that were interpreted for the project. The interview participants listed below are significant figures who knew, understood, or worked with Charles Fowler during his lifetime. All recognized scholars in their own right, their input provided invaluable insights into his life, writings, vision, and career. 1)Dr. Elliot Eisner ? Palo Alto, CA Professor Emeritus, Stanford University 2)Dr. Timothy Gerber ? Columbus, OH Professor, Ohio State University 3)Dr. Vincent Lawrence ? Pittsburgh, PA Retired Professor, Towson University 92 4)Dr. Kathryn Martin ? Duluth, MN Chancellor, University of Minnesota-Duluth 5)Dr. Philip Moeller ? Washington, DC Co-Executor, Charles Fowler?s Estate 6)Dr. David O?Fallon ? Minneapolis, MN President, MacPhail Center for Music 7)Dr. Barbara Reeder Lundquist ? Seattle, WA Professor Emerita, University of Washington 8)Dr. Bruce Wilson ? Frederick, MD Retired Director, University of Maryland Performing Arts Library An additional purpose of the interviews was to gain experienced perspectives on the selected articles, publications, and other writings under consideration for the study, along with the interviewees? views of Fowler and his contributions. The interview participants were selected based on their professional and personal connections to Fowler and his work. These factors helped determine if the colleagues who knew him and his times also considered these selections and factors important to his career and representative of his vision for music education. Further, they supported the assertion that Fowler?s writings are a valuable contribution to the literature and strongly validate the need for, and a primary purpose of, this dissertation research. Other purposes include identification, interpretation, and contextualization of his works, and to better inform our understanding of his vision for music education. This contextualization is intended to place the works as products of their own time while providing means to illustrate how they reflect Fowler?s goals, which he believed were important for the progressive success and growth of the music education profession. 93 Coding, Evidence, and Thematic Categories The evaluation of the works was considered in the context of their period, followed by a summary of the selected important writings from Fowler?s Papers, and finally, analysis according to coding, evidence, and thematic categories. The coding categories (Fowler?s seven dissertation objectives) provide the lens through which to look at the evidence (works) and show Fowler?s initial thinking and vision for music education. Presenting the evidence takes the form of cogent quotations, paraphrasing from the text, analyzing groups of articles and themes, and other strategies that represent the issues addressed in the research questions. From there, emerging themes (developing broader topics) came forth that illustrated Fowler?s thinking over time and how this development was clarified in his later writings. The coding categories are based on the seven objectives of Charles Fowler?s dissertation. These are the ideas that are represented throughout his writings, illustrate his vision for music education, and are used as a basis for analysis and interpretation of the works under review. The seven objectives reflect important goals he believed were necessary for success and reform in music education. 31 Fowler stated the need for objectives by saying: The need for esthetic education and the objectives for of music education are justified by the esthetic defects of the American culture and by the goals and values of that culture as formulated by reconstructionism. The need for esthetic education and the objectives of music education are justified by the esthetic defects of the American culture and by the goals and values of that culture as formulated by reconstructionism. 32 The objectives are addressed in further detail in other chapters (primarily Chapter Two), and outlined how the representative works (evidence) were considered and analyzed for the study. 94 Examples of these seven objectives are found within works from the second and third periods of 1964 to 1989. Every work does not contain each objective, category, or emerging theme. These are starting points for analysis and give Fowler a ?voice? which was expressed through his objectives and clarified in his writings. Some of the objectives or themes are found throughout the works as a whole and provide strong support for the idea that he considered these important throughout his career as an author and advocate. As the documents were reviewed, examples of how the works reflect these objectives were considered as part of the reading and analysis. In one sense, it may be apparent that anything he wrote would reflect his personal views about music education. In another, the writings more aptly showed a consistency of vision throughout his career that he felt music education held a purpose in the schools and could provide an important benefit to students and their comprehensive education. In sum, the three areas of consideration here include the coding categories (dissertation objectives), through which the works will be evaluated; the evidentiary satisfaction (works), which provide evidence and grounding of his perspective and vision; and emerging themes (developing thoughts), which show his changing thinking and clarification of broad ideas during the years under study, from 1964 to 1989. Summary I clarified the research methodology in Chapter Three, which is primarily historical method and document analysis. The Charles Fowler Papers were introduced, and important historical research methods and considerations were explained, such as sources and validity, connecting research questions with the methodology, and outline of the narrative. I included information on how the Fowler documents meet standards of 95 rigor according to the research methods literature. Additional sections addressed evidence and coding categories, along with anticipated outcomes of the study. In the following Chapters?Four, Five and Six?the writings of the middle two periods, or the years from 1964 to 1989, are addressed. Each is devoted to describing and synthesizing his work, along with interpreting and contextualizing them within music education. Once the writings have been analyzed and interpreted, Chapter Seven completes the dissertation and its findings, while offering conclusions and recommendations for further study. An additional purpose is to clarify and emphasize Charles Fowler?s vision about the value of music education to the individual and society. It is hoped this dissertation will function to introduce and organize Fowler?s writings for future research and encourage continued study into his life and work. 96 Chapter Three Notes 1 Charles Bruner Fowler, Charles Fowler Papers, Special Collections in the Performing Arts, Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland, College Park Maryland. 2 Robert Bogdan and Sari K. Biklen, Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998), 71. 3 Ibid., 71. 4 Robert Bogdan and Sari K. Biklen, Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998). 5 Meredith Gall, Joyce Gall and Walter Borg, Educational Research: An Introduction, 7th ed. (Boston, MA: Pearson, 2002), 513. 6 Ibid., 513. 7 John Creswell, Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall, 2002), 209. 8 Ibid., 209. 9 Ibid., 209. 10 Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001). 1 Ibid., 79. 12 Ibid., 84. 13 George Heller and Bruce Wilson, ?Historical Research,? in Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, ed. Richard Colwell (New York: Schirmer Books, 1992), 102-114. 14 Marybeth Gasman, ?A Renaissance in Nashville: Charles S. Johnson?s Use of Philanthropy to Build Fisk University in the Post-War Period? (PhD diss., Indiana University, Bloomington, 2000). 15 Patrick J. Gilpin and Marybeth Gasman, Charles S. Johnson: Leadership Beyond the Veil in the Age of Jim Crow (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2003). 97 16 Marie McCarthy, ?Music Education and the Quest for Cultural Identity in Ireland, 1831-1989? (PhD diss., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1990). 17 Brian D. Rozen, ?The Contributions of Leonard Bernstein to Music Education: An Analysis of His 53 ?Young People's Concerts?? (PhD diss., University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music, Rochester, 1998). 18 David T. Crone, ?A Historical Descriptive Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Education Policy and Its Influence on the Music Education Curriculum in the New York City Public Schools, 1950?1999? (PhD diss., Seton Hall University, South Orange, 2002). 19 J. Scott Goble, ?Ideologies of Music Education: A Pragmatic, Historical Analysis of the Concept ?Music? in Music Education in the United States? (PhD diss., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1999). 20 Victoria Smith, ?The Music Assessment of the 1971-1972 National Assessment of Educational Progress: A History,? (master?s thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1997); Victoria Smith, ?The Music Assessment of the 1971-1972 National Assessment of Educational Progress: A History,? Journal of Historical Research in Music Education 22 (January 2000): 47-64. 21 George Heller, Charles Leonhard: American Music Educator (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1996). 2 By way of review, the four periods I am establishing as organization of Fowler?s career are (1) 1948-1963, (2) 1964 to 1973, (3) 1974-1989, and (4) 1990 to 1995. 23 Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001), 43-44. 24 Bruce Wilson, Telephone interview with author, 26 June 2007, Canaan Valley, WV. 25 Ibid., 61. 26 Ibid., 61-65. 27 Meredith Gall, Joyce Gall and Walter Borg, Educational Research: An Introduction, 7th ed. (Boston, MA: Pearson, 2002). 28 John Creswell, Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall, 2002). 98 29 Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001). 30 Robert Bogdan and Sari K. Biklen, Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998). 31 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964). 32 Ibid., 402. 99 Chapter Four: Making a Statement, 1964 to 1973 A Brief Introduction to Fowler?s Writings In Chapter Four, I begin the reporting and analysis of the writings of Charles Fowler that are under consideration in the study. The scope of this research falls between the years 1964 and 1989, and this chapter will cover the second period, from 1964 to 1973. The primary segments of Fowler?s contributions include his editorial work at MENC, articles and columns he wrote as editor, and the transition from MENC to private consultant in music education and the arts. There are three primary purposes to this chapter. The first is to summarize and analyze Fowler?s works between 1964 to 1973, within the context of the era. The second is to bring forth emerging themes that were a part of Fowler?s focus during these years and show how his thinking was developing over time. These themes highlight the broad and important topics Fowler was considering during these years. The third is to connect his writings to the objectives outlined in his dissertation, which I argue are the foundational support for his thinking and philosophy during his career. First I provide a context and description of current trends during the 1960s and early 1970s when the works were written. This discussion will place Fowler and his writings during this time-frame and emphasize influences present as he worked. Then Fowler?s time as editor of the MEJ and articles he contributed while editor are described and analyzed. The final works covered are those prepared for publications outside of the music education profession that occurred during his transition away from MENC and into independent consultant work. 100 Placing the Works in Context It is useful to place Fowler?s works in the context of the times in which they were conceived and written. The following section focuses on this context during the years between 1964 and 1973, with consideration given to happenings inside and outside of music education. While some of this historical context is well-documented, it is useful to clarify it here adjacent to Fowler?s work because it emphasizes the strong and conditional influences he faced while undergoing the process of writing, editing, and advocating for music education during the second period of his life and career. Many important writers have commented on the fiery decade that is now known simply as the ?1960s.? Bill Moyers, career journalist of fifty-plus years, recently commented on the era and one of its important messages: The Sixties taught us that you don?t have to feel guilty to love justice. The Joan Baezes and the Pete Seegers of the world didn?t feel guilty?they hadn?t done anything wrong?but they just loved justice so much that they had to proclaim it. 1 Charles Fowler lived and wrote during the ferment of the 1960s, and while completing doctoral studies in 1964, was nearing the end of the first period of his writings, ?Roots of a Philosophy,? from 1948-1963. 2 The majority of his work during the second period, ?Making a Statement,? from 1964 to 1973, is during the 1960s, and many ideas carried throughout the early 1970s. It was during these years, based on his prior teaching and writing experiences, that he was formulating and refining his viewpoint of music education and the impact of music in schooling. During his time at Boston University alone, President Kennedy and Civil-Rights leader Medgar Evers were assassinated, the public became aware of the Vietnam War, Sputnik and its aftermath produced the race to the Moon and a renewed interest in the 101 sciences in public schools, Martin Luther King, Jr. and others led the Civil Rights movement, and the social unrest that defined the decade began early in the 1960s. Fowler was impacted by reconstructionist philosophy, as mentioned earlier, and valued its possibility to renew, build-up, regenerate, and influence social change. These were some of the hallmarks of the 1960s influences and experiences. 3 Former President Jimmy Carter, involved with politics since the early 1960s and Governor of Georgia from 1971 to 1975, confirmed the positive impact of the 1960s and early 1970s discussed in this section, when he stated: I think what came out of that period [the Sixties] was mostly positive. The country moved to racial integration, thanks to the civil rights movement, and Vietnam left us with a negative reaction to unilateral action by the United States. What emerged from the Sixties was a commitment to international peace, human rights and shared responsibilities. The Sixties prepared us for a potentially enlightened domestic and foreign policy. 4 Bill Moyers also spoke of his own journalistic influences after working in The White House during the 1960s: It made me realize that what?s important in journalism is not how close you are to power, but how close you are to the truth. What the Sixties taught?what kids showed us?was that authority has its own vested interests, and it has to be challenged.? 5 Fowler most likely was touched by these ideas, and as a writer and scholar, recognized the impact that he could have on education and society through his work. Music education faced its own challenges during the 1960s and early 1970s. Although the social climate of the 1960s was in turmoil, the situation in schools had been fairly stable for a number of years. At the very least, because of positive financial and industrial gains of the 1950s, public schools were still enjoying the fruits and growth of American post-World War II success. Social protest and reform movements were 102 undoubtedly evident in the schools as they impacted school culture. Declines in school facilities, curriculum, student achievement, and reputation of schools in society, were not as evident until the end of the 1960s and early 1970s. Michael Mark, preeminent scholar of music education history, summed up the profession during the 1960s in this way: The 1960s were a time of economic strength for education because the ?baby boom? that followed World War II generated high enrollments. The maturation of that generation, combined with the social reforms of the 1960s, changed the character of American education profoundly. The sudden growth of the school population created a shortage of qualified teachers, and teacher education standards were reduced to bring more people into the profession. Combined with traditionally low teacher salaries, this tended to discourage people of the highest ability from entering the teaching profession. 6 Mark continued this thought: By the end of the 1960s, portents of future problems were appearing. Like the period immediately preceding the Great Depression of 1929, it was a time of plenty for education, but educational quality continued to deteriorate. The gradual and insidious decline was augured by the downward trend of SAT scores. By the end of the 1960s, however, standards had not yet sunk to the point where educators and the public were overly alarmed. That was to happen in the next decade. 7 These quotations compactly summarize the decade and address the dual concerns of external issues to education creating challenges for the practitioners inside of it. Mark continued his assessment with an interesting footnote that Fowler would highlight in his later writings: There is an irony in the contrasting methods of industry and education in attracting more workers when labor supply is short. Industry raises salaries to make its jobs more attractive to workers. School systems, on the other hand, have traditionally dealt with teacher shortages by reducing professional and educational requirements for new teachers. 8 Fowler often discussed the roles business models could contribute and suggested that if music education were to embrace those with the authority and power to enact real 103 change?administrators, superintendents, school boards, parents, community leaders, local business, and others?there would be more general and financial support for what is happening in music classrooms in the schools. In essence, he advocated an external approach to gain support for solving internal challenges. There were other crucial events happening in music education during the 1960s that also helped to shape the reform debate within the profession. These events were The Yale Seminar (1963), The Juilliard Repertory Project (1964), The Tanglewood Symposium (1967), and The Goals and Objectives Project (1969), and are considered seminal to music education reform during the decade. 9 The Yale Seminar was an important event for music education because it was perhaps the first clarion call for reform in music education during the decade of the 1960s. Unfortunately, however, it was not presented nor perceived as helpful criticism and caused much controversy to those in music education affected by its commentary. Mark described the Yale Seminar: The Yale Seminar on Music Education took place at Yale University June 17-28, 1963, to identify and examine the problems facing music education. The initial impetus of the seminar came from the National Science Foundation (NSF), which had sponsored science curriculum development in the late 1950s?. They recognized that many successful scientists were also accomplished musicians, and they believed that students would be stronger in science if they were exposed to the view of human experience as seen through the arts. The panel also recognized that school music had not produced a musically literate public and recommended that the K?12 curriculum of previous decades be examined to discover why this was so. 10 The commentary of the Yale Seminar Report was not flattering to music education, although its suggested criticisms did spur the profession to reconsider its mission and practices. The most direct issue tackled by the panel related to school music materials and their lack of quality, in general. Fowler addressed this very report and its conclusions in 104 his May 1965 article, ?The Misrepresentation of Music: A View of Elementary and Junior High School Music Materials.? 1 Fowler primarily wrote the article to bring attention to issues he saw in selection and quality of school music materials, as Juilliard announced the federal U.S. Office of Education grant that allowed them to survey and find more appropriate music for classrooms and students. This article and subject matter once again illustrate that Fowler?s views were strongly engaged in the issues of the day?within music education, general education, and society as a whole. The Juilliard Repertory Project from 1964 was designed as an opportunity to review music materials thoroughly to develop a high-quality collection for students in music education classrooms. Mark said of the Project: The project collected music of the highest quality for teaching music from kindergarten through sixth grade. Sensitive to the Yale Seminar criticism of the poor quality of musical literature used in schools, all music accepted for the Juilliard Repertory project accepted only music that had been evaluated and approved by school music teachers. 12 Although this quote indicates music teachers were the only literature judges, the materials were chosen by three sources: research consultants (musicologists and ethnomusicologists), educational consultants (music educators), and testing consultants (public school elementary teachers). 13 There were seven broad categories, ranging from early-Western classical music, to folk and contemporary idioms. Mark described the outcome: Of more than 400 compositions tested, 230 vocal and instrumental works were ultimately included in the Juilliard Repertory Library, which was published by the Canyon Press (Cincinnati, Ohio). The Reference Library, was large (384 pages) and expensive, so Canyon Press also published it as eight separate volumes of vocal music and four of instrumental music. There was no overlap of content in these smaller, more affordable volumes, and each contained a cross-section of the entire collection. 14 105 Mark concluded the description with the following statement: The Juilliard Repertory Library Project satisfied not only the Yale Seminar requirement for high-quality and authentic music for school music programs, but also the recommendations that scholars and teachers join together to upgrade music education. 15 Mark continued the discussion by mentioning that these events were controversial and not particularly well-received by the profession, but did provide a needed impetus for reform and change within the music education field. Another significant project underway during this time was the Contemporary Music Project (1963 to 1973), which was designed to create better understanding and implementation of modern music in the schools. This also led to the movement known as ?comprehensive musicianship,? that served as a method to improve the training of music teachers for the schools. Fowler?s beliefs about music education were aligned with the basic principles of the Contemporary Music Project. These principles were to (1) increased emphasis on the creative aspect of music in public schools, (2) instituting a supportive environment for the understanding, appreciation, and acceptance of contemporary music, (3) reduce the distance between music teachers and composers, to their mutual benefit, (4) cultivate discriminating taste for contemporary music in music teachers and students alike, and (5) discover creative talent among students. All of these goals were important and designed to foster more knowledgeable appreciation of contemporary music and its role in music education and society, along with training music teachers to be better prepared for the profession of the 1960s. 16 106 Perhaps the most important event to affect music education in the 1960s (and beyond) was The Tanglewood Symposium. Michael Mark offered a concise overview of the event: The Tanglewood Symposium took place from July 23 to August 2, 1967, in Tanglewood, Massachusetts, the summer home of the Boston Symphony Orchestra. MENC sponsored it in cooperation with the Berkshire Music Center, the Theodore Presser Foundation, and the School of Fine and Applied Arts of Boston University. The purpose of the symposium was to discuss and define the role of music education in contemporary American society at a time when it was faced with rapid social, economic and cultural change. 17 This was a watershed event in music education and influenced music teaching for many years afterward. Fowler was integrally involved in the project, having attended and presented at the original meetings. An overview of the main points of the Symposium are listed here and relate to Fowler?s work presented later in this and other chapters. (1) The Role of the Arts in a Changing Community (2) Potentials for the Arts Community (3) Perspectives on Music and the Individual (4) Music in the Emerging Society (5) Music of Our Time (6) The Nature and Nurture of Creativity (7) Music and the Inner City (8) Music Study for All Students in the High School (9) Music for Teenagers (10) Implications for Music in Higher Education and the Community (11) Goals of Aesthetic Education (12) Creative Teaching of Music (13) Implications in the Music Curriculum (14) Implications for the Education Process and Its Evaluation (15) Identification and Preparation of the Professional Music Educator At the time, Fowler was editor of the Music Educators Journal and helped edit and publish the final report of the Symposium, along with lending his own editorial expertise and professional experience to the findings. 18 Clearly Fowler was deeply involved in these seminal and important events of the day, and in conjunction with his 107 dissertation, its objectives, his writings, and other editorial work, was strongly situated in the current and progressive trends of this time. The best summary of The Tanglewood Symposium is in its final statement, known as The Tanglewood Declaration: The intensive evaluation of the role of music in American society and education provided by the Tanglewood Symposium of philosophers, educators, scientists, labor leaders, philanthropists, social scientists, theologians, industrialists, representatives of government and foundations, music educators and other musicians led to this declaration: We believe that education must have as major goals the art of living, the building of personal identity, and nurturing creativity. Since the study of music can contribute much to these ends, WE NOW CALL FOR MUSIC TO BE PLACED IN THE CORE OF THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM [emphasis in original]. The arts afford a continuity with the aesthetic tradition in man?s history. Music and other fine arts, largely non-verbal in nature, reach close to the social, psychological, and physiological roots of man in his search for identity and self- realization. Educators must accept the responsibility for developing opportunities which meet man?s individual needs and the needs of a society plagued by the consequences of changing values, alienation, hostility between generations, racial and international tensions, and the challenges of a new leisure. 19 The Goals and Objectives Project, lesser known than the other events listed here, was an outcome of the Tanglewood Symposium and began in 1969. The purpose was to work towards realizing the recommendations of Tanglewood. Eighteen subcommittees were appointed, by then MENC President Paul Lehman, to look into various aspects of music education. As the committee reports were compiled, 35 objectives emerged of which eight were considered priority. Several interesting outcomes emerged from this Project. They included two commissions designed to help implement its recommendations as well as broad and continuing discussions of these issues at state, regional, and national conferences on specific ways of utilizing these ideas to improve practice in the music classroom. Most 108 notable for this study, however, is the role that the Music Educators Journal played in emphasizing certain topics for publication. These topics include youth music, electronic music, music in urban education, and music in special education. Fowler embraced these topics wholeheartedly, and they all fall within his vision for music education. He used the new format of the ?special report,? which was instituted at the MEJ and is some of Fowler?s best work during his tenure as editor. Fowler cherished the opportunity to embrace these important issues that he had considered of value for years and written about enthusiastically in some of his early works, including the dissertation. These ideas strongly reflect his vision of music as a democratic art, music to meet aesthetic and cultural needs, music to communicate, music to develop discriminating taste, music to develop creativity, and music for all students. Moving into the 1970s, Michael Mark again characterized well the early part of the decade: Education in the 1970s was characterized by decline. During the early part of the decade, greatly increased oil prices severely affected world economic conditions. The ensuing inflation seriously hampered the ability of local school districts to maintain adequate funding levels. The states had similar problems and were unable to compensate for the shortages faced by local school districts. The federal government, now faced with new crises in social policy, foreign affairs, and the economy, diverted its attention and support away from education. 20 Music education and other areas in the arts in public schools traditionally receive less support during times of economic distress. Fowler fought much of his career for more and sustained financial and moral backing for music and arts education, generally putting forth the argument that these areas should be part of the standard academic curriculum. Fowler believed this advocacy would ultimately help improve academics, student creativity, ability to earn better jobs and wages, among many other benefits. 21 109 Another important event that influenced music education during the early 1970s was the administration of the 1972 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) examination. As early as 1964, work began on preparing the first NAEP administration. This was a standardized test designed to measure the current progress of educational programs in several academic areas, including the arts. Although MENC was involved in the process, there were many problems and disagreements with the preparation of questions and administration of the exam and its results. The NAEP was administered between 1971 and 1972, and the results were prepared for release in 1974. Due to the early issues with the preparation of the exams, the results represented music education very poorly, and a supplemental report was prepared in the hopes of mitigating the results. Due to a variety of circumstances, this report was not presented, and the reputation of music education was severely tainted. 2 Writing in a later personal note looking back on the time of the NAEP and its impact on music education, Fowler stated that ?arts teachers are always trying to prove something, while all other teachers are free to concentrate on the work at hand: teaching.? 23 Fowler further added his commentary: This article is on the music results of the National Assessment of Education(al) Progress. Too bad the reaction wasn?t ?OK, you want kids to perform better, then give us the time, the teachers, and the resources and we will see that it happens.? Instead, MENC and NAEA (National Association of Educational Assessment) worked to stop the national testing in music and art, a serious mistake that cost dearly in the years that followed. 24 Mark supports Fowler?s thoughts in writing: Earlier in the 1970s, as public awareness of the situation was beginning to grow, an accountability movement was developed. Various accountability devices were implemented in schools as a panacea for declining performance. Although it did not prove to be a cure, the accountability movement helped clarify educational 110 goals and objectives. It also provided a means of measuring the educational progress of individuals and the effectiveness of the educational system. 25 Fowler had suggested many of these ideas through the objectives in his dissertation from 1964. 26 Fowler recognized the impact of NAEP and wished that MENC and the profession had taken a more proactive, rather than reactive stance to the exam and other growing assessment concerns in education and the arts. Editorial Work for the Music Educators Journal, 1964 to 1971 Charles Fowler is well known for his important contribution to music education during his time as editor of the Music Educators Journal (MEJ) from 1965 to 1971. I first establish Fowler?s connection with the MEJ and describe the circumstances leading up to his editorship of the journal and then present a general discussion of his accomplishments as editor, along with commentary on the volumes and articles he produced during this time. A final segment addresses other works he wrote during the period 1964 to 1973. Fowler?s history with the MEJ goes back to 1964, when the Journal published his article, ?The Misrepresentation of Music: A View of Elementary and Junior High School Music Materials.? 27 This article was significant to his career as it served as the transition from his work as a teacher to that of a writer and editor. Fowler commented on it: This turned out to be a very important piece in my life. It constituted the reason I was invited to become editor of the MEJ. It was pivotal in that it changed my career from teaching to editing ? the latter skill I had never recognized in myself. The editorial responses are interesting, but the notes from Vanett Lawler are revealing. As Exec. Secy. (later Exec. Director) of MENC, she was always a reacher. She embraced the larger world viewpoint consistently and forthrightly. Her note to BK [Bonnie Kowall], then editor of MEJ ? reveals her desire to see the journal embrace the provocative issues of the field and her involvement in these decisions. She really cared about the field. 28 This article was a direct outgrowth of the Yale Seminar and Juilliard Repertory Project and was written as a direct response to these reports. The purpose was to challenge the 111 music materials being used in music classrooms and question their relevance, quality, and appropriateness in music teaching and learning for children. Since this work created controversy among members of the MEJ Editorial Board, Wiley Housewright, who was Chairman at the time, included a note at the beginning of the article informing readers of its important content. 29 In a letter Fowler wrote to Bonnie Kowall before he took over the editorship in 1965, he had this to say about comments of the Editorial Board to his submission: I find the comments of the editorial board just the sort of grist that will provoke thought, stimulate healthy controversy, and encourage consideration of new viewpoints. MEJ serves the music education profession well when it provides its readers with such a challenge to their thinking. 30 The article ignited a larger debate concerning the nature and role of music materials in the curriculum and their importance to guiding students through the process of learning about music and performing it. Commenting on Fowler?s work as editor of the Music Educators Journal, Bruce Wilson, former Curator of the MENC Historical Center and former Head of the Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library at the University of Maryland, College Park, said the following: The Music Educators Journal became a very thought-provoking, challenging, forward-thinking magazine?journal?that attracted the attention of other people in the realm of music, academic music in particular?. So the look of the journal changed, the challenge of the journal changed, the content changed. Whereas previously the journal had been a series of articles that may or may not have been interesting, suddenly you had a journal, the whole of which was packed with different points of view on an emerging topic. 31 Fowler?s efforts as editor of the Music Educators Journal included many changes to the appearance, outlook, and content of the journal. Some of the basic changes began as early as 1966, with the expansion from six to nine issues and moving the table of contents from 112 the back to the front matter. In 1968, he added an editorial column called Overtones, which allowed the editor to speak to the readers and clarify the focus of the issue and other relevant features. It also allowed Fowler to present his voice and unique message to tell readers why this material was important to the profession. Other changes included the overall look of the journal with its lettering, format, editorial choices, and cover artwork. His covers are known for their variety, artistic merit, and use of major and important artworks, sketches, photographs and other compelling images. Fowler captured the attention of the reader before he opened the magazine. In the segment, On the Cover, he explained the artwork and its distinct features. Visual imagery was important to Fowler, and he used the medium to great effect to emphasize the content of the journal. Fowler was a proactive rather than reactive editor. He considered carefully what he felt was important to the profession and presented articles and materials that were designed not only to help the music educator in the classroom, but also to inform them of trends and practices of which they might not be aware. He wanted to move the profession forward and create a dialogue about how to improve music education as a change agent in the classroom. Bruce Wilson commented: He saw everything from the eyes of a reformer?. I think that he really found his own voice as a writer?because what he was doing as editor of the Music Educators Journal was editing a journal that brought issues to light, and enlivened the theme in music education. 32 There are three important documents that provide bookends for Fowler?s time as editor of the Music Educators Journal: the first is an article from September 1966, when he instituted his most sweeping changes during his second year as editor. The second, an article from May 1970, is a report of the Editorial Board on the Journal?s progress to date 113 based on the first comprehensive readership survey completed by the MENC membership. This report also allowed Fowler to comment on his four years as editor and highlight the changes he had instituted during his tenure. The third and final publication, from January 1970, addressed music education in urban settings. Fowler considered this issue and its content very important to his career and his editorial work at MENC and the Music Educators Journal. The first article of the two mentioned above is titled, ?Nine Issues of Music Educators Journal.? 3 Here Fowler outlined the changes he initiated as editor during his first full year at MENC. He included a brief history of the Journal, along with his new initiatives that were to take place starting in 1966. Among these are expansion from six to nine issues, more pages overall (that would eventually be roughly 1200 pages per volume), beginning of special themed issues, 34 and inclusion of more relevant articles to meet the needs of practicing music educators in the schools. Fowler?s inclusion and upgrades of the covers, editorial content, outlook and appearance are not listed specifically but can be seen by review and analysis of the journals themselves. These cosmetic and layout changes are important because they drew in a larger audience and were considered some of the most appealing and compelling issues of the MEJ collection to date. There was a professionalism in the Journal?s appearance and viewpoint that permeated the MEJ during Fowler?s editorship. 35 In essence, this article is important because it outlined what Fowler thought to be important by how he re-structured the Journal?along with his editorial choices?what he felt should be conveyed as part of the overall mission of MENC. He also believed that the MEJ, as the leading communication tool to the organization, could contribute to 114 presenting the message of reform and progressive thinking in music education to the general membership. Looking at these changes as part of a written list belies their true impact compared with reading the journals themselves. The reader feels as if he is involved in a dialogue about music education and that professionalism has been raised almost as a message to encourage the membership to rise to a new level in their work and educational outlook. Of the new topics to be covered with the extended format, Fowler wrote: The expanded publishing schedule will permit the inclusion of more articles on music per se and in subject matter fields related to music and education. Nine issues allow the subject of music education, in all its aspects on all levels from pre-school through university, to be covered with greater immediacy and comprehensiveness. 36 While a complete recounting of the articles and topics over six years of the MEJ is outside the scope of this study (Fowler?s editorship represents roughly 7,200 pages of published material), some general idea of topics chosen and published suggest what Fowler felt was important to present and comment on as editor. Such a survey highlights the relationship between his ideas as editor and his vision for music education. Some of the broad themes include humanities education, media and music education, progressive views of curriculum development, philosophy and sociology of music education, creativity and improvisation in the classroom, issues outside the field affecting music education, contemporary and popular music, aesthetics, diversity, special education, technology, urban education, music education for all, music as communication, and the role of music in society, among others. From these broad areas one gets a sense of the breadth of his vision for music education along with the scope of topics he believed were critical to the success of the field during those years. 115 How successful was Fowler in conveying his message to the MENC membership? A second critical article written by Fowler a year before he left the MEJ offered a report of the journal?s activity during the years 1966 to 1970, ?The Editorial Board?Years of Progress.? 37 Along with the results of a first-ever MEJ readership survey, Fowler presented a strong case to show that his efforts and progressive thinking had a positive impact on the readership of the Music Educators Journal and on MENC as a whole. Ever the change agent, Fowler wrote: Many people view a magazine like an old pair of shoes. They find reassurance in knowing exactly what to expect in look and feel. They want no surprises in content. The Editorial Board of the Music Educators Journal, happily, does not concur with such sentiments. They have not only encouraged change; they have worked closely with the editorial staff in promoting and in instituting it. 38 Fowler went on to mention the changes he had achieved during his tenure along with other efforts of the editorial board to broaden the scope and content of the Journal. He mentioned the increase in manuscript submissions from 180 annually in 1964 with a 59% acceptance rate, to 287 annually in 1970 with a 37% acceptance rate. 39 These statistics alone indicate the rise in overall quality of the Journal?s content. Continuing on, Fowler still felt that dealing with controversial issues is paramount to the mission of any publication when he said, ?The most unique of all the Editorial Board?s policies, however, is their forthrightness in handling controversy.? 40 He went on to describe how important topics such as youth music, urban education, and others, have been addressed by the Board and the Journal during the past several years. Challenging the readership to look at music education in new and progressive ways, as Fowler saw it, would only improve the quality of the organization (MENC) that was willing to embrace it: 116 Whatever the outcome, everyone is on firmer ground, whether for or against. That approach can make a stronger profession, and bespeaks a stronger professional organization. The efficacy of the Editorial Board?s convictions about content and about controversy can be documented by the results of the recent readership survey. 41 Fowler pointed to survey findings that included some of the following conclusions: 51% of readers were under 30, 98% of readers saved back-issues for future reference, 78% taught in urban areas, 90% spent more than an hour reading the Journal, with 60% having spent two or more hours, and 90% considered the Journal an important tool for leadership and innovation within the profession, along with the total audience having exceeded 207,000 readers, among others. 42 Fowler also wrote that the National Education Association (NEA) Research Division, which conducted the survey, indicated they had never seen such a positive response among the many surveys they usually presented. This was a strong showing of support, especially from an objective third-party, for Fowler and his work during his time as editor. A final important work from 1970, was Fowler?s production of a special report issue for the MEJ, ?Facing the Music in Urban Education.? 43 He considered this work his crowning achievement as editor of the MEJ and one of his most important publications to that date. 4 In this issue, he presented interviews conducted with several African- American and other music teachers who worked in urban settings in which they discussed their plight and mission in working with minority youth in public education. Additional authors and articles addressed topics on urban music education written by scholars, school principals, teachers, and others embracing this timely subject. This issue of the MEJ was one of several special reports that were published as a result of MENC attempting to address the outcomes of the Tanglewood Symposium 117 objectives from 1967. As editor, Fowler began these special issues and highlighted topics in powerful detail, including photo essays and well-researched, broadly-opinioned articles and columns. This issue is particularly striking in its use of sociological methods to better understand what was happening in the field of urban music education classrooms. Fowler traveled widely and recorded interviews, spoke with music teachers and students of all races and creeds, engaged administrators, parents, and others affected by urban blight and its impact on music education in the schools. Included are powerful photos, interactive pieces, compelling graphics, and viewpoints from several major cities to emphasize the national scope of the problem. In starting off the issue, in the midst of a bright red landscape of an American urban city, Fowler wrote convincingly: The face of America?s cities is pockmarked. Mass exodus has left festering inner cities?domiciles of the destitute, victims of disease, hunger, crime, drugs, broken families, and hopelessness. Poverty, segregation, and bankruptcy blight the people and thwart the work of every institution. The poor?be they white, black, Mexican-American, or Puerto Rican?bring their environment with them into the schools. Society?s sickness touches every subject in the curriculum, including music education. The strain on every subject has been severe. It is breaking the backbones of many city music education programs. Music teachers are leaving the profession or fleeing to the safety of the suburbs. The status of music in the cities is crumbling under an avalanche of ferment, frustration, and failure. So serious and so widespread is the problem, that the time has come for music educators to reassess their purposes and their programs. 45 Fowler demonstrated in his editorial introduction his support for the disenfranchised and felt this issue represented an opportunity to put the topic more into the mainstream thought of music educators. The publication and content of this special issue were bold moves at the time and displayed an entirely different view of music education than was commonly held. Again, in the context of the late 1960s and early 1970s, these ideas were very present in the minds of the public, and Fowler knew that the 118 arts could serve as a positive vehicle for social change. Music and the arts as social change agents were central to his seven objectives, and this special issue was a way to demonstrate that music education could strongly contribute to the betterment of education and society. Several general areas were addressed in this issue and included several articles by notable authors of the day in music and music education, such as Max Kaplan, Robert Klotman, Barbara Reeder, Bennett Reimer, James Standifer, and William Grant Still. Broad topics included ?Urban Culture: Awareness May Save Our Skins,? ?School Administrators: Lip Service Is Disservice Without Action,? ?Successful Teaching: Demand of Yourself All That It Takes,? ?Course Content: Strip the Mind of What Doesn?t Work,? and ?Teacher Education: Stop Sending Innocents Into Battle Unarmed.? As mentioned above, the graphical and physical layout, content, images, and other devices lent a deep and powerful effect for the issue. One striking feature was inclusion of terms in bold letters interspersed throughout the pages. They were collected from teachers in the field and included: Attitude, Adjustment, Defeatism, Sex, Culture, Motivation, Apathy, Frustrations, Prejudice, Poverty, Discrimination, Alienation, Hostility, Disrespect, and Values. A number of urban areas were identified, such as Detroit, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Washington, Boston, Atlanta, and New York. The primary articles were titled: ?The Arts Can Shatter Urban Isolation,? ?The Supervisor Must Know the City Score,? ?Music Teachers Must Shake Their Conservatism,? ?We Have Much to Learn from the Inner City,? ?General Music for the Black Ghetto Child,? ?Listening Is an Equal Opportunity Act,? and ?The Negro Musician in America.? 119 Fowler put a great deal of effort into making this journal authentic, convincing, and pragmatic. In his editor?s column for the issue, Overtones, he wrote: A few years ago, the Journal might have attempted to publish an issue on the inner city by sending out a few gently inquiring letters to zip codes representing university campuses somewhat off the urban axis. Times have changed. More than a year ago, the Journal staff began collecting data printed in hundreds of newspapers, magazines, studies, brochures, and books. After this initial digging, more than three hundred people?teachers, students, administrators, parents, and community leaders?were interviewed on the spot in seven major cities. Two hundred hours of taped comments were transcribed and edited down to the extractions included here. 46 Later in his commentary, he went on to say: The story that unfolds from this effort is real. The drama is human?a story of giving and taking, anger and kindness, knowledge and ignorance, willingness and rigidity, wanting and sometimes finding. The problems are severe, but where human ingenuity comes to bear, solutions are seen to be possible. 47 He concluded his thoughts by suggesting simply how to attack the problems of music in urban education: It is no longer enough to teach for the few; you must also reach the many. This should not be interpreted as a request to lower standards. There must be no condescension in approach. Rather every child must be valued as an artist. And every teacher must consider himself a cultivator of genius. 48 Although this was an important MEJ special report, Fowler later wrote about his disappointment that MENC and the profession at large did not pay more attention to the pressing issues raised in the publication. He believed that dissemination of this information was a critical and necessary opportunity to create thoughtful and practical change in the field. Fowler also looked to the ideas presented as a pragmatic way to help those students in urban areas with the greatest needs. In a reflective and contemplative personal note written 22 years later, Fowler commented: There is no question in my mind that my finest achievement during my 5-year editorship of MENC?perhaps my only real achievement?was the Jan. 1970 120 special issue on Music in Urban Education. We went out to the field and listened and recorded. This is a sociological documentation?still powerful because it gets to the heart of matters. Too bad MENC itself or the profession as a whole didn?t take notice. 49 It seems clear that Charles Fowler truly wished to create dialogue and change within the profession of music education. While reform often comes from controversy, the larger goal of improving music education to assist in more effective teaching and learning was the critical point that Fowler was attempting to convey during his time at MENC and the Music Educators Journal. As editor of the MEJ, Fowler was in a position to impact change on a wide scale unlike no other time in his professional career. He was then reaching the national audience of music teachers and working with decision makers who had the authority to make significant changes in the field. As mentioned earlier (in text and in endnotes), many consider the issues Fowler produced during his tenure as editor some of the most fruitful, scholarly, and ambitious issues in the history of the Journal. In addition to music education, Fowler had a keen interest in other art forms, most notably visual art. He began to create covers that were not only beautiful, but made the journal stand out among the several publications produced by MENC. These were important years for the MEJ, both because of the changes happening to the profession and Fowler?s editorial work within it. From the description of his editorial work from 1965 to 1971, his own commentary along with others, the volume and amount of change he instituted, and the quality of the content and publication, Fowler seems to have had a clear and positive impact on music education through the Music Educators Journal. Many, including the interview participants for this study, have commented that MENC benefited from his 121 contributions and constant urging towards further professionalization of music teaching. Fowler?s editorial work brought needed notoriety to music education and set a high benchmark that was considered a quality standard for many years to follow. Other Contributions to the Music Educators Journal, 1964-1971 In addition to his editorial work at the MEJ, Fowler also contributed several important articles to complement those of other authors writing for the Journal. A description and analysis of these works that reflect his vision for music education and his keen understanding of important topics relevant at the time are provided next. Even though he would have final editorial control over the content produced and presented in the the Journal, he also felt that even more needed to be said, so he wrote other articles to address these concerns and raise further topics of importance to the readership and profession alike. There are some important works written for the MEJ before Fowler became editor in 1965. I include these as part of his work during the entire period (1964 to 1973) because they are reflective of what brought him to the Journal, and they represent his influence as he moved into the position of editor. Based on analysis of many works and issues from this period, the articles before his editorship are representative of the same progressive and contemporary view that he displayed as editor. Before taking on the role of editor at MENC, Fowler wrote two articles for the MEJ that gained him attention. They were, ?The Misrepresentation of Music: A View of Elementary and Junior High School Music Materials,? 50 discussed elsewhere; and from the February/March issue in 1964, his article ?Music: A Sound Approach to Living.? 51 The focus of this last article is the concept of music being a sound or solid approach to 122 life. Here, even in one of Fowler?s first publications for the MEJ, he challenged the notions of what music education can and should be, and how it can affect students in ways other than learning to play or perform: Music can and should develop an awakened consciousness toward the stimulations of the environment. The dull people of the earth are those who lack the excitement of such stimulation. A quality of looking for beauty, and the excitement and pleasure at finding it, are concepts music can teach. 52 He went on to describe historical views on music from ancient Greeks and to look at music as a part of the whole environment of existence, not just a discrete aspect of it. In the same article, Fowler looked at music through other lenses, such as its moral relevance, its potential to improve quality of life, to aid in striving towards perfection, the pursuit and perseverance of appreciation of hard work, experimentation and creativity, and ultimately, the development of feelings and beliefs that point towards greater knowledge of music and the world. In essence, he suggested that through music and its study, we experience a microcosm of the human experience, yet in a more refined and sophisticated way. As ever, Fowler challenged the reader to look at music through a new frame, to consider that simply learning a musical skill and presenting it to an audience is not all that music education can or should attempt to accomplish. According to Fowler, music education should have a broader and more cosmopolitan view?to encourage students to re-consider their worldview as part of their musical study. Music and the arts provide this unique opportunity like few other forms of academic endeavor. In the following quote, a strong connection with his dissertation objectives and his vision for music education is suggested, as this article was published about the time his dissertation was completed: 123 The experience of music provokes value judgments which widen our definition of beauty; makes us adaptable to worthwhile change; lends quality to our present experience; orients us towards a future life of sensitivity, beauty, order, and significance; establishes the quality of perfection as a controlling element in our life; helps us formulate an exploratory view towards our existence; and enables us to achieve that synthesis of feeling and fact which alone can bring justice and virtue to our actions. In this sense, music makes a sound approach to living. 53 The influence of his dissertation research seems evident in this article and suggested strong principles for application of music in everyday life. In 1966, he wrote an article titled ?The Discovery Method: Its Relevance for Music Education.? 54 He was attempting to link other forms of scholarship and research to music education. The article is not so much a discussion of research paradigms as a general commentary that discovery and openness in music education are just as relevant as in other areas of academic education, especially for young students. He emphasized this point when he said, ?Not all forms of knowledge express themselves in words.? 5 The idea was to put into credible form the notion that creativity and the arts were valid modes of expression, and that more attention should be paid to these artistic forms of understanding in general education. He was constantly thinking of ways to link music to mainstream education and society, and this article was to be the first of many in which he embarked on this progressive path. More importantly, this article supported his view that music is not only an art which can develop creativity and musicianship, but that all students should be exposed to this way of thinking during their education and formative years. Students who are creative are vital and flexible learners. Fowler expressed this belief about creativity in the objectives outlined in his dissertation, and in other representative works. 56 124 Fowler suggested that promoting this objective regarding the teaching of creativity could be accomplished through the use of improvisation, among other ideas. Creative forms of music-making allowed children to think and create in free-form style with no negative guidelines to hamper a child truly finding his or her unique musical voice. To look at art and life through a unique lens to help understand life in a more efficient and compassionate way was one purpose of a creativity focus in music education, according to Fowler. 57 Fowler continued this line of thinking about creativity in his November 1967 MEJ article, ?Music Education: Joining the Mainstream.? 58 His principal point was to address the direction of music education at the time and to contribute ideas needed to advance the field. This article was also related to the Tanglewood Symposium Documentary Report. Once again, Fowler was in the right place at the right time to have experienced a critically changing event for music education that brought forth discussions of the very nature and purpose of music education in American society. Charles Fowler believed in music education as a social change agent, evident in his seven objectives and again in this article. Major headings in the work include The Changing Audience, The Changing Aesthetic and The Changing Goals. As an apt summary, he concluded by saying: Increasingly, it is becoming apparent that the leadership role in the arts in American society is emerging as the responsibility of educational institutions. Music educators in large measure control the destiny of music in the lives of Americans in the coming generations. Their expectations must accelerate until they equal the aesthetic needs and potentialities of the American people. If the nation is to achieve a quality civilization, the musical arts will be present and abundant. When music educators enter the life of the community and accept their full role and responsibility, the musical arts may leave the periphery and enter the mainstream of American society. When this happens, Americans will not 125 only have achieved a new level of sensitivity and perfection in living, they will also have shown the world a new and compelling aesthetic dimension of democracy. 59 These points were all influenced by The Tanglewood Symposium and strongly argued by Fowler in this article. Fowler was again pressing the profession to consider multiple perspectives that could aid in improving musical instruction, conditions, and experiences for children in America?s schools. In 1970 Fowler entered the fray in the debate over rock music and its role in music education. In his article, ?The Case Against Rock: A Reply,? he discussed and refuted three popular arguments for not including rock and other youth music in the standard music curriculum. 60 The arguments were, ?rock is aesthetically inferior music, if it is music at all; 61 rock is damaging to youth, both physically and morally; 62 and school time should not be expended teaching what is easily acquired in the vernacular.? 63 Fowler addressed all of these points aptly, essentially challenging the profession to be more open-minded and to look at the realities of society at that time, to make informed decisions about the role of music in the curriculum, whether it be classical or popular. He challenged music educators to look at rock as another important musical form and not hold on solely to traditional notions of the Western European canon as the only viable music to be learned. This would place music educators in the untenable position of having to define what is ?good? music, then disprove other forms of music as of lesser quality. This distraction would take away from the work of teaching, and as Fowler said, it would contradict a long-held goal of music education: that music is for all children. Fowler was suggesting that those who did not feel popular music was relevant in the classroom were denying an entire body of literature to children. More importantly, 126 why deny the profession of a collection of music that motivates and energizes children about music and its study? Stated in another way, ?such elitism stands in direct opposition to the commonly accepted maxim of music education?that music is for all the people.? 64 The second point posited that rock or popular music is detrimental to young people, both physically and morally. Fowler did acknowledge some concerns about the volume of rock and its effect on hearing. In regard to its negative moral effects, however, Fowler refuted the point convincingly: We must not confuse cause and effect. Rock lyrics have not been responsible for the use of drugs or for vulgar language and dancing any more than they have been responsible for water pollution or the Cold War. Rather, this music is a manifestation of situations that have developed independently. To eliminate rock from our culture would not rid us of drug abuse, riots, or immorality. To ignore these problems will not make them go away, nor will the censure of rock substantially affect the students? views of life. 65 The third argument identified by Fowler suggested that rock need not be in the curriculum of music education because it is so common outside of school in children?s lives. Fowler again disagreed with this point on the premise that even rock can be made part of the curriculum and perhaps, if presented more skillfully, would give young people a deeper appreciation of its relevance and value. In essence, rock can compliment the traditional music base and make both classical and popular forms more relevant over the long term, to children and others alike. As Fowler put it, ?that rock is part of the vernacular culture does not mean that it lacks substance worthy of formal educational study.? 6 If students were interested in rock and it was a part of their world, why not embrace it and present them with a more focused and responsible method of considering and implementing the art form? ?In closing off 127 rock and other forms of youth music to educational use, we abdicate our responsibility, throwing the teenager to the mercy of the disc jockey.? 67 In a final pragmatic statement, Fowler embraced several basic principles of his own vision for music education: Balance and proportion are fundamental objectives of the music education program. The multi-dimensional world in which we live demands a cosmopolitan rather than a parochial approach. Music educators do not simply accept the musical disposition of their students, but they continually challenge it. By using rock and other forms of youth music educationally, teachers are not selling out, they are buying in. By affecting every listener?s expectations, music educators not only invest themselves in the transmission of musical culture from generation to generation, but in its transformation as well. We are, after all, not conservers of the past, but interpreters of the present. Our mission is not to offer a formula to the few, but to seek commitment from the many. 68 These selected important articles highlight some of his thoughts separate from his work as editor of the MEJ and show Fowler?s continuing interest in the reform dialogue of music education. Although no longer teaching music, he remained actively involved in what affected students and teachers in the music classrooms of America. Additional Writings and Publications, 1964 to 1973 Further works from this period were also printed in the MEJ, while others are found in different periodicals and publications. Fowler addressed multiple areas of interest to music education, most of which he felt should be part of the agenda of the profession. This section addresses additional works that were transitional pieces just after he left MENC as he was starting his career as a professional consultant in music and arts education. Fowler ventured out of the realm of publishing in music education, writing an article titled, ?Perspectivism: An Approach to Aesthetic Evaluation,? that was published in the Journal of Aesthetic Education in 1968. This is important for two reasons. The first 128 is that Fowler was reaching a new audience to show the value of the arts in education. The second is that the Journal of Aesthetic Education was only in its second year of publication, and printing this article displayed a great deal of confidence in Fowler?s writing as this was one of his first publications outside of the music education field. 69 In 1971, his last year as editor of the MEJ, Fowler was also Director of Publications at MENC. Although the MEJ enjoyed some of its more productive and intellectually compelling years during Fowler?s tenure, he moved on to become an independent consultant for the remainder of his career. 70 He published another article in the College and University Journal, titled ?The Editor as Advocate.? 71 This piece, published in February 1971, is particularly interesting because it incorporated several aspects of his thinking at the time. He had been an editor and writer for six years and was writing more and more about the arts and their value in public education and society. Fowler also was able to reflect on the work he had done at the MEJ and saw first-hand the impact it had on the field. As one who had never been afraid to raise controversy, he saw the position of editor as an important advocacy tool for music and other fields: Advocacy is sometimes shunned because we fear the controversy it might stir up. Living as we do in this world of the 1970s, I suggest that we can no longer avoid controversy. As editors it behooves us to know when to use it. 72 During the early 1970s he also published two important articles related to arts education. The first was an interview about the arts in American schools published in the the journal of the American Association of University Women (AAUW Journal) in February 1972. 73 This article was significant because it moved Fowler from strictly a writer and editor in music education, to one influencing those outside the field to understand the value of music and arts education in the schools. In it, he described how 129 music is beneficial to children and that it is important for those other than music teachers to understand why it is valuable. Fowler further clarified the critical work being done to teach music to children, along with the good work of the music education profession itself. The second was a brochure for the Pennsylvania Department of Education on the ?The Arts Process in Basic Education.? 74 This brochure clarified and suggested ways in which the arts could be used in education and highlighted how they were being utilized in Pennsylvania schools. The program he outlined in the brochure could be considered a template to be used by other states in their quest to implement the arts in their basic curricular plan. By this time, his interest in arts education had expanded not only to artists, musicians and arts teachers, but also to those outside the field who were influencing policy and thinking in general education. Several other projects during the period from 1964 to 1973 include work for Walt Disney Productions, The National Parks and Conservation Association, and other organizations and institutions. 75 The details of this period of his life are mostly unknown. The output of his work was less centered on advocacy, and therefore little emphasis has been given towards its place in his career as an arts advocate. As to how this relates to his further work as a writer and arts advocate, it would suggest that he now had a vested interest in writing, not only as a means of support, but as a way of continuing the agenda he began as editor at MENC. One benefit from this period after Fowler left MENC was that he was experiencing and presenting a broader, more comprehensive view of the arts, looking from the outside rather than the inside of music education. Fowler remained connected to 130 the profession as his educational and professional background suggests, but since he stood outside the professional world as an independent scholar and consultant, he could consider broader perspectives. It seems that music education, in the longer term, surely benefited from Fowler?s wider thinking and contributions based upon his experiences outside the field of music education. 76 The final work highlighted from this period is a music appreciation text published in 1973, which he co-wrote with Robert Buggert titled, The Search for Musical Understanding. 7 His fellow author was on the faculty of Northern Illinois University, where Fowler had been a professor from 1964 to 1965 before he began his work at Music Educators Journal. 78 The book was divided into four major sections: The Raw Material of Musical Meaning, The Structure of Musical Meaning, Musical Style, and Music in the Human Environment. Various chapter topics include musical understanding, musical ideas as origin and inspiration, musical resources as tone color, performing mediums, and sound events, imitation and counterpoint, and improvisation and contrast. Other chapter topics include overviews of medieval, renaissance, baroque, classical, romantic, and modern styles, musical value, musical taste, and musical judgment. They did not include a systematic discussion of major classical works, since the authors wanted to focus on developing a holistic understanding of music, rather than a survey of traditional historical masterworks. Although it appears on the surface to be a traditional music appreciation text that could be used at the university level, the book was non-traditional in several respects. Many concepts in the book carry typical Fowlerian influences. They include an emphasis on the aesthetic and personal nature of music, striking use of visual images and art works 131 as a means to artistic understanding, an openness to the multiple possibilities and definitions of music, inclusion of modern, cultural, traditional, electronic, popular, instrumental, vocal, classical music and other types, and a goal of understanding music as it relates to human nature, experience, and environment. In the context of the early 1970s, this was a novel and non-traditional approach. The end of each chapter includes provocative and engaging discussion questions that challenge the reader to consider multiple ideas about music, not simply understanding or memorization of facts and concepts. It seems that this interaction must have been engaging for students as it allowed their personal views and experiences to become relevant to the musical understanding discussed in the classroom?not just a lecture from the instructor. The authors placed value on students? views, debates about music, multiple perspectives in dialogue about music, visual art as relates to classical music, among other ideas that the text instigated through its format and content. In the Preface, Fowler and his colleague clarified that appreciation is a by-product of understanding. It seems they did not aim to inculcate students into loving classical or other music, merely to educate and enlighten students to make their own personal choices that would enhance their lives with music. 79 Again, Fowler always encouraged others to think outside of their individual viewpoints to use differing understandings as a means to discuss, dialogue, and debate music and arts education and their roles and value in education and society. This shows a continuing goal of Fowler, as highlighted by his dissertation objectives, that music can play a significant role in reform and change within education and society. 132 Emerging Themes and Ideas With the ideas and definitions of the seven objectives in mind, what themes emerged from this period of 1964 to 1973? In short, what was on Fowler?s mind and what messages came out of his thinking, writing, and editorial work that are important, and contributed positively to music education? Fowler believed in the educational objectives he identified as a means to change within the profession, and as a way to change perspectives about music teaching and learning for students, teachers, administrators, community, and policymakers. This period from 1964 to 1973 allowed Fowler to reach these audiences in a unique and professional way, through the Music Educators Journal and other publications. While the objectives that formed the basis for Fowler?s philosophy and vision for music education certainly cannot act as sole arbiter of his thinking for his entire career, they provide a solid starting point for understanding his beliefs as conveyed through his writings. One can see themes based on these objectives throughout his writings, some general and philosophical, others specific and pragmatic. From this period, the themes I have identified are reform, professionalization, and democracy. They are not only evident at a philosophical level, but also in the context of curriculum and practice. With regard to the issue of reform, Fowler attempted to restructure the major journal of the profession (Music Educators Journal), reorganizing its mission, focus, and outlook. He changed how the material was presented and considered content and its role in affecting practice in a very serious and reform-minded way. First, he wrote an article that was controversial and timely (?Misrepresentation of Music?) and which earned him 133 the job as editor. Second, he reconstituted the look and format of the MEJ, and published articles that challenged the views of the profession. Third, the number of issues increased from six to nine, and he wanted to make the MEJ a rigorous and practical source for those working in the classroom, and those outside of it. Fourth, he launched the special issue and addressed critical topics of the day, some influenced by his background, and many from issues raised by The Tanglewood Symposium. Fifth and finally, he continued to write on the topic of reform and encouraged others to take music teaching seriously and look progressively towards change, not conservatively toward status quo. These articles include those published in the MEJ, and several written outside in journals such as The Journal of Aesthetic Education, and the College and University Journal, among others. In considering the issue of professionalization, Fowler wanted music educators to be progressive in their view and professional approach. He wrote about music materials, music in the classroom, how music could be an important component of living, and why music should be a critical aspect of schooling and in later life. He also felt the profession was too conservative, something which created a disconnect between the motivations and goals of music teachers and the life-worlds and needs of students. Issues that he addressed included technology, composition, music teaching, various learning styles, and a deeper role for music training, not just simply to create high-quality performance. These issues are part of a professional and rigorous approach to music education, and Fowler believed that music educators and MENC needed to take these issues more seriously in order to raise the level of music teaching and learning. 134 He further looked to the professionalization of music education through how it was viewed by the teachers, parents, and students in it, as well as the administrators, school board members, and community outside of it. The Music Educators Journal was the mechanism to present to the ever-expanding audience the value of what was happening in music classrooms and how music could be viewed by those looking into the music classroom. Fowler took this challenge and improved the editorial look and content of the publication, as has been mentioned earlier and by others. He viewed the profession seriously, and with a musical purpose, and urged others involved with music education to do the same. In making a statement about the importance of music education, the MEJ offered the means to have his voice heard, while presenting a wide-ranging and professional outlook to others. Further work as editor of the Music Educators Journal saw change through the message portrayed by the publication and the critical audience it reached: music teachers. By expanding its format, expanding the philosophy, considering contemporary social constructs, problems, and ideas, and challenging the status quo, he attempted to put music education into a new and pragmatic light; one that emphasized theory put into practice, which ultimately would lead to progressive change within the system. This view conveys his vision of music education as a democratic art, among others. Additional examples included a consideration of the quality of music materials and how they can be modernized to better serve students in schools, more properly presenting music and culture to students to improve their experience and understanding and highlighting how music supports a sound and grounded approach to living. Still others include understanding aesthetic education, looking at popular music through the 135 lens of student motivation and engagement, more actively improving teaching practice and outcomes, and looking at the concepts of discovery and creativity as a means to self- realization. With regard to the theme of democracy, Fowler was able to articulate the message that music education was meant for all, regardless of cultural background, geographic location, social status, learning abilities, and financial means. The MEJ Special Reports offered him a vehicle to address in detailed form the important issues of the day and a way to highlight the various groups needing better music education while being affected by the conditions surrounding it. He strongly presented issues in urban music education and forced the profession to handle?in a concrete way?what was happening to those students and teachers in urban centers. Music education needed a reality check, and Fowler boldly presented the Urban Education Special Issue in January, 1970. He also considered other topics such as special education issues, diversity, and important themes that were reported from The Tanglewood Symposium, among others. Although the urban education issue was considered very important by Fowler, less notice was taken of it than he would have liked. He considered this his most important publication, primarily because he knew there were ?others? being left out. In Fowler?s mind, a healthy music education mindset really meant music for all, in a true democratic sense. The socioeconomic conditions from which students came were far less important than the perspectives they brought to the classroom. Fowler wanted every student to have musical opportunities, and he articulated this belief in the issues devoted to special education, through articles relating to rock and other alternative musical forms in the schools, and viewing music as a democratic art offering all students the study of 136 music, regardless of their fit within a traditional mold of a music education performance group. Fowler tried to convince the profession that performing ensembles (band, orchestra, chorus, jazz) were not the only way for students to be involved in music- making in the classroom. If students wanted to pursue alternative styles such as rock-and- roll, or make music in a non-traditional way, such as folk music, then a democratic view would allow them to do it, and music teachers should support it. 80 Fowler wanted all children involved in some form of music, and performance was only one avenue to achieve this goal. He emphasized this idea with his editorial work and other writing. Fowler believed that teaching music in a democratic way was critical, and this theme is evident in many works from this period. It is also important to consider that the 1960s was a period of social upheaval and reform, professionalization, and democracy. Within this environment of social change was the implied notion of democracy for all and the view that everyone deserved equal opportunity and respect for their viewpoint. Fowler wanted music educators to think this way, as well, and to consider music as a means to understand and achieve democracy, through the shared experience of a widespread democratic art. The reconstructed philosophy that Fowler drew on had at its core the notion of social change and improvement as a primary goal. Fowler looked to the broadest perspective of music in culture when considering what music education could accomplish if viewed as a change agent. Primary issues here included educating children to understand themselves and their world through musical understanding, cultural education, critical thinking, and aesthetic judgment. 137 Other values included teaching cosmopolitan and open-minded musical viewpoints along with valuing creativity in learning, education, and life. These ideas were important to Fowler because he felt students should hold wide and diverse views of the complex world around them to help better understand the people, perspectives, and communities in which they lived. A final consideration is the process of democratizing music for all and ensuring the inclusion of everyone in the study of music. Fowler?s work from 1964 to 1973 developed his vision for music education, particularly evident in the themes identified here?reform, professionalization, and democracy. Connections with the Objectives By way of reminder, the seven reconstructionist music education objectives from Fowler?s dissertation focused on multiple areas of importance to music in the schools and represent Charles Fowler?s vision of what could be accomplished by offering music education to all students. The objectives for students and those involved with music include relating music to the aesthetic and cultural needs of humankind, utilizing music as a means of social-self-realization, understanding music as a means of communication, working towards the attainment of a democratic art, music education as means to development of a discriminating musical taste, development of a more cosmopolitan musical taste, and identifying music as a means to develop a creative life orientation in all students. 81 These ideas on which the objectives were based were evident in the three themes identified above to which all of his work from this time is related. Fowler developed these ideas and proceeded to put them into practice. From there, these larger themes emerged that point to the reform outcomes he hoped would be achieved inside the 138 profession of music education. The objectives represent Fowler?s initial thinking and the themes which emerged from his writing emphasize how his viewpoint changed due to context, experience, and reflection during the course of his long and varied career. During this period from 1964 to 1971, Fowler composed, authored, edited, and published many works of varying topics, foci, and purposes. His vision, however, as seen through his writings and other supportive evidence, is still strongly related to the objectives in his 1964 dissertation. Concluding Thoughts This chapter focused on selected writings from 1964 to 1973. Major works included Fowler?s dissertation (1964), his work as editor of the Music Educators Journal (1965 to 1971), several seminal articles he wrote in connection with his time at MENC (1964 to 1971), his transition from MENC to being a freelance writer (1971 to 1973), and other works during this decade (1964 to 1973). The works were reviewed, summarized, analyzed according to his vision and placed within the context during their time of historical events related to music education. Although I have addressed the four periods of Fowler?s career earlier, a reminder of their context is useful as summary to the chapter. This period, which I have titled ?Making a Statement,? addresses the years 1964 to 1973. I suggest this title because before this decade beginning in 1964, Fowler had completed secondary and undergraduate studies, worked as a school music teacher, a supervisor of music, an assistant professor, and completed his doctoral studies. With his strong and varied experiences during what I call the first period, ?Roots of a Philosophy,? from 1948 to 1963, he was working, teaching, writing, thinking, and germinating his vision for music 139 education and now came to clarity during these years of the 1960s. During this time, the statement of his philosophy and beliefs became more widely known through his contributions to the profession. Now armed with these important professional experiences, rigorous research training, years at MENC and with the MEJ, and a new understanding of music education and its role in the world, Fowler was ready to move forward and present this practical and skilled knowledge to a wider audience both inside and outside of music education. His ideas were noticed by Musical America, and soon he had an opportunity to clarify his ideas and present them to a new and ever-expanding population. 140 Chapter Four Notes 1 Eric Bates, ?(An Interview with) Bill Moyers,? Fortieth Anniversary Special Double Issue. Rolling Stone 1025/1026 (May 2007): 111. If anything, Charles Fowler was always aware of popular media with a general understanding of the body politic when he wrote and commented on music in public life. What better source to consider the decade of the 1960s and its effect on social policy and music than Rolling Stone magazine? I somehow feel that Charles would be pleased to have this publication quoted in similar context of his philosophy and role as enduring change agent in the field of music education. 2 As mentioned earlier, I have suggested four periods of Fowler?s career to aid in better understanding where his works fall during the course of his lifetime. By way of reminder, these are Roots Of A Philosophy (1948-1963), Making A Statement (1964 to 1973), Reaching A Wider Audience (1974-1989), and Bringing It All Together (1990 to 1995). This study addresses the middle two periods only, from 1964-1989. 3 Todd Gitlin, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage (New York: Bantam Books, 1987); Theodore Brameld, Toward a Reconstructed Philosophy of Education (New York: The Dryden Press, 1956); Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964). 4 Tom Brokaw, ?(An Interview with) Jimmy Carter,? Fortieth Anniversary Special Double Issue. Rolling Stone 1025/1026 (May 2007): 58. 5 Eric Bates, ?(An Interview with) Bill Moyers,? Fortieth Anniversary Special Double Issue. Rolling Stone 1025/1026 (May 2007): 111. 6 Michael L. Mark, Contemporary Music Education, 3rd ed, (Belmont, CA: Schirmer Thomson Learning, 1996), 17. 7 Ibid., 17. 8 Ibid., 17. 9 Michael L. Mark and Charles L. Gary, A History of American Music Education, 2nd ed, (New York: Schirmer Books, 1992); Michael L. Mark, Contemporary Music Education, 3rd ed, (Belmont, CA: Schirmer Thomson Learning, 1996). 10 Michael L. Mark, Contemporary Music Education, 3rd ed, (Belmont, CA: Schirmer Thomson Learning, 1996), 34. 1 Charles Fowler, ?The Misrepresentation of Music: A View of Elementary and Junior High School Music Materials,? Music Educators Journal 51 (May 1965): 38-42. 12 Michael L. Mark, Contemporary Music Education, 3rd ed, (Belmont, CA: Schirmer 141 Thomson Learning, 1996), 38. 13 Ibid., 38. 14 Ibid., 38. 15 Ibid., 38. 16 Michael L. Mark and Charles L. Gary, A History of American Music Education, 2nd ed, (New York: Schirmer Books, 1992), 348-350. 17 Michael L. Mark, Contemporary Music Education, 3rd ed, (Belmont, CA: Schirmer Thomson Learning, 1996), 39. 18 Charles Fowler, ?Music Education: Joining the Mainstream,? Music Educators Journal 54 (November 1967). 19 Michael L. Mark, Contemporary Music Education, 3rd ed, (Belmont, CA: Schirmer Thomson Learning, 1996), 44; Robert Choate, Documentary Report of the Tanglewood Symposium (Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference, 1968), 139. 20 Michael L. Mark, Contemporary Music Education, 3rd ed, (Belmont, CA: Schirmer Thomson Learning, 1996), 17. 21 Charles Fowler, Strong Arts, Strong Schools: The Promising Potential and Shortsighted Disregard of the Arts in American Schooling (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). This text, of course, is only one of many, many publications where this argument is presented, as a reading of this dissertation and its bibliography will show. Although this book is outside of the 25-year period of investigation here, it is a sum of his many thoughts and experiences in his career, the majority of which were formed and shaped during the 1964-1989 time frame. 2 Victoria Smith, ?The Music Assessment of the 1971-1972 National Assessment of Educational Progress: A History,? (master?s thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1997); Victoria Smith, ?The Music Assessment of the 1971-1972 National Assessment of Educational Progress: A History,? Journal of Historical Research in Music Education 22 (January 2000): 47-64. 23 Charles Fowler, Note commenting on 1972 NAEP assessment, __ July 1991, Charles Fowler Papers. Most anyone involved in education today has experienced the debate over accountability and assessment in public schooling. Once again ahead of his time, Fowler suggested the music education profession needed to deal with this topic as early as the first years of the 1970s. He knew the NAEP assessment was a damaging report on the community and felt that MENC should fight back and improve the quality of assessment to be more in-line with mainstream education and other changes occurring at the time. 142 MENC chose to back away from this firestorm rather than embrace it, and Fowler viewed this as a critical mistake that had lasting negative effects for many years afterward. 24 Charles Fowler, Note commenting on 1972 NAEP assessment, __ July 1991, Charles Fowler Papers. 25 Michael L. Mark, Contemporary Music Education, 3rd ed, (Belmont, CA: Schirmer Thomson Learning, 1996), 18. 26 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964). 27 Charles Fowler, ?The Misrepresentation of Music: A View of Elementary and Junior High School Music Materials,? Music Educators Journal 51 (May 1965): 38-42. Although the publication date is 1965, Fowler completed and submitted this article during 1964. As mentioned elsewhere, this was the piece that gained him notice by the editorial staff and led to his appointment as editor in 1965. 28 Charles Fowler, Note regarding importance of seminal MEJ article from 1965, 2 June 1992, Charles Fowler Papers. This article is seminal to Fowler?s career, as he writes in this personal note accompanying the drafts and original publication in his archived papers. This piece essentially put Charles Fowler and his views into the mainstream of music education and eventually, among other events, earned him the job of editor of the Music Educators Journal, a post he held for six years. It also clarified his ability as a writer and editor, skills that carried him through the remainder of his career for the next 30 years. 29 The note essentially described that the article had created some controversy and division among members of the MEJ Editorial Board. Several members were strongly opposed to its publication, while others were equally passionate about its inclusion within the pages of the MEJ. Wiley Housewright wrote, in a textbox, that normally comments of the Editorial Board would not have been published in the Journal, but since such discussion had been sparked, he felt it important for the MENC membership to be aware of the rigorous and considered nature of the review process of articles for publication. Several brief quotes were included that powerfully represented some Board Members? views, the thesis of the article, its potential impact, and the content of the article itself. 30 Charles Fowler to Bonnie Kowall, Washington, DC, 28 February 1965, Charles Fowler Papers. 31 Bruce Wilson, Telephone interview with author, 26 June 2007, Canaan Valley, WV. 32 Ibid. 3 Charles Fowler, ?Nine Issues of Music Educators Journal,? Music Educators Journal 143 53 (September 1966): 75. 34 At the time, the MEJ was published six times a year and then moved to nine issues while Fowler was editor. Typically, January was an open month and since no Journals were published, Fowler began preparing Special Issues, which covered important topics of the day in greater detail than normally could occur in the regular monthly issues. Some of the topics he addressed included Special Education, Technology, and Urban Education, among others. These issues were typically similar in length to the regular monthly journals and included articles, commentaries, photo essays, and other contributions by multiple authors and experts in the field. These Special Issues are considered by some to be representative of Fowler?s best work while editor of the Music Educators Journal. 35 Many of those interviewed for this study indicated that issues produced during Fowler?s editorship were visually appealing, compelling in nature, progressive in thought, and forward-thinking for their time. Some even suggested that they believe the Journal was at a peak during the years 1965 to 1971. While the MEJ was certainly a quality publication and remained so afterward, there was a sense that something special was happening, and even those outside the profession considered the issues from these years to not only be important within the profession, but also to have drawn musicians and scholars from other areas into the discussion of music education and its relevance to society. The eight figures interviewed for this study all have long-standing experience in music education and were professionally active during the years when Fowler was editor. Complete citation of these interviews can be found in the Bibliography under Secondary Sources. 36 Ibid. 37 Charles Fowler, ?The Editorial Board: Years of Progress,? Music Educators Journal 56 (May 1970): 71-72. 38 Ibid., 71. 39 Ibid., 72. 40 Ibid., 72. 41 Ibid., 72. 42 Ibid., 72. 43 Charles Fowler, ed., ?Facing the Music in Urban Education,? Special Report, Music Educators Journal 56, no. 5 (January 1970). 4 Charles Fowler, Note about 1970 MEJ urban education special issue, __May 1992, 144 Charles Fowler Papers. 45 Charles Fowler, ed., ?Facing the Music in Urban Education,? Special Report, Music Educators Journal 56, no. 5 (January 1970), 37. 46 Ibid., 29. 47 Ibid., 29. 48 Ibid., 29. 49 Charles Fowler, Note about 1970 MEJ urban education special issue, __May 1992, Charles Fowler Papers. 50 Charles Fowler, ?The Misrepresentation of Music: A View of Elementary and Junior High School Music Materials,? Music Educators Journal 51 (May 1965): 38-42. 51 Charles Fowler, ?Music: A Sound Approach to Living,? Music Educators Journal 50 (February-March 1964): 51-52, 57. 52 Ibid., 51. 53 Ibid., 57. 54 Charles Fowler, ?The Discovery Method: Its Relevance for Music Education,? in MENC Sourcebook III, ed. Bonnie Kowall (Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference, 1966). 5 Ibid., 127. 56 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964); Charles Fowler, ?Discovery: One of the Best Ways to Teach a Musical Concept,? Musical Educators Journal 57 (February 1970): 25-30; Charles Fowler, ?On Education: The Shameful Neglect of Creativity,? Musical America 35 (September 1985): 10-12; Charles Fowler, Strong Arts, Strong Schools: The Promising Potential and Shortsighted Disregard of the Arts in American Schooling (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). The seventh objective of his dissertation suggests that music education can help with the development of a creative life orientation in students. Fowler mostly wanted teachers and students to think with a different paradigm than the straightforward traditional practice that was the norm in music education, or general education, for that matter. 57 A very similar article was later published in the Music Educators Journal in February 1970 and addressed many of the same points as the ?Discovery? article under discussion here. The citation for this companion article is Charles Fowler, ?Discovery: 145 One of the Best Ways to Teach a Musical Concept,? Musical Educators Journal 57 (February 1970): 25-30. 58 Charles Fowler, ?Music Education: Joining the Mainstream,? Music Educators Journal 54 (November 1967): 49-80. 59 Ibid., 72. 60 Charles Fowler, ?The Case Against Rock: A Reply,? Musical Educators Journal 57 (September 1970): 38-42. 61 Ibid., 38. 62 Ibid., 39. 63 Ibid., 42. 64 Ibid., 39. 65 Ibid., 40. 6 Ibid., 42. 67 Ibid., 42. 68 Ibid., 42; Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964). Several of Fowler?s dissertation objectives are found here, including the first ? meeting cultural needs , the second ? music as means of social self-realization, the fourth ? music as a democratic art, and the sixth ? developing a more cosmopolitan musical taste. In this article, and this quote in particular, he has clearly presented an argument that all music offers every opportunity to convey his vision for music education: one that is inclusive, democratic, and valuable to all who experience it. 69 Charles Fowler, ?Perspectivism: An Approach to Aesthetic Evaluation,? The Journal of Aesthetic Education 2 (January 1968): 87-99. 70 The full details are largely not public of why Fowler left MENC, except to say it was not mutual that he departed. From my discussions with others who knew him, it seems there were significant philosophical differences between Fowler and some of the executive staff at MENC, and this is most unfortunate. These primary differences centered around just how progressive MENC and the Journal should be, based on the various perspectives of those involved in the production of the MEJ. Almost needless to say, Fowler was of the opinion that the MEJ should expand readers minds and push the profession forward to reformed practices and more effective music teaching and learning. Regardless, the Music Educators Journal grew tremendously under Fowler?s tenure and 146 one can only imagine the new levels that could have been reached with him not only remaining as editor, but publications director, as well. The period between his years at MENC and those to come at Musical America (1971-1974) were ones of reflection and transition. It was during this time that he considered his new path as a writer, consultant, speaker, and advocate for arts education in America. 71 Charles Fowler, ?The Editor as Advocate,? College and University Journal 10 (February 1971). 72 Ibid., 26. 73 Charles Fowler, ?The Arts in American Schools: A Conversation,? American Association of University Women Journal 66 (February 1972): 2-6. 74 Charles Fowler, The Arts Process in Basic Education (Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Education, 1973). 75 Lynn Jacobsen and Bonnie Jo Dopp, Charles Fowler Papers Finding Aid, (University of Maryland Libraries, 1999). 76 In addition to being a consultant in music education and the arts, from 1973 to 1975 he was also Manager of Publications for The National Parks & Conservation Association and Editor-in-Chief of Parks & Recreation Magazine and National Parks & Conservation Magazine. The writings and work from this period are examined with lesser detail, as they are not relevant to the topic of Fowler?s vision for music education, and also because little information is found in his archived papers. 7 Charles Fowler and Robert Buggert, The Search for Musical Understanding (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1973). 78 Lynn Jacobsen and Bonnie Jo Dopp, Charles Fowler Papers Finding Aid, (University of Maryland Libraries, 1999). It is further interesting to note that the second period (1964 to 1973) began with Fowler?s dissertation completion and his single year at Northern Illinois University, where it seems he met Robert Buggert, co-author of the text that was completed during the final year of period two in 1973. It seems Fowler had a way of framing events in his life and keeping his collective professional goals in mind at all times. Whether planned or not is, of course, entirely unknown, but seems to be Fowler?s pattern of a well-organized and considered life and philosophy, as found elsewhere in his writings and career activities. 79 Charles Fowler and Robert Buggert, The Search for Musical Understanding (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1973), Preface, 1-2. 80 Charles Fowler, ?The Case Against Rock: A Reply,? Musical Educators Journal 57 147 (September 1970): 38-42. Fowler wrote about the issue in this article and other reports on Youth Music. Fowler did not believe that Western classical music was the only option that could be covered in school music programs. He further encouraged other music teachers to hold an open mind about what genres were able to excite their students and keep them engaged in classroom and other musical study. 81 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964), 404, 410, 422, 428, 437, 442, and 448. As suggested earlier, my assertion is that Fowler?s writings reflect his vision for music education through these objectives. I believe they represent clearly what he felt music education should have as its major goals to convey to students through philosophy, teaching and practice. 148 Chapter Five: Reaching a Wider Audience, 1974 to 1982 A Brief Introduction to the Writings The third period of Fowler?s career has been introduced as ?Reaching a Wider Audience,? and covers the years 1974 to 1989. This is the time in which he worked as Education Editor at Musical America (MA) in addition to completing other projects and writing. While Fowler?s work at Musical America was his most stable and consistent, he also produced many other contributions to arts and music education during this period. The primary focus of this chapter is to look at the content and background of the articles and other works Fowler wrote from 1974 to 1982. First, the works are contextualized during the period of the 1970s to early 1980s. Second, they are analyzed and summarized. Third, emerging themes are considered to highlight the broad topics that were part of Fowler?s focus during this time. Fourth and finally, connections to his original dissertation objectives are also presented that show his continued philosophy and thinking over time. Placing the Works in Context By the middle of the 1970s, education and, as related, music education, were facing severe curricular and financial challenges. Problems that were rooted in previous decades were now becoming more evident to the public. Michael Mark commented on the last years of the 1970s: Later in the decade, as the public became increasingly aware of the continuing decline of its educational system, calls for reform began to be heard from educators and from business, industry, the military, and the general public. The desire for reform developed into a ?back-to-basics? movement, which, like earlier efforts, turned out to be an attempt to identify basic subjects, emphasize them, eliminate frills, and produce reasonably high learning and teaching standards. 1 149 With declining budgets, curricular challenges, infrastructure problems, lessening support and declining enrollments, schools faced inordinate obstacles in proceeding with their mission to educate the nation?s children. As with general education, it was also with music education. The challenges faced by music teachers were increasing and ever more consequential as a subject functioning in a ?back-to-basics? movement. Additionally, according to Michael Mark and Charles Gary, these conditions and trends further impacted music education: The number of music positions throughout the country began to decline. In many locations, schools were closed and the student bodies were combined with those of a nearby school that remained open. This was still another cause of the reduced number of music teaching positions. 2 Another project that took shape in the 1970s was the official development of standards for music education. While there was much debate about creating and implementing standards in the 1960s, specific curricular measures had not been clarified by MENC for the music education profession by the early 1970s. 3 In 1974, The National Commission on Instruction published a booklet called The School Music Program: Description and Standards. This was a direct response to Tanglewood and offered concrete steps towards the development of national professional standards for music education. They were listed more as goals to be achieved by 1990, and progress was later reported in 1988. 4 In some ways, the objectives identified by Fowler in his dissertation could be considered early curricular standards for music education. Perhaps had the profession looked more closely at his work and that of Tanglewood, the idea of professional standards would have been developed sooner. 150 Regardless of how these standards were received or implemented, they were in response to the myriad calls for accountability in education, and by relationship, music education. Perhaps in some ways, music education had more work to do to show its relevance, academic rigor, and importance to general education as it was often considered a ?frill? subject. The issues of accountability, standards, and academic importance were a product of the maelstrom that was occurring in education at the time. Mark and Gary provide a cogent final statement ending the decade of the 1970s moving into the early 1980s: By the end of the decade, educational quality had been severely hampered not only by the decline that had continued from the 1960s, but also by the severe lack of resources throughout the 1970s. Education had sunk to such a low level, that again, like twenty years earlier, the nation was alarmed. In 1980 the average math SAT score had dropped to the all-time low of 466. Juvenile crime, drugs, and other social problems had worsened, and the schools were unable to deal with them. Public confidence in education was at a low ebb. 5 It was in this environment that a shift began taking place in American politics and society. Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, and during the early years of his administration, calls for reform were raised and implemented, which affected all areas of education including music and the arts. Fowler was heavily involved in the debate over reform and the place of music within it, and his work at Musical America was the primary medium he used to reach his widest audience yet outside of music education. The Initial Years with Musical America In the late 1960s, Fowler had the opportunity to meet Norman Redmon, then editor of High Fidelity / Musical America (HiFi/MA). Later, Redmon invited Fowler to become a regular contributor, which began what would become some of his best-known work for the 15 years from 1974 to 1989 as author of the ?On Education? column and 151 Education Editor for the publication. 6 Although he was still editor of the MEJ when he first met Redmon, he recognized that there was a larger audience to be reached if the arts were to be mainstreamed into the fabric of American society. After meeting Redmon, Fowler wrote the following note to himself: Met Norman Redmon in Atlantic City at the Convention ? How to capture the Music Ed audience for Musical America? Write the type of article they might advance. 7 This was an important time because he had begun to reach a wider audience with his work as editor of the MEJ, and he recognized the opportunity to communicate with an even larger population by writing for those outside the profession of music education, along with a large group of classical music supporters in the United States and abroad. Even though every author is concerned about reaching his or her audience, this note emphasizes Fowler?s ability to see beyond what had been done to what could be done. To write about arts education advocacy had not been seen in the general arts press, and especially not outside the fields of music or arts education. Fowler knew this could be an important opportunity to reach the public and put music and arts education more at the forefront of thinking about American educational practice and reform. His work at HiFi/MA was an important component in developing the arts education advocacy movement. At this time, Musical America was paired with High Fidelity and was published in the same binding with two separate publications, indices, tables of content, and covers. It seems the editors and publishers of these magazines determined that the readership was not only interested in high quality and elite music and performance, but for that time, state-of-the-art equipment was being developed to listen and experience it. As a result, readers were more likely well-educated and informed about 152 high quality arts and music endeavors and interested enough to not only read about it regularly, but pay to hear it live and on new and expensive stereo equipment. The readership seemed to have a vested interest in the continuing success of what they loved?music and the performing and visual arts. Charles Fowler seemed to grasp the value of this opportunity, and these articles contributed not only to his career success, but also to the performing arts in America. Articles Published in Musical America, 1974 to 1975 Although the articles from Fowler?s 15 years at Musical America have been extensively reviewed, a complete annotated analysis is outside the scope of this study. To show how the articles were analyzed, along with their general style and content, the first two years (1974 to 1975) at MA are outlined here. These two years were selected as they are at the beginning of the chronological review and illustrate the treatment given to all fifteen years of Fowler?s work at MA. For the remainder of the articles, the analysis is presented as a whole in multi-year segments with significant articles highlighted and discussed. This is done in an attempt to keep the narrative concise and to allow for more thorough discussion of connections with the seven objectives, Fowler?s vision for music education, and the greater context in which they were published. A chronological view offers a more comprehensive reading of the material that Fowler wrote: it provides better support for the assertions of the study, and it clarifies this material for future researchers. The first article for the ?On Education? segment he published in HiFi/MA is from April 1974 and titled ?Interdisciplinary Model Programs in the Arts for Children and Teachers (IMPACT).? 8 Here Fowler discussed a program called IMPACT 153 (Interdisciplinary Model Programs in the Arts for Children and Teachers) that recommends inclusion of the arts in the whole curriculum of a school. With the support of the JDR 3 rd Fund (Rockefeller Foundation), several sites were selected as models for implementation of an arts-infused curriculum. Fowler asked, ?What was the typical IMPACT school like? From all accounts both students and faculty were far more happily engaged in the whole educational enterprise.? 9 A later summary report was prepared by an evaluation team from Pennsylvania State University. This led Fowler to comment about the results of students? involvement in the arts that ?their engagement with the arts caused them to engage generally, to become (to borrow the terminology of educators) ?self-motivated.? Therefore their basic subject-matter learning, far from suffering, tended to improve.? 10 The May and June 1974 articles were devoted to a new method of looking at song as culture, called ?Cantometrics,? created by scholar Alan Lomax at Columbia University. 1 Alan Lomax collected American folksong through the Department of Anthropology at Columbia University for the 11 years prior to when Fowler wrote these two articles. The essential argument is that song is related to culture more closely than previously considered. The method of understanding this correlation is what Lomax termed Cantometrics: canto for song and metric for measure. This method is a guide for listening to folk and ethnic music using a rubric that allows for better understanding of a less than regimented and standardized medium. There are 37 parameters by which the music can be heard and comprehended, and over 400 different cultures were tested to connect music and life-style. It can indeed be seen as groundbreaking that with such a large data set, the results can hardly be coincidental. 154 Fowler commented that, ?One cannot listen to these tapes without gaining an understanding and affection for the varied creative patterns of the human race.? 12 Fowler?s view here defined a clear representation of democratic art, work towards a more cosmopolitan musical taste, and creative life orientation, all of which were core beliefs of his seven objectives and his vision for music education. In terms of understanding the connection between this article and Fowler?s seven objectives, the question is one of why he selected two months of article space on the topic of Cantometrics and its importance to the reader. One suspects that the influence of music in a broad cultural sense suggests Fowler believed that Western, common-practice musicians should work to understand other music outside of the traditional classical canon. In the June 1974 issue, Fowler also wrote a brief commentary regarding the new headquarters building at MENC just outside of Washington, DC. 13 This is relevant because he was putting the name of MENC into the national conversation and also stating clearly why money should be put into the endeavor of supporting music education through a better facility for the organization. In essence, this marks one of the first times someone was advocating to a primarily non-music teaching audience that music education was valuable and should have funding to support it. Fowler wrote, ?The need for increased emphasis on our present society in the humanistic realms is everywhere evident.? 14 He went on to say, ?Our younger generation knows so much of outrage, so much of distrust, so much of violence but so little of their counterparts.? 15 These quotes indicate strong support for the profession of music education and encouraged others to consider the same position. 155 In the July 1974 issue, Fowler wrote about the proceedings of the ?MENC 42nd Annual Convention? from earlier that same year. 16 The principal focus was a report on the events of the conference and perhaps a nod to broaden the musical public?s understanding of what school music educators discuss when they come together. This seems one of Fowler?s continual goals: to bring those outside of the music classroom into it and encourage those inside to look outward. Important topics of this conference included popular music in the music classroom, representation of African-American music and music educators, and discussion of the belief in music and its importance to children, schools, and communities. In his August 1974 article ?National Survey of Musical Performance,? 17 Fowler discussed standardized testing and its related results on music and the arts in the schools. In 1964, work began on preparing the first National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). This was an exam designed to measure the current progress of educational programs in several academic areas, including the arts. The NAEP was administered from 1971 to 1972, and the results were prepared for release in 1974. Although MENC was involved in the process, there were many problems and disagreements with the preparation and administration of the exam and its results. Due to early issues with the NAEP preparation, the results represented music education very poorly, and a supplementary report was prepared with the goal of better explaining results to the general public. A news conference was planned but was not presented before release of the overall NAEP results, and the reputation of music education was severely tainted with those outside the profession. 18 In this article, Fowler was commenting on the process and release of the results, and he stated that ?Arts 156 teachers are always trying to prove something, while all other teachers are free to concentrate on the work at hand: teaching.? 19 He later wrote a personal note that showed his reflection and pattern of thinking over time: This article is on the music results of the National Assessment of Education[al] Progress. Too bad the reaction wasn?t ?OK, you want kids to perform better, then give us the time, the teachers, and the resources and we will see that it happens.? Instead, MENC and NAEA [National Association of Educational Assessment] worked to stop the national testing in music and art, a serious mistake that cost dearly in the years that followed. 20 Assessment in the arts and its impact on improving the credibility of school music was not explored in detailed measure until later and did have a significant impact on how arts education was viewed within the academic community. This is important when considering Fowler?s viewpoints of 1972. Not only were his initial reflections correct 20 years later, as he wrote himself, but assessment also became a current and popular topic in music education research and within education in general. This is particularly relevant to support the argument that his writings can be used as a template for current actions in the arts advocacy field today. From time to time, Fowler invited guest columnists to prepare articles for his column. His choice of topics reflected an interest in broader themes outside his expertise and a willingness to gather great minds around presenting the ideas. Most often, he was in direct contact with the guest author, offered suggestions and editorial comments, and selected topics and themes he felt relevant for the magazine and its audience. Fowler still exercised strong editorial control and exhibited interest in the quality of the final product. The September 1974 issue included Harlan Hoffa, who at the time was the Head of Art Education at Pennsylvania State University. His article, ?A Call to the Arts to Gain 157 Strength in Unity? posited the idea that arts educators combine their efforts to work as a humanities unit within public education. 21 Hoffa felt that strength in numbers and mission would promote arts education to a more prominent place in schools. In having one administrator for the arts, one team, one unified goal of offering comprehensive arts education to all students in the schools, there would be more perceived (and real) value for the place of the arts and their impact on children. Hoffa highlighted the problems he saw with arts educators and their views, and made the case for them to unify and work as a body against the challenges they faced. He further suggested that pre-service teachers should be involved in the process while being embraced and supported by experienced practitioners. There has always been discussion about the role of the university and conservatory and how young musicians are trained for life as professional artists. In the column from October 1974, Fowler described a unique school founded in Montreux, Switzerland in 1973 with the primary purpose of helping young musicians transition from university to professional life. 2 The IHEM, Institute for Advanced Musical Studies, was a 10-week course that allowed recent performance graduates the opportunity to study with well-known musicians in studio, masterclass, chamber music, orchestra and so on. The residential nature of the course allowed students to interact with one-another, as well as with highly regarded performers from the best orchestras in the world whom they might not usually meet. One of Fowler?s unique contributions to music education was his wide, deep, and cosmopolitan view about music and its study. This included formal Western classical music, popular and rock music, and world music in its many forms. Just as he felt it 158 necessary to fight for music education for elementary school students, he also knew that the study of music at every level needed attention and support. One might say that in highlighting a positive program like the IHEM that prepares future classical performers, Fowler was supporting the future musicians that would perform for and inspire younger students to the study of music, along with audiences and others that would ultimately promote more arts experiences in society. Fowler frequently addressed the tension that existed between the performer and educator. He felt this dialogue was important to the music education and classical performance worlds alike. In this article from November 1974, the professional bassist Gary Karr provided an example of a performer who values teaching and the impact it can have on children and audiences alike. 23 In the early 1970s, Karr took to the idea of teaching elementary general music because he felt there was too much emphasis on technique in American music classrooms and not enough on emotion and feeling. After several attempts to gain employment in New York City public schools (primarily because administrators could not understand why Karr would want to teach at such a ?low? level) he ended up in Halifax, Nova Scotia, where he taught elementary school music for two years. Karr held the philosophy that teaching the youngest students was just as, if not more, important than working with more advanced university students. This article had Charles Fowler rhetorically asking the music teacher: how are we really reaching and touching children to truly appreciate and value music and its many wonders? Karr recounted a story about his first days of teaching a rather difficult class that met him by running and screaming out of control in the classroom. He decided to play his bass and demonstrate his special talent just as they showed theirs. In playing the 159 Cello Suite No. 3 of J. S. Bach, the students slowly began to listen and eventually were paying rapt, silent attention to the music, apparently transported by the beauty and meaning that Bach conveyed through his writing. Not only was Karr an excellent ambassador to bridge the gap between performer and educator, but also challenged all musicians, whether classroom or stage, to re-think the true value of music and its potential impact on those who experience it. Fowler had advocated for this very concept in his dissertation of some ten years earlier. Fowler was always looking at new ways to consider how more music education and arts experiences could be brought to the general public. In December 1974, he wrote about The Parks, Arts, and Leisure Project. 24 This program was begun in collaboration between the National Parks Service and National Endowment for the Arts in 1972 with a goal to support artistic events in outdoor and natural settings. Examples included a former amusement park penny arcade turned into a children?s theater, a swimming pool center into an art complex, an old military facility into a community arts school, and a firehouse converted to an art gallery, among others. Ever the one to broaden perspective in unexpected ways, Fowler wrote, ?The parks belong to the people, and so do the arts. Here, then, is the American democratic philosophy applied to the arts.? 25 The first article from 1975, in February, recounts an historic meeting that took place in late October 1974 at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC. 26 Through the combined efforts of National Council of State Supervisors of Music and Art, The National Endowment for the Arts, The John D. Rockefeller 3rd Fund, The US Office of Education, and The Kennedy Center, nearly 165 representatives from 42 states met to discuss consensus and comprehensive arts 160 instruction in public education. It was an historic meeting, to be sure, and Fowler certainly noted this event. A purpose of this meeting was to bring arts supervisors together to come to some agreement about how collaboration might provide more strength to arts education. Music educators face many challenges along with their colleagues in other artistic fields such as art, theater, and drama. This meeting was called to help address these challenges in a concrete and successful way. The result was a renewed effort to ensure that the arts be included more comprehensively in public education. Pennsylvania had been a model in this area for many years, and Fowler had not only taught and worked as a music supervisor there but also prepared a brochure on arts education for the department of education. 27 In this column, Fowler promoted democracy among arts educators. This goal was a clear premise of several of his dissertation objectives which espoused music as a democratic art and development of a creative life orientation. As goes the impact of music education, so can other fields in the arts, as well. When the arts are brought together they not only experience strength in numbers, but a clearer and stronger sense of their own identity and importance. The overall idea was to suggest that arts educators consider themselves colleagues and that greater diversity in numbers would strengthen support for the distinct units within the arts, including music education. The March 1975 segment of ?On Education? covered the topic of ?Music in Our Schools Day.? 28 This article described the first time this even took place, on March 13, 1974. The column addressed the value of music to the curriculum and of advocating for music programs in the schools. Fowler, now fully into advocacy mode, wrote: 161 Music educators are always trying to garner increased public support. And with good reason. Their subject is among the last to be funded and the first to be eliminated. The public often seems doggedly determined to keep the schools totally focused on the ?basic? subjects, forgetting that learning is as broad as life itself. 29 Fowler made clear that this program emphasized the importance of music for all students, and not just those who were musically talented: Like it or not, the American schools are democratic institutions that serve the needs of all students, and the music education program, as part of that situation, also must serve students of varying backgrounds, interests, abilities, and ambitions. That?s no easy undertaking. The future of American musical culture stirs embryonically in the public schools. 30 Again Fowler suggested that music study should be democratically placed in schools so all students have access to music education and its many benefits. Among the many facets of Fowler?s writings and beliefs was a commitment to a pragmatic approach to music education; in other words, what can be done and how can others be convinced of the value of inclusion of music in general education. Writing on Emile Jacques Dalcroze and his method is but one example. In the April 1975 issue, Fowler highlighted the important but lesser-known method at the time. 31 The general practice was based on three principles including eurthymics, which involved the physical, mental, and aural techniques to teach detailed elements of rhythm. Other facets included rhythmic solfege, reading, singing, and analysis of musical practice, and improvisation; all of which expressed comprehension of technique and incorporation of body and soul within music. 162 An article with this focus enlightened teachers and non-musicians alike to the plethora of pedagogies that aid in more effective music education for more people. In communicating these ideas, Fowler emphasized how music could benefit all and recommended consideration of multiple ways of learning and doing. The May 1975 article, written by guest author Judith Rubin, highlighted the value of the arts in general education. In this case however, the focus was on art therapy and how children and others could benefit from the therapeutic value of the arts. 32 Music and arts education can enrich the spiritual and cultural soul and also help heal physical and therapeutic needs. Arts therapy as a medical and psychological treatment was certainly less common in the mid-1970s than today and shows Fowler?s interest in innovative and unique ways to incorporate the arts and music education into the everyday life of children and adults. The topic for June 1975 dealt with business issues and the arts. The article, ?J. C. Penney Launches a Bicentennial Music Celebration,? was about the company creating a box set of patriotic music materials for the upcoming celebrations in 1976 of the first 200 years of America as a country. 3 Fowler emphasized the value of American music while highlighting how corporations can contribute to artistic life and perhaps, how advocacy requires reaching out to multiple constituencies. The project, which resulted in a large, 45-pound box of music, parts, and materials, included 100 minutes of music, including historic American works along with newly commissioned compositions. At a cost of about $1.5 million, it was distributed through 1,640 stores to 30,000 high schools and colleges, reaching nearly 4.5 million young musicians and their audience of roughly 22 million people. 163 The theme for July 1975 continued the business connection with the article, ?Arts & Business: Partners.? 34 This article is significant for a number of reasons. It publicly connected business goals with arts education and argued that their support could help students and contribute to the interests and needs of society. This article also represents the beginning of Fowler?s relationship with the Rockefeller family and their significant contributions to support arts programs in the schools and elsewhere. To show the connection that the arts are important to and part of mainstream society, Fowler wrote, ?Education in the arts is far more than what goes on inside schools and colleges.? 35 One purpose of this column was to address the traditional notion that the arts and business are not related. Fowler challenged this idea by illustrating how the arts can be more business-like, along with how businesses could better appreciate the value of the arts and music in students? education. Few at the time could act as the arbiter between seemingly unrelated groups like Fowler. By highlighting this value, he communicated the message to a large and important audience: those outside music education who can have a strong impact on it. In August 1975, guest author Robert Sherman discussed the value of truly indigenous American music that had been overlooked by a dependence on the Western classical tradition. 36 The author advocated a holistic approach whereby students compose, perform, and analyze new music as a complement to the study of nothing but European classical music. He offered curricular suggestions such as problem-solving approaches to music theory study, group composition and recording projects, and public performance of newly created work to instill a sense of creative output, as opposed to sheer mimicry of other styles and mediums. 164 Once again, by presenting another author with other views, Fowler supported the notion of a broader musical concept and a willingness to look outside traditional boundaries of music education. Fowler was a strong advocate for music education in the schools but did not limit the inclusion to only certain styles or teaching techniques. Here we see a combination of the philosophical and the pragmatic in offering new ways to include music education while emphasizing its importance. Of long concern to those involved in music conservatory education was the issue of what one does to prepare graduates for stable lives in the professional world. Even thirty years ago when Wisconsin Conservatory conducted a study to assess the role of music schools in assisting students with the necessary skills to make a living as performers, it was felt not enough was being done. Some might say that today, in the early years of the 21st-century, this issue is indeed still relevant. Many results from this late 1974 study were not conclusive but opened up a dialogue for the need to address the problem. Again, it is important to keep in mind that Fowler was addressing this article to an audience that included a large number of non-professional musicians but those who had a vested interest in the success of musical life in America. Topics from the September 1975 column included musical versatility, grounding people in classical and popular genres, teaching versus performing, and pre-college training and its influences on the university experience. There was also a mention of the categorization of conservatories: academic, musical, or vocational schools? It does beg the question as to mission and whether conservatories as a body should more firmly define and exactly understand their role in student musical training and development. 37 165 In the year 2008 it is difficult to recall life without constant media interaction and interruption with daily life, but in 1974 the notion of mass media and recording taking control was just coming to the fore. The genesis for the October 1975 article titled ?The Media are Music Education,? came from the report ?Music and Tomorrow?s Public,? from the International Music Council of The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 38 Fowler stated that, ?the media, rather than the schools, constitute the most significant and persuasive vehicle for music education in the Western world.? 39 A focus of the article was how technology was used in classrooms internationally at the time and the relationship of these media to classical and popular music education. Fowler also cited ideas from the UNESCO report that suggest how technology can be used to influence children?s views on and experiences of music. This article is significant for a number of reasons. First, it showed that Fowler was always thinking of how music education interacted with society and how best to mediate that relationship to maximum effect; second, Fowler was considering how innovation and recognition of new developments affected current practice; third, it demonstrated a broad knowledge of what happened in the music classroom and how he felt it could be affected in a positive way; and fourth, was he placed America into the larger context to see how other countries might be considering the identifying factors that influenced music education. While Fowler may not be well-known, he played an important role that few others were filling: looking at all of the constituencies surrounding music education and delving into their purposes and practices, then reporting it to the larger audience, both inside and outside schools. These considerations were important, and Fowler believed the issues 166 needed to be raised in order continue a dialogue that could work towards the improvement of music and arts education in the public school system. From November 1975, in the column ?Artists in Schools: They Make a Difference,? 40 Fowler discussed artists-in-the-schools programs and how they positively affected the arts curriculum and the learning of students in the classroom. He addressed the topic by outlining the program of a funded musical ensemble and how they effectively integrated into a school setting in order to successfully influence students? musical skill and understanding. A main focus of the article was to describe the benefit of artists-in-schools not only to schools and students but also to the musicians themselves. Students were afforded the opportunity to experience music first hand from high-level professionals who pursued their craft to perfection. Artists could express the deep love for their work and music to audiences who were eager to hear their stories, value their contributions, and appreciate their dedication to the arts in education. An important point raised by Fowler is how much impact a brief visit or residency can have on students or a school. While Fowler claimed there was a benefit, this discussion raised the topic of exposure versus immersion versus infusion. In this context, he referred to students attending a single or occasional professional or educational arts event, such as a children?s concert. Immersion meant comprehensive music instruction in the schools, and infusion entailed incorporating arts education throughout the entire curriculum of a school program or district. In December of the same year Fowler included guest author Barbara Kaplan, who wrote about the educational method of Zolt?n Kod?ly. 41 Kaplan noted that the musical 167 culture of Hungary had been profoundly affected by the method and that most citizens were remarkably well educated in music as a result. Fowler was continually looking for innovative ways to improve American music education practice, and Kod?ly had contributed important ideas to the field. Fowler identified this program as an exemplary model that could be influential on American public school music programs, and so chose to include Kaplan?s experienced voice in Kod?ly?s method in his monthly column. Fowler regularly considered the larger picture of musical study and reached out to the MA readership to highlight the value of music education. He embraced multiple ways of learning, and therefore asked Barbara Kaplan to write of her experiences in Hungary with the Kod?ly method in order to introduce it to the audience of those outside the music education profession. 42 While Fowler was familiar with this method from his prior experience in music education, he knew that Kaplan was well-regarded in this field and that she had also just returned from Europe where she spent significant time studying the method with original practitioners of the technique. Fowler felt this would create a stronger impact on the part of the wide readership of the magazine. Articles Published in Musical America, 1976 to 1979 The following articles, from 1976 to 1979, are presented in an overall summary rather than each piece receiving individual attention. While some articles remain more significant, others are given more thorough scrutiny in the course of the analysis here. The main purpose is to give an overview of the columns from the period to provide a general understanding of their content and focus as relates to Fowler?s vision for music education. 168 The articles from 1976 to 1979 covered a variety of topics. Articles published in 1976 ranged from MENC, the arts in general education, accountability, aesthetic education, and poverty, to advocacy, cultural treasury, and gender bias, among others. Topics addressed in 1977 included music and the handicapped, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), community schools, a rationale for arts education, music for the gifted, and government happenings related to music and arts education, and others. Topics presented in 1978 included highlighting several showcase programs in strings and jazz, music and technology, opera in the classroom, a piece on problems in music education, and an article revisiting Tanglewood ten-years later, among others. The 1979 articles covered music and math, symphony orchestras? role in the classroom, more on the NEA, African-Americans and music, holiday issues in music education programming, several showcase programs in California and Arkansas, music and senior citizens, Disney and music education, and another column on music and handicapped, among others. 43 In 1976, America was contemplating its history and traditions strongly in the bicentennial year of the country. In considering the American musical heritage, Fowler started off the year with a column discussing the Smithsonian and its work preserving musical trends and practices, including cultural musics, jazz, Native-American traditions, frontier songs, and popular music. During this time, the government was advocating the notion of ?the arts for every child,? that Fowler said might be called a ?new arts education.? 4 A part of the Kennedy Center Education Outreach Program, provisions of the new legislation were outlined, which included seven objectives of what arts education (including music education) should be in American classrooms. This article emphasizes Fowler?s forte: the idea of 169 music education for all children and a chance to highlight its importance to the general audience. One of the unique roles Fowler played was to follow and present information important to the development of music education in the United States that many of his readers would not have tracked themselves in such great detail. Fowler was generally challenging the status quo to instigate thought and discussion about music education. While he held strong and well-considered views on many issues relevant to music education, he was just as interested in starting the conversation so that stagnant perspectives would not keep the profession from moving forward. In his article, ?The Music Educators National Conference: David Faces New Goliaths,? 45 he outlined some views that he felt should be raised about the work of MENC and its goals at the time. Another column was a companion piece, written by a guest author, debating whether or not the arts could survive in the schools. 46 As has been mentioned elsewhere in the study, one of Fowler?s important contributions was his ability to assimilate what had happened historically, state its value to the present, and project its impact on the future. It is further important to note how this article helped contextualize music education during this time, as Fowler was keenly aware through his own research, experience, and writing, of where the profession and MENC stood during the changing times of the 1970s. Fowler clarified the role of MENC: In contrast to ?professional? organizations such as the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association, the MENC has fulfilled this role primarily by functioning as a collector and distributor of information, rather than operating as a policy-proclaiming, project-oriented, or action-taking body. 47 He went on to say: 170 Where is the organization today? Vast changes appear to be called for in the last quarter of the century. In 1975 MENC moved into its own new building in the Center for Educational Associations at Reston, Virginia. But the strain on financial resources caused by the building project, coupled with general inflationary pressures, has resulted in curtailment of some activities and programs at a time when music education faces increasingly severe problems. With current declining enrollments in the public school, cuts in public budgets for education, and public demands to go ?back to basics,? music teachers are finding that, even after all their work during the past three-quarters of a century, music is among the lowest subjects on the totem pole, being easily cut or even totally dispensed within too many school systems across the country. 48 These are powerful words that illustrated current trends in the mid-1970s, and the challenges that MENC faced in trying to address them for the membership. His prescription for the final quarter of the century: In no small sense the problem that the Conference faces as it approaches the last quarter of the century is to give directions to a field that is burdened by its reverence for tradition. No other art form is so passionately past-oriented. 49 Fowler finally expressed his recommendations: Unless music education accommodates itself more to the present, it cannot assure the viability and evolution of the art form. Creativity must be given a status equal to performance. It seems apparent that the Conference?s greatest achievements in the past ten years have been connected with major policy announcements, such as those that emanated from Tanglewood. These have been rare but welcome occurrences, for all too often in mediating between opposing factions, consensus- taking has sought middle ground that would not offend?or help?either group. But coloring policy beige may not satisfy the exigencies of the present situation. Diversity of opinion is characteristic of America?s cultural pluralism, and strong but opposing views must be given voice. 50 The growth of public relations in music education was relevant to the growth and support of the profession, and Fowler noted its importance in this column. Finally, Fowler recognized the impact his words might have and was sensitive to MENC?s response. He wrote, in a letter to his editor accompanying the draft: It is not all complements, but neither is it a harsh evaluation. You will see that I cut the most critical parts out. I believe MENC members will respect MA for 171 being able to take a more objective view of the Conference than they can or are willing to take of themselves. If you think I have gone too far, we can adjust. 51 Another column from June 1976 dealt with the arts as a poverty-stricken entity. It was certainly bold of Fowler to raise this issue and important, as well. He suggested that the economic and cultural contributions of the arts were undervalued and misunderstood and that the impact of the musical community was a strong force in America that deserved more respect and support. From August of 1976 was an article on accountability in the music classroom. The issue of accountability was rapidly becoming very important amongst discussions on education in the mid-1970s. This article addressed how accountability affected the music classroom, issues with behaviorist psychology, competent teaching and achieved results, and the role of the educator and the learner. The November 1976 column addressed the Festival of American Folklife, presented the same year by the Smithsonian Institution and the National Park Service. Stretching the reader?s perceptions of how music is defined, Fowler suggested that folk, native, simple, indigenous musics are just as valuable and important as Western European high art music. The role of music to the individual and community was important to Fowler, and he felt that the more people were involved with music, the better. Judgment of quality or value was the less important question over what musical experiences touch people?s lives in meaningful ways. Any positive musical experiences, regardless of how they are valued by others, represented the reconstructed view for a society in need: music involvement in any way has more value than traditionally valued music experienced in a limited way. 172 During 1977, Fowler addressed several areas of importance to music education, including music for the handicapped. Special education was finally gaining respect within education circles, and according to Fowler?s universalist view, all children, even the disenfrancished and handicapped, should have opportunities in music, not just the elite and talented. Conversely, he also wrote about music for the gifted and music in community schools. Music education is the opportunity for all to experience the compelling power of music in its multiple forms, and many of Fowler?s columns reflected this goal. Several articles also appeared in 1977 regarding the relationship between music and arts education and the government. Of significance is his column from February, ?The New Defense,? in which he outlined several important advocacy movements happening at the time and explained the difficulties many school systems encountered in supporting the arts. 52 Although he mentioned New York and Los Angeles, he went on to suggest other major cities across the United States that were dealing with the financial strains affecting many schools during the 1970s. 53 Fowler discussed personal entertainment and educational enlightenment and how these areas related to the role of music and other academic subjects. 54 Another important work was written by guest author Peggy Cooper, an attorney and founder of The Duke Ellington School for the Arts. Her statement to Congress, which was connected to the report that Fowler edited titled Coming to Our Senses: The Significance of the Arts for American Education, 5 is the subject of the article for October 1977 and is significant in a number of ways. First, Fowler himself served on the committee that ultimately produced the report, and he wrote an article about it in 173 September of the same year. This committee, the Arts, Education, and Americans Panel, was convened from funding provided by John Rockefeller as part of his JDR 3 rd Fund. Second, Fowler would write a book ten years later discussing how the arts and music education had fared during that time. 56 Third, it showed Fowler?s connections with those outside music education and the value he placed on all voices in the discussion. He felt as if those outside the field of music education also had a role to play in advocating for its importance in the schools. Finally, in response to a letter received about this article, Fowler wrote a personal note that mentioned the general lack of appreciation for music and the other arts in America. The author of the letter, Glenn Rice, was a pianist who had experienced first-hand the general decline in interest of the classical music he had performed for many years. 57 The involved discussion was deep and complex, stemming from various sources: the Rockefeller Report, various addresses to Congress (many of which Fowler wrote), Fowler and his articles, and general consideration of the value of music in America?a dialogue that Fowler felt was vital to valuing arts education and its benefits. Fowler commented on the letter years later: The letter of response from pianist Glen [sic] Rice could have been written yesterday. Conditions do not appear to be getting any better. Until we attack the whole value system in America and make some basic and substantial changes, I doubt that the arts can thrive. 58 Fowler?s 1978 articles addressed a balanced mix of important happenings in music education, along with some controversial and important discussions in the field. Of note is his column from April titled, ?What?s Wrong with Music Education?? He knew at the time that these were difficult issues but was not afraid to raise some controversy due to their importance. In a letter to editor Shirley Fleming, he wrote, ?If this one doesn?t raise a little dust, I?ll be surprised?. I hope the article doesn?t sound too preachy with all 174 the musts and shoulds. Perhaps that?s OK once in a while.? 59 This article was written as a commentary on the 1978 MENC National Convention in Chicago. Fowler outlined six objectives he considered necessary for the success of music education. These are that (1) Music must be taught as a creative art, (2) Music must become less print-bound, (3) Music must be approached as a practical study and not as an esoteric, ethereal art, (4) Music must be seen as for every-body and not just the talented, (5) Music education must consciously and conscientiously drop its isolation and join the main business of schooling, and (6) Music educators should take the lead in promoting the arts as a curriculum area compatible to the sciences. 60 In the final objective, Fowler suggested that music educators should promote arts education, and he connected music and arts education (and advocacy) as symbiotic in relationship. These objectives align closely with those from Fowler?s dissertation that are used as the basis of his vision for music education. These points illustrate the development of his thinking to this point in his professional career. Although somewhat updated from the original objectives, they offer powerful advice for how the field can be improved. Fowler?s thinking over time and his adaptation to contemporary issues are also highlighted in this article. Moreover, these objectives conform to those of his original vision?that music education can be a social change agent, it can serve to improve general education, and it can act as a valuable catalyst for learning about life, culture, and humanity. In a later note, he wrote, ?The agenda for music education?spelled out here in six objectives?is still relevant and crucial. When will our leadership take it seriously?? 61 In July 1978 he wrote on ?The Tanglewood Symposium Revisited.? This was a summary of the original 1967 symposium that was designed to revisit the original themes 175 and consider updates for changing times. The meeting was held at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in March of 1978. As further evidence of Fowler?s involvement and understanding of the needs of music education, one need only look at his longstanding and deep experience with Tanglewood: As a participant in both the original symposium and this revisit, I was struck again by the value of such introspective exercises. Too seldom do the formats of meetings and conferences of music teachers provide opportunities for discussions that delve into the depths of major problems and possibilities that face the field. 62 The 1979 collection of articles shows a more utilitarian focus. Several works focused on programs of special interest such as symphony outreach programs, senior citizens and music, Little Rock, Arkansas, and its arts program, and university curricular projects. Some notable columns conveyed Fowler?s commitment to the underserved, minorities, the handicapped and other groups often denied access to the powerful medium of music through music education. Another article discussed Disney and their education programs, which is interesting due to Fowler?s connection to Disney and EPCOT Center later in his career. 63 An additional significant column discussed arts and music education and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Fowler had worked as a consultant to the NEA for several years, and he finally felt there was positive movement in the endowment?s efforts to consider not only the impact of the arts on American society, but also better implementation through education in the schools. 64 Finally, two other columns from August 1979 focused on African-Americans and their involvement and impact on music education. One was an interview by a guest author, Joseph Mills, about the National Association of Negro Musicians. The second, by Fowler, addressed black participation at the Kennedy Center and related issues of 176 creating more cultural diversity at this important American arts institution. 65 Again he was focusing on the democratic value that music can have in providing opportunity for all?regardless of background, financial means, or social status?even at the titular institution for the arts in the United States. These works continue to emphasize Fowler?s commitment to providing high quality arts education to all students in the schools, not just children from the privileged classes. Articles Published in Musical America, 1980 to 1982 The articles from 1980 to 1982 once again reflect multiple views and ideas Fowler felt were impacting the music classroom in America and worthy of noting in the broader discussion of education and society. Topics for 1980 included a new approach to piano pedagogy, funding for arts programs, elders and music education, young scholars, the arts at public universities, a way to present Wagner to children, the John David Rockefeller (JDR) 3rd Fund, and an alternative to the Tanglewood Institute. The 1981 articles discussed the Music in Our Schools program, music appreciation and technology, resources for music and children, more on the Kennedy Center, more on the JDR 3rd Fund, a comprehensive view about arts in the schools, and the Tanglewood Institute at Boston University, among others. Fowler?s columns from 1982 addressed Lincoln Center, how schools can be changed through the arts, electronic music, how to correctly start playing a musical instrument, reaching non-music majors, news on musical achievement, and two controversial articles on professionalism in higher education, along with others. 6 Several notable columns in 1980 dealt with the broader theme of arts education which included music education as a component. The April 1980 article is a tribute to the 177 JDR 3rd Fund, which ended its work the previous August. The significance of this column, apart from highlighting the good work of the fund over many years, is that Fowler had a strong connection with the Rockefeller Foundation. He worked as a consultant to the Arts, Education and Americans (AEA) Panel that eventually produced the report, Coming to Our Senses, and wrote a book, ten years later as a follow-up to the report. His interest in Rockefeller is evident in this article, and Fowler greatly respected his contributions to arts education in American schools. 67 A June1980 article focused on communication between various organizations in the arts. 68 A joint report had recently been released by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the U.S. Office of Education (USOE). The primary idea was that the possibility for federal organizational and tactical support could be helpful in bolstering efforts at the state and local levels to include arts education in the schools. This sort of effort appealed to Fowler?s universal sense of music and arts education and the value they carry for children in the schools. Fowler suggested that this report was useful because it provided feedback, which was solicited from practitioners in the field, offered an infrastructure for exchange of ideas, and encouraged dialogue through systematic federal support, ultimately leading toward improved practice in the schools. These concepts represent Fowlerian philosophy in pragmatic terms: innovation through practice leading to systemic support for the arts. Fowler?s July 1980 article, ?Public Universities: The New Cultural Centers,? presented results of a recent report about state of the arts at public (land grant) universities. 69 Fowler was consistently looking through various news sources, governmental agencies, traveling, attending conference, and considering myriad sources 178 as topics for his MA articles. This column is significant to Fowler?s philosophy because of his belief in the universality and availability of music and arts education to all. He provided some interesting statistical data which showed that arts and music programs were available at most universities and served as cultural centers in many cities. These universities were themselves patrons of the arts, and in turn, created future supporters in the form of students and community members. Fowler also presented some probing questions and left the reader with the hope that institutions continue to do even more in their support and dissemination of the arts. Several articles from 1981 returned to a more music education centered focus. As usual, Fowler challenged the status quo at MENC, with the March 1980 article that occurred during ?Music in Our Schools Week.? 70 This was yet another example showing the steadfastness of his thinking over time and the confidence he had in his own ideas. With his experience both inside and outside of music education, one wonders why his thoughts did not have more of an impact on those who could readily make a difference: the administration of MENC, public school leaders, school boards, and creators of policy. Fowler continued with his oft-argued theme that music in the schools was not democratic and excluded students based on talent from the earliest years: Providing a broader curriculum that would open music study to all students would require that music teachers make their peace with the quality versus quantity dichotomy. Would proliferation of arts study move the arts toward mediocrity? I see the development of greater numbers of interested musical amateurs?and here I refer to listeners and song writers as well as performers?as a way to keep music in general alive and vibrant. 71 He went on to say: First and foremost, then, I believe that the agenda for music education must embrace a democratic philosophy and open the art of music to every student. That 179 some students have music and others do not is blatant discrimination that should be eliminated in public education. 72 Another theme repeated many times by Fowler is the creative value offered by music education. He believed that development of creativity was just as important as the performance that resulted from the study of music. Improvisation was one way this could be achieved, among others. He also felt that music education should serve the needs of American general education and those of society: Music should enter the bloodstream of the school and the community. Part of the reason music exists on the periphery is that music educators are content with compartmentalized isolation and insulation. Too many music teachers champion their own purposes and allow their courses to stand outside the primary goals of education and the interests of the American people. 73 Fowler?s comments issued a stinging rebuke to mainstream music education, and a call to re-think and re-formulate views in order to ultimately serve the profession better. By way of conclusion, Fowler summarized his perspective: By adopting these three basic modes of operation?commitment to democratization, to giving creativity as much emphasis as performance, and to placing music in the service of education and society?I believe music education will begin to reach the people and power structure and establish a broader public constituency. 74 The June and July 1980 articles are essentially reviews of new curricular and audio materials available for the music classroom. 75 Here Fowler endorsed educational materials that were for practical use and showed his commitment to pragmatic solutions in the classroom, along with his larger philosophical and sociological concerns. That he presented these articles here, in a national, non-education centered publication, shows the larger community the valuable work being done in schools. Fowler focused his message on support of best practices and continual work toward better outcomes for students. 180 In December 1980, Fowler reviewed the recently released book, Arts and the Schools, edited by Jerome Hausman. 76 He deftly summarized the contents of the book: The work represents a cooperative, broadly wrought outlook which, in the concerted efforts of its authors, exemplifies the idea that the arts can?and should be?treated as a comprehensive area of the curriculum, just like the sciences. This is all the more remarkable since each author is an expert in a particular discrete arts discipline. Given the bigness of view, which is both sensible and stimulating, the impact of this study can be as great for the educator in music as for the teacher in any other art. 7 Fowler once again highlighted that music education and the arts should be included in a comprehensive curriculum, which clarified his philosophy of music for all and the powerful contribution the arts can make to schooling. There are several notable and controversial articles from 1982. The first is about the Lincoln Center Institute, which had begun a program for schoolteachers to work during the summers in intensive sessions to prepare them to better implement aesthetic education in the schools. 78 The program was a combination of several influential arts organizations in New York City, including the Metropolitan Opera and Guild, New York Philharmonic, The Juilliard School, New York City Opera, and several others. The concept was in three parts: to train teachers, to develop school year plans, and to implement them in the classrooms with children. Correspondence about the idea, the construction, and the publication of this column illustrates Fowler?s connection with major music and arts organizations and the respect he held within that community. 79 Although Fowler was working outside the mainstream of music education as defined by MENC, classroom music, and school performing groups, his work was still focused on impacting and reforming school music and arts programs. 181 Another connection with an important musical organization is the focus of Fowler?s tribute to Radio City Music Hall in July of 1982. 80 As part of his view that music should be for all, Fowler endorsed the notion of Musical America praising what is essentially considered a popular music venue: Paying tribute to Radio City Music Hall in the pages of MA [sic] and in an education at that may seem as absurd as calling Arthur Fiedler one of the greatest music educators who ever lived. Yet it is not at all ridiculous. Just as Fiedler undoubtedly brought more fine orchestral music to more people than anyone else in history, so too did the great old motion picture palaces bring great music to millions. 81 Fowler emphasized here that what often seems less likely to promote the arts culture often preserves it more strongly. If Radio City were not presenting more popular forms, it would not have the avenue to include opera, symphony, organ, and other classical forms that would educate a wider audience. Through his vision for music education, Fowler often suggested that music in the schools needed to be democratic and universal?music for all and not just the select few. Fowler concluded his thinking here when he said: Considering the fact that Radio City Music Hall has sustained and enlivened the country?s spirits for half a century and brought Americans to new realms of appreciation and delight, it is, indeed, fitting that MA [sic] pay tribute to this grand institution. 82 Fowler raised considerable controversy in his June 1982 article titled, ?The Lack of Professionalism in Higher Education.? 83 The response was quite heated in the form of many letters written back and forth between various interested parties, his editor Shirley Fleming, and to Fowler directly. This exchange prompted a published response summarizing much of the feedback and additional commentary in the September 1982 column. 84 The following discussion addresses the content of both these articles. 182 The original article related to a recent national conference of the American Society of University Composers (ASUC) summarized in another article and in letters from MA, in August 1981, and February and March 1982. This was Fowler?s foray into the debate. He knew it would be controversial and wrote to Shirley Fleming: You better read this one sitting down! I?m sending it you so that you can judge the can of worms we?re getting into. I?ve always wanted to write this piece. It just happened to be nicely prompted by the article and letters in MA. 85 Scores of letters poured in about the debate. 86 The essence of Fowler?s argument dealt with questions of what is an artist, what is a teacher, and the responsibility artists have to focus on teaching versus producing music. If a composer teaches merely to earn money because he or she cannot live on composing alone, Fowler argued this was problematic because the professor could proclaim that composing for monetary gain is less valuable art. Fowler further argued that this would be a disservice to the student who is in college to receive a degree that would help in earning a living wage when completed. Fowler was attempting to create a dialogue in the profession regarding the continuing battle between the role of the artist and musician in society, the professor and composer in the academy, goals and content for student learning, and how financial issues rate in all of these important areas of higher education. Fowler was essentially challenging the traditional notions of defining a composer, teacher, and artist, along with their role in performance, production and teaching of music and the other arts. Questions that Fowler considered included the following: What is the responsibility of the university professor in music education, performance, composition and theory? Are we to prepare students vocationally, artistically, and musically? Are 183 students to be prepared for a professional career, or for the additional training of graduate school or internship programs? Fowler was stating in his unique way that the debate needed consideration on a larger scale?not only by university professors at the heart of the matter?but by the public that ultimately experiences and supports the results of music coming from the academy. He concluded the September article with four sections, that by title, suggested the crux of the debate: (1) Which audience? (2) Composers who aren?t, (3) Artists who are, and (4) Educators without apology. 87 Fowler connected the debate with music education by discussing the role MENC could play in responding to these questions and helping to define the role of music in society by exemplifying good programs in the schools and educating the population to be better informed artistic citizens. As an example, he pointed to the MENC/Ford Foundation Contemporary Music Project (CMP). 8 He further suggested more use of improvisation and creativity in music education and recommended that elitist views not prevail. Fowler believed that understanding and appreciation of classical music, both modern and historical, were important to present to students. 89 These two articles on professionalism in higher education certainly sparked much interest and debate. Regardless of outcome, however, Fowler mostly was pleased that the debate was considered and placed in the body politic of discussions about classical music and its important educational, artistic, and creative role in society, and society?s role in understanding and supporting it. In general, the major objective of these two articles was to broadcast to the general public what he felt and observed as a former music teacher, scholar, and writer, was going on in the music classrooms of America. Fowler wanted to highlight the 184 positive work being done by countless arts educators across the country to those outside the field who were in positions to change the system. This was a recurring idea throughout Fowler?s career: the importance of reaching those outside the arts education system in order to urge progressive reform through understanding of the values of music education and the arts in society. Fowler knew that stronger influence coming from outside of music and arts education, equated with more broad success in the longer term. Additional Writings and Works, 1974 to 1982 In addition to his work as Education Editor at Musical America, as a freelance writer, and as a consultant, Fowler was also involved with several other projects during this period. He wrote on the topic of ?The New Arts Education? from 1975 to 1976 and presented this concept in three different outlets. The first was a conference presentation at the Maryland Music Educators Association (MMEA) Conference during October 1975. The second was an article in the College Music Society?s (CMS) journal, College Music Symposium, in Spring 1976. The third was a related article with the same title in the March/April 1976 issue of the journal of the National Education Association (NEA), Today?s Education. 90 The main thrust of these articles centered on three foundational principles: that the arts were beginning to function in tandem for the first time in American schooling, that more opportunities were available than before for students to study the arts in schools, and that the arts were being represented more broadly in schools than before. At the same time, Fowler also warned that the state of the arts in schools was troubling, and much more needed to be done to help support and grow arts education and its goals for students. In the MMEA article, he focused on these three principles with an eye towards 185 what music teachers in the schools could be doing to improve the profession. In the CMS article, the concept was on educating pre-service teachers to be prepared for the new paradigm in schools. In the NEA article, the concentration shifted towards how general education teachers can incorporate more arts into the curriculum. In these columns, Fowler demonstrated a pragmatic approach to arts advocacy: target every audience, inside and out, that would be involved with music education, speaking the language they know to help grow arts and music education in American schooling. This topic of a new arts education was aptly summarized in the following quote from his presentation to MMEA on October 17, 1975: What is this new arts education? It is a recognition, finally, of the intrinsic worth of all the arts for all students and a concentration on building programs that implement arts education throughout the curriculum. As one theater director pointed out, the teaching of the arts should be self-annihilating in the same manner as medicine. This is the paradox: To the degree that the arts are infused with everything we do, to the degree that the aesthetic component is perceived as a natural and rewarding part of all experience, to the degree that the arts are viewed, not as isolated, elitist, and esoteric realms of imprinted fibers in the whole fabric of American life, to that extent will the arts, as such, disappear, and arts educators be successful. In releasing ourselves into the greater community?in relinquishing our private domains?we gain new respectability and status in education. 91 Fowler then went on to connect this idea of a new arts education with the profession of music education. He offered some insight into the differences between music and arts education advocacy in asking: Is it necessary to do so? They are two separate entities, but all of the discrete arts have a role in the whole of arts education. In this context, however, how does arts education relate to music education? Fowler provided an informed view: What does this mean for music? It seems to me that what we have learned through the long period of curricular emphasis on performance can now be given to all students. The doing of arts should always be a part of the enterprise of 186 learning arts and of teaching them. There is no better way of familiarizing oneself with the processes of art than through the hands-on approach. Music educators are already expert in providing such experiences. They only need to identify new opportunities that permit all students to engage themselves with sound in ways that teach musical perception. This doesn?t need to be done?it cannot be done?through creating more choruses, bands, and orchestras. Music educators are more than directors. Surely the music education profession can be imaginative enough to invent other formats that incorporate direct involvement with the medium of sound. 92 Perhaps one can take this to mean that the arts, as a whole, provide aesthetic and praxial practices when combined as a comprehensive medium, rather than discrete units. In some cases, art and theater in the schools are often taught as a medium to passively experience and appreciate, while dance and music are more practice-based. In others, these disciplines can be reversed depending on the school and its curriculum. The main issue here is that some arts generally are taught through practice and some through appreciation. In a general sense, though, one can look to music education as reaching the largest number of students in the most performance-based way, so can be a model for incorporating Fowler?s ?new arts education? ideas. It seems as if Fowler was suggesting that arts education at the time was broader in scope than ever before, and if arts educators worked more closely together, they would likely gain greater support and attract more students to arts classes in the schools. Fowler challenged readers to reconsider and reevaluate their views in order to create a dialogue to improve conditions for music and arts education in the schools. During this period Fowler also prepared and presented a significant number of speeches, documents, reports, and other pieces extolling the value of music and arts education in the schools. The general nature of these works related in content to his published writings at the time. They are noted here to highlight not only the consistency 187 of his message, but also the variety of audiences he was attempting to reach in presenting his larger vision for music education. Fowler continued to present and publish for various organizations and journals. While they are not addressed in detail here, they further highlight the continuity of his vision through the topics he pursued at myriad organizations, even those outside of music education. In October 1976 he delivered a speech to The Arts Club of Washington, ?Can Arts in the Schools Survive?? From December 1977 he prepared a fundraising document for the National Symphony titled, ?The Case for Special Federal Support for Washington?s Independent Cultural Organizations.? Another article from 1977 was the report, ?Rationale for Music in American Schools,? prepared for the Committee for the Advancement of Music Education. From the same year, he published a brief yet powerful essay in the New York University Education Quarterly, titled ?Management of Decline,? in which he discussed administrative effects on arts education and how public policy decisions can either hurt or help arts in the schools. 93 Perhaps Fowler?s most significant project during this period was his work on the 1977 report titled ?Coming to Our Senses: The Significance of the Arts for American Education.? This was produced from work completed by the Arts, Education, and Americans (AEA) Panel, which was financially supported by the (John David Rockefeller) JDR 3rd Fund. The final published report was the culmination of several meetings and involved research and dialogue on the quality and status of the arts in American schooling. Twenty-five prominent professional arts educators, practitioners, and notable supporters contributed to the report. In addition, Congressional testimony was prepared and delivered by members of the Panel, many of whom were well-known 188 artists in their own right. In addition to his other consulting work for the AEA Panel, Fowler was asked by David Rockefeller to prepare written testimony for the panel members who would be appearing before Congress. 94 The essential goal of the report was to bring to light the value of the arts in schooling along with the economic and curricular challenges that arts educators faced in America. Three basic principles presented in the report were followed by a number of recommendations on how to implement them. In sum, these recommendations were (1) that fundamental goals of education need the arts as part of the whole balanced curriculum to be experienced by every child throughout his life, (2) educators at all levels must adopt the arts as a basic curriculum component and equal to other subjects, and (3) schools should look heavily for support from community resources, such as artists, media, materials, and so on. 95 Once the meetings and report were completed, testimony was prepared for a Joint Congressional Hearing that took place on May 25, 1977. 96 As mentioned above, Fowler was preparing testimony for appearing panel members so that little redundancy would occur and a stronger impact would be made on the committee members of the House and Senate. 97 Panelists included best-selling author James Michener, renowned concert pianist Lorin Hollander, former president of Manhattanville College Elizabeth McCormack, newspaper publisher Barry Bingham, and former deputy mayor of New York City Edward Hamilton. 98 Fowler noted this was a particularly difficult assignment to write for such prominent figures, specifically James Michener. He mentioned that he was concerned about Michener?s response to the commentary he had prepared for him. The testimony 189 was well received, however, and Fowler was pleased to learn that Michener was happy with his writing. 9 Once again Fowler had a clear, direct way of getting across his message, whether for the music teacher, school board member, community businessman, or internationally recognized author. The ?Coming to Our Senses? Report also caused some controversy at MENC and other organizations. 10 There was concern regarding the content of its suggestions, and some members of the arts education community felt the report did not accurately represent their views or needs. Primary issues included how the report recommendations were to be implemented and the suggested follow-up plans to reform arts education. Fowler was interested in creating the kind of controversy that led to meaningful dialogue, which would ultimately create some kind of change. Regardless of how the report was received outside of Congress, it seemed more important that a powerful and important body of politicians was hearing loudly and clearly, from prominent Americans, why music and arts education in the schools was a vitally important component of the curriculum, and necessary to the development of every child. Fowler completed an article for the Music Educators Journal in January 1978 titled ?Integral and Undiminished: The Arts in General Education.? 101 This was yet another connection between arts education, music education, and the concept of the arts in general education. Fowler believed that all of the arts were important but had a special connection with music education as that was his focused background and training through all of his degrees and teaching. Here Fowler addressed the idea of comprehensive arts education in a music teaching journal and again put forth the notion that educators should work together to develop curriculum and reform the profession. Topics included the 190 plight of the arts, the promise of arts in general education programs, related methodologies, and implementation tools to aid in the process of coming together to dialogue and work as a team. It is further noteworthy that Fowler was invited to have this article republished in similar form in The Education Digest in April of the same year, thereby reaching a much larger audience outside music education. 102 Regardless, Fowler compellingly attempted to convince his audience about the value of the arts in general education. This ability and goal in itself was an important component of his vision in reaching as many as possible with his ideas. By 1978, the original Tanglewood Symposium Report was entering the end of its first decade. A follow-up meeting?The Tanglewood Symposium Report Revisited: Music in American Society Ten Years Later?was planned for March of that year at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Fowler was invited to take part by preparing and delivering the opening address to the conference. 103 Fowler, as then-editor of the MEJ (1965-1971) and publisher of many articles from and about the symposium between 1967 and 1970, was perhaps the person most connected to that fabled event other than Louis Wersen, then MENC president, and Robert Choate, who organized the symposium. 104 Fowler?s speech, ?Tanglewood and the New State of Consciousness,? addressed several areas: recollections and meanings of the original symposium, thoughts on its impact, his view of music education in 1978, and suggestions for a new agenda moving forward. 105 Fowler recalled the original meeting with fondness, recollecting the depth of content and richness of dialogue from speakers such as Abraham Maslow, Louis Wersen, Robert Choate, Max Lerner, Paul Williams, and David McAllester, among others. 191 Fowler went on to clarify the meaning of Tanglewood as he saw it, in three broad areas: making music education more relevant, redefining music and making it more purposeful, and enlarging the scope of music education to involve all people. 106 He produced many works related to Tanglewood and used the MEJ as a vehicle to present many of the objectives and recommendations of the original report. In this 1978 speech, Fowler describes his reaction to an important issue of the MEJ shortly after Tanglewood from November 1968, which primarily addressed electronic music: In looking back, I must say that we startled the whole music world with that issue, and ourselves as well. Indeed, this was the first time the Journal had devoted a whole issue to the subject of music. You can imagine how surprised we were to receive numerous requests for copies from composition and applied music majors at Eastman and other schools of music. The opening editorial of that issue states that electronic music ?belongs in every classroom.? In effect, then, MENC was asserting real leadership for the future of music in the United States. 107 Once again Fowler showed his desire to make a wider variety of music more available, to reach more people with his message of the importance of music education, and to clarify the value of music in American education. It is interesting that what seemed so shocking at the time was a music education journal devoting an entire publication solely to the discussion of music. Fowler changed this paradigm and brought MENC and the MEJ to an expanding audience both inside and outside of the profession of music education. Of equal interest is the following statement regarding a report that Fowler edited, which appeared inside the November 1969 MEJ on the topic of youth music: The same kind of activity was initiated in the area of youth music and music in urban education. You will recall the ruckus stirred by the ?Youth Music? issue of the Journal. We were on the edge of a revolution. Among the many letters we received, one read: ?This is the first issue of the Journal that I haven?t immediately taken out and put on my compost heap.? And that was a complementary [sic] letter! 108 192 These and other recollections were prologue to discussing where he saw music education at the time (in 1978) and his suggestions for improvement and reform. He mentioned that many of the same problems highlighted during the original Tanglewood Symposium were still present within the music classrooms of America. He went on to say that music education must continue to address these critical issues to support the progressive growth of the profession. Fowler also suggested his ideas to continue reform in music education, and these ideas once again connected his vision with the ideals and themes of his dissertation objectives from fourteen years earlier. 109 He urged three fundamental changes to improve music education: (1) Music education should be democratized, (2) Creativity in music should be given as much emphasis as performance, and (3) Music education must consciously and conscientiously serve the purposes of American education and the needs of American society. 10 These compact points mirrored Fowler?s vision for music education, reflected his original seven objectives, echoed his overarching goal of music for every child, and emphasized the value of teaching creativity to help institute change in society. Fowler argued that music in the schools needed to be accessible to the student body as a whole and that performance-only instruction was not the only way of giving students musical opportunity. He further believed that music had a role in contributing to the needs of students, schools, and community, and this should be given consideration by those creating model programs in music education at every level. As seemed to be the case with many activities in which Fowler was involved throughout his career, there was some controversy caused by the 1978 Tanglewood 193 Symposium. A disagreement arose between the presenters and then MEJ editor and director of publications, John Aquino, and this led MENC to withdraw from publishing the proceedings. Aquino?s concerns were first about the quality of writing and material, but ultimately he felt that the content was not worthy of publication by MENC. Considering the experience of the scholars writing the report, it somehow seems specious that MENC was reluctant to put together what was an important follow-up to the 1968 Tanglewood Report that garnered so much respect for MENC as an institution. 11 It is unfortunate that MENC once again lost the opportunity to reach a wider audience and inspire thoughtful dialogue about the nature and reform of music education within the profession. 12 The 1978 symposium itself, however, offered an important contribution to music education and kept the reform-minded dialogue of the 1960s alive in the music teaching community. As mentioned earlier, Fowler also worked as a consultant to Walt Disney Productions, and one project he completed during the period of 1974 to 1982 was the September 1979, ?Final Project Performance Report: Arts and Entertainment Career Conference.? Here, one can see music education as represented by an international and commercial viewpoint. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees on an organization?s role, clearly highlighting how the arts can be valuable from a financial standpoint can only stand to strengthen its place in the schools. From 1980, he completed grant proposal statements for the Maryland Ensemble Theater Association, and in 1982, he delivered a speech for the American Symphony Orchestra League Conference. 13 These public appearances and writings were important because they allowed Fowler to present his vision for arts education to clarify for those both inside and outside 194 the field why this message was important. He commented on his public speaking and related work: In the mid 1970s I began to write and speak about the plight of arts education in American schools, a situation of substantial decline that MENC finally acknowledged in March 1991 (!!) with the formation of its National Commission on Music Education. Whether MENC would acknowledge it or not, my efforts to alert people to the growing crisis in arts education that culminated with the publication of my book Can We Rescue the Arts for America?s Children? in 1988, aroused concern and kept the issue alive among arts supporters who read Musical America and within the arts and education fields. It was a problem, in my estimation, that could not be ignored and would not correct itself without serious intervention. 14 This quote is significant for a number of reasons. First, he specifically discussed his work in the context of MENC and its advocacy activities, which he obviously felt were lacking at the time. Second, Fowler equated arts and music education as similar entities and began to unravel the question of whether these are two separate or individual areas. One can infer from this quote that Fowler believed they were at least very closely related and/or could be used in similar contexts. Fowler?s ideas here show that he believed strongly it was part of his mission (and that of others such as MENC) to be actively working for change with regard to the inclusion and support of music in the schools. The third point from this quote is a connection between his work as a music education advocate, MENC, and Musical America. It seems clear that Fowler viewed all of this work, whether at the MEJ, MA, speeches, brochures, reports, or other writings, as a means to an end: to get music in every school for every child. He further clarified that Musical America played an important role in his advocacy efforts. His work there supplied further evidence of his view that one important way to provide support for music education in the schools was to get those outside of the profession to visibly and clearly 195 sustain it. These efforts on behalf of music students in the schools by those outside of music education would only strengthen those within the profession itself. Through MA, Fowler could reach millions of others that were outside the scope of MENC and who could provide valuable economic, intellectual, and moral support for the cause of more and better music in the schools. Fourth, this quote maintains Fowler?s long-held view that any work, writings, or public statements should be a catalyst for change to improve and support music education and its goals. In a quote Fowler prepared for an exhibition of his papers late in his life, he wrote of being an essayist: We must be suspicious of our own education and the ?truths? we have been handed. Questioning, not acceptance, is the first step to independent thinking, achieving new formulations, and writing provocative commentaries. 15 Questioning accepted practice and working to create change as a result of one?s work was a central component of Fowler?s vision. He held this high standard not only for himself, but for other teachers, administrators, writers, and leaders who worked for improved practice and reform in music and general education. Emerging Themes and Ideas The principal output from 1974 to 1982 were Fowler?s columns published in Musical America. They represent the most stable and regular contributions from Fowler during his career, with a column or guest article every month during an eight-year time frame. Related output from the period included work with the JDR 3rd Fund, Americans for Education in the Arts, and Coming to Our Senses, Tanglewood Revisited, several speeches, reports, and other writings. All of these combined represent much of his significant public thinking about arts education, the role of music in schooling, and his vision for music education in the schools. 196 Of the works outside MA, his speeches, reports, and other writings were direct appeals to the survival of the arts in schools, explaining why civic arts institutions deserve government support, and why music education should be in the public schools. He also reviewed a report which described how particularly ill-informed administrative choices caused problems for the state of the arts in the schools. He also completed a column on the ?new? arts education, which is considered in contemporary context as similar to discipline-based arts education. This concept involves understanding the critical nature of the arts in schooling and how their integration into the curriculum should be an intrinsic and central place throughout instruction. It also suggested a more codified and rigorous approach that would make arts education more effective and accepted in the mainstream of public education. As with any scholar, Fowler?s life and work were influenced by circumstances around him, both inside and outside of music education, and his ideas, therefore, would be malleable over time. The themes that emerged from his developing thinking during the years 1974 to 1982 include music in general education, pedagogies of practice, and constituencies surrounding music education. Others are music education advocacy, arts education advocacy, the importance of non-Western musical traditions in a Western canon culture, and democracy and diversity in music and arts education. The first theme is the issue of music in general education. Fowler made a point to highlight that music was not only a discrete unit within general education, but an important component that should be given equal time. He believed that music was not merely an extra-curricular activity but a fully functioning curricular component of a holistic education. Musical education is connected with all academic areas and each 197 could enhance the power of the other. Fowler had looked to education as a social change agent and considered music and the arts central to this core mission. A second theme addressed pedagogies of practice. In several of his articles, he touched upon diverse teaching methods and philosophies, such as Kod?ly and Dalcroze, among others. He suggested that diverse pedagogies would strengthen the profession and that music was more than a traditional view of large ensemble performance. The value of good quality musical instruction was not just to create better musical performance, but to engage children in thinking artistically and creatively about the world around them. A third theme discussed the various constituencies connected with music education. These included those involved in some way or another with arts education or those that could influence music and arts education. Included in those groups were academic teachers of other subjects, principals, school board members, superintendents, and policy makers at multiple levels. Each of these groups had a role to play in music education, and its success or failure was based on the decisions, support, and respect these organizations experienced. Fowler was clear to lay out the circumstances, quick to provide support, and strong in his criticisms toward those who did not recognize the value of the arts in schooling. A fourth theme, and one for which Fowler was primarily known during his career, was advocacy, for both music and arts education. Although he branched out and focused on arts education as his career progressed, his early work dealt with music education advocacy, and this was the basis of much of his writings. Several articles from his early years at Musical America reflected issues of music education in the schools and offered multiple perspectives on support and practice. Fowler?s columns at MA reached a wide 198 and varied audience, and provided him a new and expanding medium to discuss the value and importance of music in the schools to a group who traditionally might not be aware of the challenges faced by music teachers in American classrooms. A fifth theme related to music education advocacy is arts education advocacy. As has been discussed elsewhere in the study, Fowler initially began his career in music education and expanded to writing in other areas of the arts as time and circumstances changed. He often wrote about all of the arts as important to public school education, and many times the two topics of music and the arts were used interchangeably. As education editor for Musical America, Fowler did not hesitate to discuss issues related to arts education as a whole and touch on topics dealing with other programs that brought arts experiences to children. Furthermore, while many topics addressed innovative programs related to music education, Fowler took advantage of the opportunity of a wide audience to extol the benefits of all of the arts to children. Regardless of the minor differences between the two advocacy philosophies, the important issue to note is that Fowler branched out and wrote powerfully in multiple areas, including music and arts education advocacy. Another theme to emerge from this period is consideration of musics from various cultures and perspectives. While Fowler was strongly grounded in the Western classical tradition, he was by no means an elitist and believed that all music had value. He further felt that any music that brought people into the fold of appreciating the arts was relevant and important to music teaching and learning. Especially in Musical America, he explored music from many countries, differing cultures, and genres from classical to popular music. Fowler believed that good quality music was important, and that its point 199 of origin or place in popular culture was less relevant than the impact it could have on children, schools, community, and society. A final theme from this period that carries through from previous years is the democratic value of music. Here Fowler addressed multiple programs and perspectives, including special education, diversity issues, race and class experiences, economic issues and choices affecting music education, and various programs designed to offer high quality music experiences to all, not just the elite classes. Here Fowler was intending to show again the value of music education and its role as a democratic art. Fowler believed that a holistic arts education approach was not only democratic but also helped develop discriminating and cosmopolitan musical tastes. Involvement with multiple arts entities and multiple ways of doing can be thoroughly democratic and can encourage communication among all those engaged in arts education. Cultural and aesthetic understanding engenders great respect and understanding among fellow people and leads to better understanding of self and society. Connections with the Objectives Considering the broad themes of the seven objectives, one sees many connections in the works from Musical America and other publications from 1974 to 1982. The first objective, music and the cultural needs of humankind, appeared in articles focusing on such topics as song as culture, a musical universal, public parks and recreational leisure, poverty, and cultural treasury. Social self-realization is addressed via aesthetic education, arts in education, group dynamics, and improved understanding through music. Music as communication was seen to be directly involved in arts education advocacy, rationales for arts in the schools, community schools and bringing people together, musical 200 heritage, and reaching those outside of music, such as non-music majors and other outside laypeople still influenced by arts education. Music as a democratic art is experienced through inclusivity with music and the handicapped, visually impaired, older Americans, gifted students, African-Americans and other traditional minority groups, such as those who are economically disadvantaged, and another column focused on musical outreach programs for all citizens. Columns that addressed music as means to develop a discriminating and cosmopolitan taste included topics such as artists in the schools, musical perception, advanced study in music, programs at the Kennedy Center, Lincoln Center, Tanglewood, higher education, and a comprehensive view of the arts in education. Lastly, his work on developing a creative life orientation in students was seen in articles discussing interdisciplinary arts programs, work of music teachers through MENC, considering musical achievement, changing schools through the arts, considering methods of reaching children to teach creativity, and considering multiple ways of doing when implementing music programs in the schools. As a review, the seven objectives from Fowler?s dissertation focused on multiple areas of importance to music in the schools and represent his vision of what could be accomplished by offering music education to all students. The seven objectives include relating music to the aesthetic and cultural needs of humankind, utilizing music as a means of social-self-realization, understanding music as a means of communication, working towards the attainment of a democratic art, music education as means to development of a discriminating musical taste, the development of a more cosmopolitan 201 musical taste, and music as a means to develop a creative life orientation in all students. 16 The connections are numerous, and those presented here are merely a sampling from a number of works Fowler completed during the period. His vision, stated early in his career, was engrained in his thinking that the role of music and the arts in education was central to the successful development of children. The study of music is not simply about acquiring fundamental skill, but the process of experiencing and truly appreciating the process and the results. A reconstructionist such as Fowler believed that education, or music education in this context, could create positive change, whether it be social, philosophical, emotional, or otherwise. Fowler attempted to convey this message through his writings, public addresses, and many other contributions. In the columns and works from this period, he highlighted the various programs and philosophies he viewed in the public schools, in business and community, and among policy-makers and scholars who were working in arenas affecting music and arts education. Reconstructionist philosophy held at its core that education should serve an agent of social change, and Fowler attached this squarely to music education with his dissertation. The idea of music for all had been heard from within MENC for many decades, and Fowler was now taking the message to his largest audience ever and expanding the message that music could promote equality and parity in schooling through its principles and practices. Concluding Thoughts In this chapter, writings of Charles Fowler from 1974 to 1982 were analyzed. The material covered included his initial years as Education Editor of Musical America, along 202 with other important works that he completed. The 1970s and early 1980s were a time of turmoil for public and music education. Perhaps it was in this period that Fowler?s commitment to advocacy became clear. He could reach his widest audience ever while writing for Musical America, and was not shy about raising controversial subjects he felt needed to be addressed within the body politic of the musical and educational communities. In addition to reviewing and summarizing these works, I aligned them with his vision for music education, and contextualized them within music education, general education, and society at large. Chapters five and six divide the third period of Fowler?s career into two chronological segments due to the very large number of articles and publications produced during this time. Chapter five has covered 1974 to 1982 and chapter six will address the remaining years of the period and of this research, from 1983 to 1989. 203 Chapter Five Notes 1 Michael L. Mark, Contemporary Music Education, 3rd ed, (Belmont, CA: Schirmer Thomson Learning, 1996), 18. 2 Michael L. Mark and Charles L. Gary, A History of American Music Education, 2nd ed, (New York: Schirmer Books, 1992), 334. 3 National standards for music education were not only not available in the 1970s, they were not formally created and adopted until 1994. Then, as now, standards are not specific benchmarks that are required for competency by music students, rather suggested guidelines for teachers as goals for success. These standards are published in MENC Taskforce for National Standards in the Arts, The School Music Program: A New Vision: The K-12 Standards, Pre-K Standards, and What They Mean to Music Educators (Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference, 1994). 4 Michael L. Mark, Contemporary Music Education, 3rd ed, (Belmont, CA: Schirmer Thomson Learning, 1996), 48-49. 5 Michael L. Mark and Charles L. Gary, A History of American Music Education, 2nd ed, (New York: Schirmer Books, 1992), 334-335. The SAT score listed was based on 800 as the best outcome for each section, which was the rating scale at the time. The math section comprised 800 and the verbal section was 800, for a highest possible score of 1600. The new 2400 point system did not go into effect until the year 2005 and now includes three sections rather than the original two that was the standard for many years. 6 Lynn Jacobsen and Bonnie Jo Dopp, Charles Fowler Papers Finding Aid, (University of Maryland Libraries, 1999). 7 Charles Fowler, Note about meeting Norman Redmon at MA regarding possible future MUED articles, __ July 1969, Charles Fowler Papers. 8 Charles Fowler, ?Interdisciplinary Model Programs in the Arts for Children and Teachers (IMPACT),? Musical America 24 (April 1974): 17-20. 9 Ibid., 18. 10 Ibid., 19. 1 Charles Fowler, ?Alan Lomax?s ?Cantometrics? Links Song Style to Life Style,? Musical America 24 (May 1974): 17-20; Charles Fowler, ?Cantometrics, Continued: In Search of a Musical Universal,? Musical America 24 (June 1974): 14-17. 12 Charles Fowler, ?Alan Lomax?s ?Cantometrics? Links Song Style to Life Style,? Musical America 24 (May 1974): 14. 204 13 Charles Fowler, ?Comment on Music Educators National Conference (MENC) New National Headquarters Building? Musical America 24 (June 1974): 1. In the June 1974 issue, Fowler also included a brief commentary on the new MENC National Headquarters. This was different from his regular column that dealt with Cantometrics, as listed above. 14 Charles Fowler, ?Comment on Music Educators National Conference (MENC) New National Headquarters Building,? Musical America 24 (June 1974): 1. 15 Ibid., 1. 16 Charles Fowler, ?Music Educators National Conference (MENC) 42nd Annual Convention,? Musical America 24 (July 1974): 14-15, 40. 17 Charles Fowler, ?National Survey of Musical Performance,? Musical America 24 (August 1974): 12-13. 18 Victoria Smith, ?The Music Assessment of the 1971-1972 National Assessment of Educational Progress: A History,? (master?s thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1997); Victoria Smith, ?The Music Assessment of the 1971-1972 National Assessment of Educational Progress: A History,? Journal of Historical Research in Music Education 22 (January 2000): 47-64. 19 Charles Fowler, Note about 1972 NAEP assessment, __ June 1975, Charles Fowler Papers. 20 Charles Fowler, Note commenting on 1972 NAEP assessment, __ July 1991, Charles Fowler Papers. Although the quote here states that MENC and NAEA worked to stop assessment testing, note that Fowler was stating that these organizations fought against future administrations of this and other exams (not the 1972 NAEP which had already happened), which attempted to assess student progress in music and arts education classes. It seems his belief was that MENC and NAEA were either concerned about future results, or more likely, that the questions, validity, and scoring issues would be so skewed as to continue to show music and art education in a negative light to the the lay- audience outside these professions. 21 Harlan Hoffa, ?A Call to the Arts to Gain Strength in Unity,? Musical America 24 (September 1974): 14-15, 27, 40. 2 Charles Fowler, ?Institut de Hautes Etudes Musicales (IHEM) in Montreux, Switzerland,? Musical America 24 (October 1974): 9-12. 23 Charles Fowler, ?Gary Karr, Performer and Teacher,? Musical America 24 (November 1974): 11-13. 205 24 Charles Fowler, ?Parks, Arts & Leisure Project,? Musical America 24 (December 1974): 11-13. 25 Ibid., 12. 26 Charles Fowler, ?Education in the Arts: Getting It All Together,? Musical America 25 (February 1975): 6-8. 27 Charles Fowler, The Arts Process in Basic Education (Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Education, 1973). 28 Charles Fowler, ?Music In Our Schools Day: An Opportunity to Take Stock,? Musical America 25 (March 1975): 12-14. 29 Ibid., 12. 30 Ibid., 14. 31 Charles Fowler, ?Developing Musical Perception: Dalcroze Still Works,? Musical America 25 (April 1975): 6-8. 32 Judith A. Rubin, ?How the Arts Can Help,? Musical America 25 (May 1975). 3 Charles Fowler, ?J. C. Penney Launches a Bicentennial Music Celebration,? Musical America 25 (June 1975): 8-9, 39. 34 Charles Fowler, ?Arts & Business: Partners.? Musical America 25 (July 1975): 12-13, 39. 35 Ibid., 13. 36 Robert W. Sherman, ?A Call to Throw Off European Dependency and to Learn by Doing, in Our Own Way,? Musical America 25 (August 1975): 10-11. 37 Charles Fowler, ?Music Career Curriculum Development Study of the Wisconsin Conservatory in Milwaukee,? Musical America 25 (September 1975): 4-6. 38 Charles Fowler, ?The Media are Music Education,? Musical America 25 (October 1975): 7-9, 40. 39 Ibid., 7. 40 Charles Fowler, ?Artists in Schools: They Make a Difference,? Musical America 25 (November 1975): 8-9. 206 41 Barbara Kaplan, ?Kod?ly Method,? Musical America 25 (December 1975): 10-13. 42 Charles Fowler to Barbara Kaplan, Washington, DC, 21 May 1975, Charles Fowler Papers. Fowler wrote this letter to Kaplan in May 1975 regarding an article on Kod?ly and his contributions. Some of Fowler?s thoughts on diverse ways of teaching and learning are found in the communication between the two scholars. 43 This overview represents the articles in the segment, On Education, written by Fowler and guest authors at Musical America from 1976 to 1979. They can be found chronologically in the bibliography and are only cited individually if quotes are pulled from a specific work. Note there are two sections in the bibliography: one of Fowler?s articles and another of works by guest authors. Those by guest authors are listed alphabetically for the purpose of making it easier for the reader to locate the names. Summarized articles show that Fowler felt them important to convey to his audience for various reasons. One can assume other works from MA follow in a similar vein. 4 Charles Fowler, ?The Alliance for Arts Education: Force for Change,? Musical America 26 (February 1976): 8. 45 Charles Fowler, ?The Music Educators National Conference (MENC): David Faces New Goliaths,? Musical America 26 (April 1976): 8-9. 46 Kathryn Bloom, ?Can the Arts Survive in the Schools?,? Musical America 26 (April 1976): 10-11, 40. 47 Charles Fowler, ?The Music Educators National Conference (MENC): David Faces New Goliaths,? Musical America 26 (April 1976): 8. 48 Ibid., 8-9. 49 Ibid., 9. 50 Ibid., 9. 51 Charles Fowler to Shirley Fleming, Washington, DC, __ January 1976, Charles Fowler Papers. 52 Charles Fowler, ?The New Defense,? Musical America 27 (February 1977): 9, 39. 53 David T. Crone, ?A Historical Descriptive Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Education Policy and Its Influence on the Music Education Curriculum in the New York City Public Schools, 1950?1999? (PhD diss., Seton Hall University, South Orange, 2002). In his dissertation, David Crone addressed some of the challenges faced by schools in New York City, and this was echoed by Fowler in his list of other major US cities dealing with similar issues. While this dissertation is only a source for New York 207 City, it is indicative of policy issues affecting other major cities at the time and provides a general analysis of how music education was affected by larger policy discussions and competing educational goals during the 1970s. 54 Charles Fowler, ?The New Defense,? Musical America 27 (February 1977): 9. 5 Arts, Education, and Americans Panel, Coming to Our Senses: The Significance of the Arts for American Education (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977). 56 Charles Fowler, Can We Rescue the Arts for America?s Children? Coming to Our Senses ? 10 Years Later (New York: American Council for the Arts, 1988). 57 Glenn Rice to Peggy Cooper, Stockton, CA, 16 September 1977, Charles Fowler Papers. 58 Charles Fowler, Note commenting on Glenn Rice letter of 16 September 1977, __ July1991, Charles Fowler Papers. 59 Charles Fowler to Shirley Fleming, Washington, DC, 28 December 1977, Charles Fowler Papers. 60 Charles Fowler, ?What?s Wrong with Music Education?,? Musical America 28 (April 1978): 7, 40. 61 Charles Fowler, Note commenting on April 1978 MA article, __ July 1991, Charles Fowler Papers. Once again, another note that Fowler wrote is included in his papers as he prepared his material to be archived. In reading these notes, the scholar is given a window into Fowler?s thought process based upon years of reflection and provides further evidence of his thinking and beliefs. 62 Charles Fowler, ?The Tanglewood Symposium Revisited,? Musical America 28 (July 1978): 14-15. 63 Gale Reference Team, ?Charles Bruner Fowler,? Contemporary Authors Online (Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson and Gale, 2004). 64 Charles Fowler, ?The NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) and Education: A Long-overdue Truce.? Musical America 29 (June 1979): 14-15. 65 Charles Fowler, ?Black Participation at the Kennedy Center: Goals are Set for Cultural Diversity,? Musical America 29 (August 1979): 16-17, 40; Joseph A. Mills, ?The National Association of Negro Musicians: An Interview,? Musical America 29 (August 1979): 14-15, 20. 208 6 Once again, this overview represents articles in the segment, On Education, written by Fowler and guest authors at Musical America, now from 1980 to 1982. They are found chronologically in the bibliography and are only cited individually if quotes are pulled or a specific article is highlighted. Note there are two sections in the bibliography: one of Fowler?s articles and another of works by guest authors. Those by guest authors are listed alphabetically for the purpose of making it easier for the reader to locate the names. Those pieces that receive a summary are indicative of the message Fowler felt important to convey to his audience. One can assume other works follow in a similar vein. 67 Charles Fowler, ?In Tribute: The JDR Fund,? Musical America 30 (April 1980): 12-13, 15. 68 Charles Fowler, ?Arts Education: Does the Left Hand Know?,? Musical America 30 (June 1980): 10-11, 37. 69 Charles Fowler, ?Public Universities: The New Cultural Centers,? Musical America 30 (July 1980): 8-9, 15. 70 Charles Fowler, ?Music in Our Schools: An Agenda for the Future,? Musical America 31 (March 1981): 14, 20. 71 Ibid., 14. 72 Ibid., 14. 73 Ibid., 20. 74 Ibid., 20. 75 Charles Fowler, ?Music & Children: Three Methods of Approach Resources,? Musical America 31 (June 1981): 14-15, 40; Charles Fowler, ?Music of the Americas: Organization of American States (OAS) Recordings are a Gold-mine for Public Schools,? Musical America 31 (July 1981): 18-20. 76 Charles Fowler, ?Arts in the Schools: A Comprehensive View,? Musical America 31 (December 1981): 10-11. 7 Ibid., 10. 78 Charles Fowler,?Lincoln Center Institute: It Tangles With the Issues,? Musical America 32 (January 1982): 11-13. 79 Joseph McKaughan to Charles Fowler, New York, NY, 30 July 1981, Charles Fowler Papers; Charles Fowler to Joe McKaughan, Washington, DC, August 3, 1981, Charles Fowler Papers; Joseph McKaughan to Charles Fowler, New York, NY, 14 September 209 1981, Charles Fowler Papers; Joseph McKaughan to Charles Fowler, New York, NY, 2 December 1981, Charles Fowler Papers. 80 Charles Fowler, ?Cheers for Radio City Music Hall,? Musical America 32 (July 1982): 13-15. 81 Ibid., 13. 82 Ibid., 15. 83 Charles Fowler, ?The Lack of Professionalism in Higher Education,? Musical America 32 (June 1982): 14-15. 84 Charles Fowler, ?The Lack of Professionalism in Higher Education Education?Continued,? Musical America 32 (September 1982): 13-14. 85 Charles Fowler to Shirley Fleming, Washington, DC, 1 March 1982, Charles Fowler Papers. 86 Many from various ends of the musical spectrum wrote in about this piece. The full citations are listed in the bibliography in the letters section of primary sources. Figures include Richard Brooks, then Chair of the ASUC Executive Committee; Gordon Cyr, Professor of Theory and Composition at then Towson State University; Carter Harman, then Executive Director of Composers Recordings, Inc.; and even Elliot Eisner, noted arts education advocate and (recently retired) Professor at Stanford University, among others. 87 Charles Fowler, ?The Lack of Professionalism in Higher Education?Continued,? Musical America 32 (September 1982): 14. 8 Ibid., 13. 89 Charles Fowler, ?The Lack of Professionalism in Higher Education,? Musical America 32 (June 1982): 15. 90 Charles Fowler, ?The New Arts Education,? Presentation at the state conference of the Maryland Music Educators Association, October 16-19, 1975; Charles Fowler, ?The New Arts Education,? College Music Symposium 16 (Spring 1976), 19-25; Charles Fowler, ?The New Arts Education,? Today?s Education 65 (March-April 1976), 72-74. 91 Charles Fowler, ?The New Arts Education,? Presentation at the state conference of the Maryland Music Educators Association, October 16-19, 1975. 92 Ibid. 210 93 Charles Fowler, ?Can the Arts in Schools Survive?,? Speech presented at the Arts Club of Washington, October 7, 1976; Charles Fowler, The Case for Special Federal Support for Washington?s Independent Cultural Organizations, Washington, DC: National Symphony Orchestra, 1977; Charles Fowler, Rationale for Music in American Schools, Washington, DC: Committee for the Advancement of Music Education, 1977; Charles Fowler, ?Management of Decline,? New York University Education Quarterly 8 (Spring 1977): 26. 94 Arts, Education, and Americans Panel, Coming to Our Senses: The Significance of the Arts for American Education, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977); Charles Fowler, Note regarding Coming to Our Senses Congressional testimony, 3 June 1992, Charles Fowler Papers; Michael L. Mark, Music Education: Source Readings from Ancient Greece to Today, 2nd ed., (New York, NY: Routledge, 2002), 270-271. 95 Michael L. Mark, Music Education: Source Readings from Ancient Greece to Today, 2nd ed., (New York, NY: Routledge, 2002), 270-271. 96 House and Senate Committee on Education and Labor & Committee on Human Resources, Joint Hearing on The Arts are Fundamental to Learning, 95th Cong., 1st sess., May 25, 1977. 97 Calvin Kytle to Charles Fowler, Washington, DC, 20 April 1977, Charles Fowler Papers; Charles Fowler to Calvin Kytle, Washington, DC, __ April 1977; Charles Fowler Papers. 98 House and Senate Committee on Education and Labor & Committee on Human Resources. Joint Hearing on The Arts are Fundamental to Learning. 95th Cong., 1st sess., May 25, 1977. 9 Charles Fowler, Note regarding Coming to Our Senses Congressional testimony, 3 June 1992, Charles Fowler Papers; Charles Fowler to James Michener, Washington, DC, 16 May 1977, Charles Fowler Papers. 10 Charles Moody to Charles Fowler, Reston, VA, 19 August 1977, Charles Fowler Papers; Charles Moody and Sam Hope to David Rockefeller, Reston, VA, 22 August 1977, Charles Fowler Papers. 101 Charles Fowler, ?Integral and Undiminished: The Arts in General Education,? Music Educators Journal 64 (January 1978): 30-33. 102 Charles Fowler, ?Integral and Undiminished: The Arts in General Education,? The Education Digest 43 (April 1978): 53-55; Jerome Patterson to Charles Fowler, Ann Arbor, MI, 15 February 1978, Charles Fowler Papers. 211 103 William Schmid and Gerard McKenna, eds., The Tanglewood Symposium Report Revisited: Music in American Society Ten Years Later, Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978; Will Schmid and Gerard McKenna to Charles Fowler, Milwaukee, WI, 13 October 1977, Charles Fowler Papers; Charles Fowler to Will Schmid and Gerard McKenna, Washington, DC, __ November 1977; Charles Fowler Papers; Will Schmid and Gerard McKenna to Charles Fowler, Milwaukee, WI, 21 July 1978, Charles Fowler Papers. 104 Fowler had a good working relationship with both Wersen and Choate. Choate was Fowler?s dissertation advisor at Boston University, and they remained good friends and colleagues until Choate?s death in 1975. Wersen had also passed away before the 1978 symposium, and Fowler was one of the few people as intimately connected to the original meeting as these two gentlemen. 105 Charles Fowler, ?The Tanglewood Symposium and Our New State of Consciousness,? Speech delivered at The Tanglewood Symposium Revisited: Music in American Society Ten Years Later, March 10, 1978. 106 Ibid.; Charles Fowler to Will Schmid and Gerard McKenna, Washington, DC, __ November 1977, Charles Fowler Papers. 107 Charles Fowler, ?The Tanglewood Symposium and Our New State of Consciousness,? Speech delivered at The Tanglewood Symposium Revisited: Music in American Society Ten Years Later, March 10, 1978. Although the issue of MEJ from November 1968 dealt primarily with electronic music, Fowler?s point was that the majority of the issue addressed music and not multiple other topics related to music and music education. This brought some attention to the MEJ from non-music educators and other performers and composers outside the field. Even though the issue dealt primarily with electronic music, it is not a Special Report, such as those produced later. 108 Charles Fowler, ?The Tanglewood Symposium and Our New State of Consciousness,? Speech delivered at The Tanglewood Symposium Revisited: Music in American Society Ten Years Later, March 10, 1978.; Charles Fowler, ed., ?Youth Music: A Special Report,? Music Educators Journal 56 (November 1969): 43-74. This special report was an article-length work published inside the MEJ, but not a Special Report issue, which were entire journals specifically devoted to one topic only. Even though multiple authors contributed, including Wiley Housewright, Fowler was the editor of the report, and the issue. An interesting note is that the design was quite progressive, and was created by Kenneth Dresser, Fowler?s life partner with whom he remained together for over 30 years and who was well-known in his own right as a graphic and lighting designer for the Disney Corporation, and others. 109 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964). Not all of the objectives are referenced, but those discussed are related to the seven that Fowler presented in his dissertation. 212 10 Charles Fowler, ?The Tanglewood Symposium and Our New State of Consciousness,? Speech delivered at The Tanglewood Symposium Revisited: Music in American Society Ten Years Later, March 10, 1978. 11 These scholars are Gerard McKenna and Will Schmid, the conference organizers. It is further useful to note that Fowler, a very experienced editor and writer himself, was deeply involved in the conference and had been editor of MEJ during the time of the initial 1968 report. He would have been a more than well-informed advisor as to what resonated with MENC, its publications, and the general membership. 12 John Aquino to Gerard McKenna, Reston, VA, 26 September 1978; Gerard McKenna to John Aquino, Milwaukee, WI, 4 October 1978. These two letters highlight some of the discussion between MENC and Gerard McKenna, one of the symposium organizers, about possible publication of the final report from Tanglewood Revisited. It seems a loss for MENC that they were simply not interested in working through the necessary details to publish this report that not only would give further credibility to the publications division, but to MENC and the profession as a whole. Although the editor John Aquino appeared interested, he seemed less-willing to make the necessary effort to put together a report that could be distributed to the entirety of the MENC membership, along with other interested parties outside of music education. Publication of some articles appeared in the MEJ, but the stand-alone and comprehensive report was ultimately not produced by MENC. 13 Charles Fowler, Final Project Performance Report: Arts and Entertainment Career Conference, Orlando, FL: Walt Disney Productions, 1979; Charles Fowler, Two Descriptive Grant Statements, Baltimore, MD: Maryland Ensemble Theater Association, 1980; Charles Fowler, ?ASOL Address,? Speech presented at the American Symphony Orchestra League Conference, June 16, 1982. 14 Charles Fowler, Note about public speeches beginning in the mid-1970s, __ July 1992, Charles Fowler Papers. 15 Bruce Wilson, Letter to author, June 27, 2007. 16 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964), 404, 410, 422, 428, 437, 442, and 448. Again, I assert that Fowler?s writings reflect his vision for music education as viewed through the lens of these seven objectives. I believe they represent his unique perspective of music teaching and learning through the diverse ideas of philosophy, teaching, and practice. 213 Chapter Six: The Later Works, 1983 to 1989 An Introduction to the Works This chapter focuses on the final columns Fowler wrote as Education Editor with Musical America as well as other works produced during the years 1983 to 1989. First the works are established according to the context of the period. Then the writings are analyzed and summarized. Emerging themes are also presented, followed by a discussion of the connections to his original dissertation objectives, and finally, concluding commentary. The works from this period represent the final years under consideration for the study. Although Fowler was long out of teaching at this point in his career, he was still actively interested in governmental reforms and other influences that were impacting music and arts education at the time. Several of his works addressed these reforms and advocacy issues. Other samples from this period include additional articles published outside of Musical America, speeches, presentations, books, proceedings, and others. The Final Years with Musical America Charles Fowler was the Education Editor with Musical America for fifteen years, from 1974 to 1989. Musical America (MA) was the premier classical music magazine in the country at the time. In addition to a focus on classical performance and musicians, also included were columns on education, television and other media, new music, dance, book reviews, and other topics of interest to audiences of arts events in America. 1 As the editor for the Education column, Fowler addressed a broad range of topics that included not only music education but also other articles that discussed music in the 214 classroom, policies and happenings that supported or hurt it, and a myriad other trends and activities that surrounded music and arts education. Fowler also managed to select guest authors, determined the scope and content of his columns, researched articles and topics, and presented the column as he felt best addressed events in American music and arts education. For the majority of his time as Editor, the magazine was published monthly, usually with MA included inside of High Fidelity, for a supplemental rate. In 1987, the magazine was released bi-monthly, and then in 1992, three years after Fowler left, it ceased to be published in print format completely. 2 Fowler also continued to write in other media, present speeches, prepare reports, give interviews, attend conferences, travel widely for research, attend arts events, advocate for the arts, and work on other activities related to music and arts education. His work with MA, however, helped him to reach some of his widest audiences and speak clearly to those outside of the daily professional life of music and arts education. While it is disappointing that these works were lesser known among music educators at the time, they provide a broad window into his vision for music education and its inherent value. They further show how clearly he articulated this message to interested patrons and the music-loving public alike. Placing the Works in Context The decade of the 1980s witnessed a wave of educational studies and reports that challenged the very nature of public education in America. Not since the late 1950s and the reaction to Sputnik and other events had education been under such pressure to reform and change the status quo. Most of the reports were released in 1983 and notables include A Nation at Risk, Making the Grade, National Science Board Commission, 215 College Board Study, Paideia Proposal, Carnegie High School Report, and A Place Called School. 3 Although these reports were issued in the early part of the decade, their impact was felt throughout the rest of the decade and well into the 1990s. These reports are summarized here for the purpose of contextualizing Fowler?s works within this period. Fowler described these reports in some detail in three articles in Musical America. 4 This once again reveals his awareness of federal and other educational policies that were affecting music education and his writings as reflective of the times in which he wrote them. Further, to understand developments of the 1980s in broader context, Michael Mark summarized the previous two decades of educational reform: Almost everything new that has happened in music education from the 1970s to the 1990s has been the result of social issues that originated outside of the music education profession. The issues include national standards and goals, professional certification of music educators, multiculturalism, children-at-risk, practical applicability of the subject in the real-life world of society, assessment, technology, and decentralization and privatization of schools. 5 In April 1983, The National Commission on Excellence in Education released their report titled A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Mark characterized the report this way: The report listed numerous defects in the educational system, making the point that, by any of a number of measures, the quality of American education had declined significantly. The current level of mediocrity was unlikely to produce an educated adult population capable of living productive and satisfying lives in the increasingly technological world community. 6 This report is perhaps best known from this era and is often cited as changing the conversation about schools and reform during the 1980s. As in the 1960s when math and science were put at a premium due to the escalating Cold War, the 1980s experienced a regressive conservative trend that reflected the goals of A Nation at Risk. As suggested in earlier MA columns, Fowler did not have great respect for the content and philosophy of 216 these reports nor with their suggestions for educational reform. He especially felt that they were a serious setback to the cause of arts and music education in the schools. The 20th Century Fund Task Force released its report in May 1983 titled Making the Grade: The 20th Century Fund Task Force on Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Policy. Mark noted the three primary suggestions: It recommended that (1) a national master teacher program be established to recognize and reward excellent teachers; (2) ?the federal government clearly state that the most important objective of elementary and secondary education in the United States is the development of literacy in the English language?; and (3) various actions be taken by the federal government to improve science, math, and foreign language education and special education programs; to fund education; and to utilize research to improve education. 7 It is interesting to note the role the federal government was asked to play in this reform effort, and it seemed unusual that a politically conservative administration would have an interest in involvement at the national level. Regardless, Mark felt that the language could be construed to read that music education could play a significant role in school change, as the report used terms such as discipline, skill, capability, civility, cultural heritage, and shared values?hallmarks all of successful music programs. 8 In September 1983 a report was released by The National Science Board Commission on Pre-College Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology. Titled Educating Americans for the 21st Century, with a focus on improving technology and science education in the schools. This report suggested change such as a longer school day, additional coursework requirements for high school students, more rigorous college entrance requirements, and higher teacher pay, among other reforms. Although the emphasis here was on the hard sciences, they also suggested related study in the humanities as a way to support overall educational success. It seems unlikely however, 217 that science, math, and technology courses would be interfered with by courses in music and the arts. This type of focus was ever-present during the 1980s and created difficulty for the justification and purpose of music education programs. The College Board offered a report with the greatest support for music and arts education. Also published in 1983, it was titled Academic Preparation for College: What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do. The viewpoint of this report listed the basic subjects as English, mathematics, science, social studies, foreign languages, and the arts. It is a positive step simply that the arts are listed as basic, but a strong statement is made about their value in the curriculum. The College Board considered arts study a means of expression and a way for students to better understand the human experience. The arts also provide a means to cultural knowledge, human nature, challenging the mind, creative outlets, aesthetic appreciation, and enhancement of other academic fields of study. Suggested outcomes in music were better understanding of history and its genres, more perceptive listening, reading music, musical evaluation, and musical expression through performance or composition. In general, this study suggested that studying music was an important basic component of the curriculum and would be helpful to all college bound students as predictors of success. This is a powerful statement from an organization that had, and still has, a powerful impact on the nature and quality of higher education. The Paideia Proposal was somewhat more radical than most of the companion reports released at this time. Written by philosopher and Columbia University professor Mortimer Adler, the concept here was to eliminate electives altogether and focus on three core areas around which all courses would be based. These were (1) language, literature, 218 and the fine arts; (2) mathematics and natural science; and (3) history, geography, and other social studies. 9 While this program would seem to eliminate standard music education classes as we know them, the proposal was less about eliminating certain elements from the curriculum and more about restructuring the coursework so it covered in detail these three broad areas. There was also a classics component and emphasis on Socratic method so that all students would be active participants in their own learning. While the overall nature of this method is not anathema to music education, one wonders just how much musical activity students would experience, and if so, would the emphasis be more aesthetic or more praxial? It also seems that this proposal was so different from standard practice in the schools, it would be unlikely that a wholesale overhaul of the system would include music and the arts in an encompassing way. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching released its report, prepared by Ernest Boyer, also in 1983. This report was known as High School: A Report on Secondary Education in America. Boyer suggested that the freshman and sophomore years require a strong core curriculum, of which the arts played an integral part. He suggested that the arts were not a frill, but an important curricular component that allowed students to better understand human nature, non-verbal communication, and better comprehension of the human experience. This report was seen more favorably by Fowler and certainly carried weight within the educational community due to the reputation of the foundation. The final work was a book by author John Goodlad, A Place Called School. Of all the reform efforts listed, this perhaps best supported the arts in American schooling. Goodlad suggested that ten to fifteen percent of each student?s program be in the arts, 219 followed be an additional ten to twenty percent for elective interests, which would most likely be some form of arts study. 10 He felt that scheduling issues were not a good argument for eliminating arts programs and that poor planning had resulted in much wasted time during the regular program as it stood. In his mind, arts study was a critical component of student and school success and that more efficiency in the system would allow for all subjects to be adequately addressed during the school day. Fowler had a favorable view of the philosophy and presentation of this text. In general, most of the reports and books were released in 1983 and emphasized that education goals needed to be clarified, that certain disciplines such as math and science should receive more attention than others, that a utilitarian view of education was valued, and that a core curriculum would help address most of these goals, among others. Some perspectives did consider education in a broad and humanistic way and valued music and the arts as part of the human experience and a complete education. Others looked primarily to schools as preparation for the workplace and held less regard for arts study. The report that is best-known from this era and carried the most influence was A Nation at Risk, and the least credence was given to the study of the arts as compared with others from the time. This offered some disservice to music education and took MENC and other advocates some time to deal with the fallout. Although advocacy and reform movements had been active and thriving in the 1970s, the decade of the 1980s and the rush of education reports listed here, caused difficulties for music education. Indeed this atmosphere created challenges for music education and a more determined advocacy movement was launched as a result. Fowler was certainly in the midst of this movement, and while his contributions are significant, it 220 was not until many years later that music education was to become more stable and supported. Articles Published in Musical America, 1983 to 1985 In 1983, Fowler covered various interesting topics in his column. Subjects included handicapped students? responses to music and the arts, financial difficulties of music programs, music history and media, a report on a book supporting arts education, how to encourage children to practice, analysis of several important education reports, and music specialists in the schools, among others. The articles in 1984 addressed music education and technology, Congress and the arts, music as basic intelligence, NEA and arts education in the schools, National Public Radio (NPR), the International Society for Music Education (ISME), and music teachers and The Music Educators National Conference (MENC). A rich pair of years, the columns from 1983 and 1984 touched on issues central to the profession of music education and its mission and survival. Articles published in 1985 focused on data about arts education in high schools, how performing organizations such as opera companies and symphony orchestras could reach children, arts and the mind, creativity and its neglect in education, the quality of arts educators in classrooms, non-music majors and music study, the state of classical music in America, among others. The analysis of the articles from 1983 to 1985 begins in February of 1983, when Fowler addressed two critical issues in music education in his article, ?The Many versus The Few.? 1 He argued that there were fewer opportunities for students to study music and the arts due to curtailed programs in the schools and the emphasis on specialization in the schools. In essence, Fowler was concerned that programs were designed solely to 221 support students in the most traditional ensembles, such as band and chorus, who were the most capable among those studying music. After describing the results of limiting music programs and how that was affecting a particular county school system, Fowler addressed the second and less obvious problem of specialist study in music education: Whereas children in one school are encouraged to explore the rewards of musical study and performance and to acquire a genuine understanding of the enriching satisfactions of music, children in another are offered few, if any, of these opportunities. That one child has music and another doesn?t, that one has ample opportunity and another scant, strikes me as anti-egalitarian; it goes against the American grain. But this inequality is aided?even encouraged?by a second trend, an emphasis on specialism that favors the talented at the expense of the general school population. When resources begin to dwindle and programs must necessarily be reduced, there is a danger that they will lose their spread and begin to serve only part of the student body. 12 Fowler expressed concern that too many students are left out in this scenario and the result is that fewer will acquire general musical skills and therefore be less interested in music later. How will that affect audiences for classical music? Will all of these ?specialist? students then have no one to attend their concerts because fewer of their peers have had the opportunity to study and appreciate music? The democratic and inclusionist view that Fowler held is clear in this column and lies as a direct challenge to the general philosophy of music education at that time and to this day. Is the purpose of music education only to create quality performing groups that involve the few or to work towards this quality by allowing any and all interested students to take part in the entire spectrum of musical learning and understanding? These challenges are questions that lie at the heart of Fowler?s vision for music education and issues he inspired others to consider throughout his career. 222 In October 1983, Fowler discussed the recent release of a book by Elliot Eisner. 13 The article, ?Deciding What To Teach,? is a review of Eisner?s book Cognition and Curriculum: A Basis for Deciding What to Teach (1982). 14 Fowler writes of the book: In the past, many justifications for the arts in education have been formulated but, in my opinion, none as logical, concise, and even convincing as this. In just four chapters, Eisner moves the through the maze of education today pointing out the misconceptions that delimit and constrain it and showing a clear way through. 15 Fowler pointed out that Eisner was writing in a conservative climate and was pleased that Eisner addressed standard notions of basic education directly and forthrightly. Eisner points out that the ?back to basics? movement essentially noted a desire on the part of some to return to the familiar and traditional. To Eisner, it seemed anomalous that the conservative view criticized educational practice at the time, only to suggest doing more of what was not working as the remedy. The effects of testing on schools and on children were raised by Eisner, and it is noted that even in his home state of California, educators who wanted to teach the arts were often hampered because music and other creative subjects were not included on standardized tests. Fowler continued Eisner?s thinking in challenging the reader to look beyond in their initial view: The implication throughout this book is that the arts are taught in such a way as to elicit this deeper kind of thinking. When they are taught well, I believe there is no question that they do call for a sharpening of perception and the use of the highest rigors of the mind. One must ask, however, how much time in a typical music curriculum is devoted to creative tasks?that aspect of musical learning that calls for perceptivity, ingenuity, and judgment? I think Eisner?s reasoning has many implications for how the arts ought to be taught, and I, for one, would like to see him follow-up this book with another that makes these implications explicit. 16 Fowler appreciated this book and valued the work and philosophy of Eisner. He concluded the article by saying that this new text followed in the tradition of John Dewey 223 and emphasized Eisner?s belief in the powerful role that the arts and music could play in the education and life of every citizen. The articles from November and December 1983 and March 1984 comprised a three-part series on recently released education reports and books dealing with cogent issues in the schools. In the series, Fowler outlined the several reports and books, and considered their impact on public education. These reviews demonstrated Fowler?s ability to research thoroughly intricate and involved governmental policy and action, then present clearly the events that were happening, and speculate how they might affect music and arts education in the schools. To clearly distill complex reports such as these was one of Fowler?s best-known traits and allowed him to present his vision in the context of current events and policies that were affecting arts education. The reports did not receive glowing praise from Fowler, and only the College Board report seemed to include the arts in any substantial way that he felt was effective. Fowler graded each report and primarily felt that they were lackluster, at best. The College Board report receives an ?A,? the National Commission a ?C,? the Twentieth Century Fund an ?F,? and the Education Commission an ?F-minus.? The books fared better, with A Place Called School receiving an ?A-minus,? and High School receiving an ?A.? Fowler wrote meticulous reviews with rich analyses and a focus on the impact to arts education. He further noted that general education reports rarely considered the arts or the effects that suggested reforms might have on culture in the classroom. The implication was clear, however, that music and arts education was not being given the respect it deserved, and Fowler was not hesitant to point this out. His voice was very 224 important because he was always aware of current trends in general education that were affecting music. Fowler?s role as Education Editor of Musical America allowed him to highlight the discrepancies and problems he saw based on his research and long-standing experience. Fowler summarized his view of the reports and their perspectives: There is no question that all of these studies are well intentioned and that the reports are a response to genuine concerns for the quality of public education in this country. But with the exception of the report of the College Board, these studies largely ignore the significant contributions the arts can make to the preparation of youth for this era of technology and global competition. This neglect could result in the arts being further relegated to the educational sidelines or excluded altogether from the central role they could play in serving our educational and national priorities. It seems to me, if we could first decide what a good education is and then give it, the problems of competition and technological innovation would take care of themselves. 17 As mentioned earlier, the third article of the series from March 1984 addressed two books that Fowler rated highly yet were not referenced in this quote. It seems clear, however, the message remains that understanding the positive role that music and the arts can serve in public education is the important focus for consideration. In June 1984, Fowler reviewed Howard Gardner?s new book, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. 18 As suggested several times, Fowler was keenly aware of trends in research, educational reform, and governmental policy, and applied these insights to understanding how music education and the arts would be affected in the schools. Here Fowler was compelled by Gardner?s theory that music plays a significant role in learning and that the mind is organized beyond simple and standard academic learning, otherwise known as ?the basics.? Fowler said: The nature of the intelligences that Gardner has identified is the real startler. Out of the six, three?just half?are directly related to major art forms. There is musical intelligence; then spatial intelligence, which clearly relates to the visual arts; and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, which relates to dance. The arts, in other 225 words, are cognition. They are forms of intelligence equivalent to language, math, and science. 19 He concluded by saying: Perhaps as schools pay more attention to what human beings are like and adapt education to our growing knowledge of human minds, the powerful educational potential of the arts will finally be realized. 20 Since the time of its publication, Gardner?s book has become a standard of the literature in demonstrating evidentiary satisfaction of the importance of music education and the arts to schooling. This again exemplifies Fowler?s ability to find what best represents the philosophy or view he was promoting. He always kept abreast of the latest happenings in policy, public opinion, research, schooling, music, and the arts; all in order to use this information as a tool in the aid of advocacy and support. In September 1984, Fowler issued a critical rebuke to MENC about its recent national convention, held during the month of March in Chicago. 21 He did find some events positive, however, such as speeches presented by Lorin Hollander and Ernest Boyer, the excitement and activities of general music teachers and their sessions, the emphasis on technology, and several excellent performances presented by school groups. Fowler stated from the beginning that he was attending his first national meeting since 1974 (ten years earlier) and thus was looking at it from the perspective of one experienced and still involved in music education, albeit with an outsider?s view. Unfortunately the negative aspects outweighed the positive, and he issued several strong criticisms of the conference. Fowler noted that the profession was getting older along with losing some of its youthful zeal. He further said that attendance seemed low, about half of the 8,000 people he recalled from his last appearance at the 1974 Anaheim Conference. Mostly, he seemed disappointed that the quality and content of the sessions, 226 while large in number, did not seem to meet the real needs of music teachers. He was also disturbed by the ultra-specialization of MENC and noted that some twenty-five committees and eight associated areas organized their events and their own interests. Fowler raised some important questions, many of which still apply today: There is little evidence that these committees went back to the fundamental questions: What are the major problems facing music education today that must be addressed by the profession? And, recalling Hollander and Boyer: how can the creative potential of music be realized? What can be done to assure that music reaches all the students at all levels? But there are other questions as well: What kinds of curricular changes are needed in order for music education programs to serve all students? And, in response to the recent flood of education studies, What kinds of rationales substantiating the need for and value of music in the schools will be most effective in sustaining and improving programs, K-12? What groups can help us muster the necessary support and how do we organize these efforts? How can instruction in music be improved? 2 Although these questions are important and worthy of serious consideration, the constructive criticisms were apparently not received by MENC in the spirit in which they were intended, which was to aid the profession and help it grow. Fowler later recalled his disappointment over the reception of the article: This Sept 1984 piece was written to help the profession pick up the pieces. Unfortunately, just as I feared (see the final ?), the MENC leaders who read it took offense as though I was attacking them personally. Russell Getz, then president ? and a dear friend, took it as a betrayal of our friendship. I wrote him, but to no avail. Somehow MENC can do no wrong and those who might be critical ? even when suggestions are offered to be helpful (I am a life member), are thought of as enemies by the ?in-club.? So be it. I was witness to seeing my profession go down the tubes, and I was asking MENC to be more responsive to the problems. Clearly, MENC preferred to keep the blinders on at this time, paying no mind. In so doing, they lost precious time, as the arts were made increasingly tangential in public education K-12. 23 Fowler moved on to other subjects in February and March of 1985, writing two articles on how professional music organizations?symphony and opera companies?were reaching children with their education programs. 24 A primary purpose 227 of these educational programs was audience development as it was noticed that numbers were decreasing regularly. Fowler noted that although education is important to most symphonies and opera companies, a large majority did not have specific by-laws addressing it. The article reported on an American Symphony Orchestra League handbook that compiled survey data and other materials related to symphony education and outreach programs. The segment on opera education was about a release from Opera America that was a resource guide for developing successful opera education programs. The organization had devoted personnel and financial resources to this project showing its understanding of the benefits of reaching out to children to create a wider audience for opera. Fowler summarized the articles: In the arts, unlike other subject matters, we are learning to accrue maximum educational benefit from such school/community collaborations. This is a livelier, more vibrant way to educate?and to learn. The schools alone cannot provide these kinds of musical experiences. In this sense, then, the arts are out in front educationally. We are incorporating ever-broadening means to deliver the arts to young people. 25 These articles emphasized Fowler?s interest in music education as important to society and the role that artistic organizations can play in the process. It was more than just a school-to-music connection, but about a society-to-music connection. Further note that although Fowler used the term arts education, both of these programs were firmly rooted in music and music education?another example of the flexibility and relationship of these terms. In June 1985, Fowler discussed the place of classical music in schools and society. 26 Several surveys and reports at the time had dealt with this ever-present issue within music education. One disturbing statistic he quoted is that the number of music 228 teachers in New York City was 2,200 in 1974 and had dropped to 793 in 1984. 27 Some of the survey data suggested that student and adult views regarding classical music were affected by a myriad of factors, some of which included programs in the schools, perceived lack of value, level of education, income, and preference. Fowler knew that musical understanding in society would be related to music education in the schools: What is readily evident here is that music education in schools affects music in society. What is less evident, perhaps, but just as true, is that the state of classical music in society affects programs of music education in the schools. Where classical music isn?t particularly valued in the community, it isn?t valued in education. 28 Charles Fowler believed that classical music was not better or worse than other forms as long the audience was reached and that they attached meaning to the musical experience. He knew, however, that classical music was an important medium for music education, and one that many associated with formal music study. Understanding of this genre also meant one had developed a discriminating and cosmopolitan taste, two components of his vision. Regarding this issue, Fowler continued to ask questions: Why study classical music? Because the apotheoses of human achievement in musical art are around in works such as Bach?s Art of the Fugue, in Beethoven?s Ninth Symphony, in Britten?s War Requiem, or any number of other great works. We must offer every person in this society the right to climb those mountains. In the United States today, the public school system remains the irreplaceable conduit for preparing the way and assuring access. 29 Continuing with this line of thought, Fowler discussed the connection between the diminishing classical music audience and reduced music education programs in the schools: What is so tragic about music education in American schools is that it tends to be so exclusive. It simply isn?t presented as something for everybody. Yet the values of classical music are transmissible on many different levels, and they can be appreciated on many levels. Every student should have the opportunity to explore 229 music as a wondrous human invention, a living history of eras and peoples, and a record and revelation of the human spirit. 30 Next is the September 1985 article titled, ?The Shameful Neglect of Creativity.? 31 Here he presented one of his own oft-cited themes about the value of creativity in the classroom and the unique role music education has in nurturing this ability in students. The point of this article was to highlight how the music education profession at that time was ignoring this critical possibility and the type of change necessary to address the oversight: The slighting of creativity is debilitating to music education in three very critical ways: (1) it calls into question the credibility of music education programs; (2) it limits the importance and value of music in education; and (3) it fosters the view that music is a dead or dying art-of-the-past. 32 Fowler then addressed these three points in detail. Of credibility he said that the music teacher or conductor makes most musical decisions in the classroom. What role do students have in making musical decisions that either enhance their learning or involve them in the process of creating art, rather than simply performing it? Music is much more than performance, and those that believed in the traditional music education paradigm often missed this crucial point. This concept is what Fowler had been attempting to clarify for years, often with little support or understanding from MENC and the profession, as has been noted. Of importance, he wondered if the rigid music curriculum and traditional systems of teaching and learning music only hamper students? interest and perceived value and importance of music. Fowler believed that if more intense problem solving with musical creativity were explored in the classroom, students would gain stronger ownership of 230 their work and therefore hold a higher level of interest. He also felt that this process created a deeper level of meaning, which would make music more important. Fowler was concerned that students would view historical music as only from the past and not a contemporary medium that they could truly appreciate. He believed that the infusion of creativity and broader thinking into the study of music would challenge students to consider all music through a different lens, not just traditional or modern. In this way, music would have a greater meaning for students at the moment of performance and their understanding of it. 3 Fowler presented a powerful argument for this belief: To attain its rightful value and importance, music must be presented as a living art that speaks urgently and vibrantly in our own time. Those who study music deserve to see it as a record and revelation of the human spirit, both yesterday and today. Creating their own musical expressions allow students to relate music directly to their own lives and times. It permits a precious inner aspect of their beings to speak and to be heard. It allows their musical intelligence to be explored and developed. That makes the study of music more personal, more vital, and more significant. 34 Fowler first discussed creativity in music education in his dissertation from 1964. It seemed that music educators were still not interested in implementing these ideas, and this article displayed the deficit clearly. The final highlighted article from 1983 to 1985 is about pre-service teacher education of music and arts teachers. The column was based on a symposium dealing with the subject that Fowler attended at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, in May 1985. 35 Music teacher education was something that Fowler had been concerned about dating back to the 1950s and 1960s when he worked as a university professor. He had addressed this topic during his time as editor of the Music Educators Journal from 1965 to 1971, especially when reporting about issues relating to the Tanglewood Symposium. 36 231 Themes considered during the conference and in Fowler?s article include the need for reform, what teachers should know, teaching expertise, and the role of classroom teachers in music education. For much of his career, Fowler was concerned with the general idea of quality musicianship and instruction on the part of the music teacher and how it led to more success for students, and ultimately for music and arts education. Fowler found that many young teachers saw little value in the education courses they completed in their college preparation programs. One dilemma that was faced centered on the role of classroom teachers to present arts instruction in the classroom. He was concerned about the discussion of who should teach music?only music specialists or also general education teachers. Fowler believed that more musical experiences were better, but that a larger discussion was needed among those in the profession. He felt it important to bring this topic to the attention of MENC and those interested in music education in the schools. These and other ideas were debated here, and Fowler presented the issues through clear and cogent writing. It was certainly reasonable to argue, as Fowler did, that improved quality teachers and related higher quality teacher education would provide a better environment for music education and students in the schools. Yet, this kind of conversation would rarely be seen outside of academia or even among the music education profession at the time. As Fowler deftly wrote: The arts education theorists and practitioners who presented papers at this meeting recognize a simple truth: educational reform is directly related to and dependent upon changes in teacher education. Excellence, the call-word of the reform movement, cannot be achieved without concomitant quality of teaching. That equation is the crucial mortar that binds arts education programs to the schools. Unlike most other subject areas, the arts depend upon their own projected vitality and worth to justify and maintain their existence. 37 232 Articles Published in Musical America, 1986 to 1989 General topics covered during 1986 include the arts in American schooling, music for every child, business and the arts, academics and the arts, important international music conferences, educational reform, ethnic music, and evaluation in music education. Articles from 1987 include an elementary education report, reason versus emotion, music teacher preparation, and string education in the United States. From 1988, Fowler prepared columns on chamber music, inner process versus outer result, choosing and understanding culture, and the sesquicentennial celebration of music education in America. The final year of 1989 included two articles on the arts in Bali, and a review of the recently released report of the National Endowment titled Toward Civilization. In April 1986 Fowler reported about a recently released survey of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). 38 This organization, which leads state education departments in America, conducted a survey to see how arts education was faring amidst the wave of education reform sweeping the country. This survey also attempted to assess the current state of music education and the arts as a benchmark for how to proceed with including and improving the arts in American schooling at that time. The response rate was very high, close to ninety-five percent, which is remarkable for a study of this nature. Fowler presented the details to the reader and concluded that while it is important that the CCSSO has placed an emphasis on arts education and is aware of its value, there still seemed to be little room for the arts amidst the ?back-to- basics? movement that was considered so important at the time. Few states listed comprehensive arts education, others ignored it altogether, and still others included little mention of it at all in their standard curricular guidelines. Other 233 issues addressed included evaluation and assessment issues, certification of arts teachers, and standards and goals for music and arts education. A work like this once again illustrated that Fowler was aware of educational policy that affected arts education and wished to highlight these decisions for the general public. Fowler rarely withheld his opinion when he felt the highest ideals of music education were not being promoted. Such was the case with his May 1986 article titled, ?Music for Every Child, Every Child for Music.? 39 This was a related follow-up to his April article as it continued the theme of educational reform and its effects or possible benefits for music education. While the April article was more about external influences on arts education reform, the May article focused on encouraging those within the profession to consider internal philosophical reform and improved practice. Fowler held a democratic view of music education and had argued for many years that the profession was elitist in its curricular choices, along with how and why students were selected and ultimately participated in music programs. Fowler clearly put a good deal of time and original research into the article, as seen in the level of detail from his writing and analysis: For decades, amid slogans such as ?Music for every child, every child for music? and ?All the arts for all the children,? many arts teachers have been content to reach just the talented, the gifted, and the already interested. Hypocrisy not- withstanding, music teachers who agree philosophically that music programs should serve all students have often in practice focused primarily on developing new generations of musicians, and music teachers, leaving the education of the masses largely to chance. Music education, particularly at the secondary level, has been elitist. By and large, music teachers have not reached the general high school student not have they wanted to. 40 Fowler did see some promise, however, and a purpose of the article was to highlight the current status of high school requirements with regard to music education. 234 Fowler believed that if music were considered a basic subject, more credence would be given and perhaps even listed more often in graduation requirements. A chart was included that listed states requiring arts study (only about 22) as a high school graduation requirement. Fowler attended, in some detail, to listing the various options and how different states dealt with these requirements. Some high schools required the arts only for advanced students, others in limited study, still more allowed foreign languages and other courses to be among the standard arts choices. Although the requirements were still minimal, and Fowler would have preferred a more comprehensive approach, he was also realistic in his view. Looking at the situation from the perspective that even small changes were beneficial, he concluded: Viewed collectively, these developments reveal a trend in a small but growing number of states to provide study opportunities in music to all students at the high school level. This trend represents a fundamental change in philosophy?a move from a highly specialized, performance-oriented music program focused on the few toward a broadened, more academic program serving the many. It balances the emphasis given to skill development with acquisition of knowledge. As music education becomes more broadly based and more egalitarian, so too does it establish its basic import. Singlehandedly, these changes elevate music to a new and higher status in American schooling. Educationally, the arts are simply more significant when they are presented as substantive studies for all. 41 The article caused a great deal of controversy, and Fowler noted later his disappointment in the eventual outcome of the debate: This piece (May 1986) rankled some, pleased others. In retrospect, looking back from a 5-year vantage point, there is a fundamental issue that remains: How to arouse arts educators to admit their own problems and seek their own reforms. I deliberately chose strong words?accusations perhaps?to try to initiate movement and action. The field still needs to take hold of itself and come to terms with the gaps between theory and practice. 42 The primary controversy emanated from Thomas Hatfield, then-president of The National Art Education Association. 43 Several heated letters were exchanged, and Mr. 235 Hatfield seemed to have taken very personally Fowler?s comments in the article. The article sparked a debate within the magazine and through numerous private letters and conversations that lasted many months. In some ways, these communications probably fostered the engagement of reform among some in the profession. Hatfield?s comments were harsh and incendiary, and Fowler was concerned they would have a negative impact on his career as an arts consultant. Fowler attempted several times to mediate the dispute but encountered little success in abating the feelings and entrenched views of others. Ultimately, however, the larger issue was that the critical debate of who received music and art instruction in the schools was broadened beyond Fowler and Hatfield and caused many in the music and arts education professions to consider the isues more carefully. Ironically Hatfield, by his actions and anger, ultimately supported Fowler?s view as it caused people to think more deeply about how to institute further internal reform and consider the implications state policies could have on music and arts education. Although Hatfield seemed upset at how art education was reflected in the column, Fowler had mostly leveled his harsher comments toward music education and intended to point out recent positive developments in the music and arts education fields. Regardless of Hatfield?s perspective, however, Fowler simply hoped to raise the issue of how to involve more children in music. He further felt that additional self-reflection by the profession could lead to more effective reform from within, rather than being dictated to from outside forces. 4 A final article from November 1986, ?Evaluation: Pros & Cons,? addressed assessment issues in arts education. 45 Fowler had commented on this in the early 1970s 236 after the disastrous results for music education from the first National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). 46 His introductory comments set the tone: Of all the areas in arts education, evaluation remains the most controversial and uncertain among arts practitioners. Many arts teachers feel that they know little about it. Yet most of the arts teachers I have observed are evaluating their students at every turn. Music teachers evaluate every note their students sing or play. But far from thinking of themselves as experts at evaluation, many feel threatened. 47 Fowler went on to cover several important topics relating to assessment in music and arts education. These included subjectivity versus objectivity, standardized tests, when and how evaluation should be used, and for what purpose assessment is needed in the classroom. As an advocate for arts education, Fowler was interested in how to best promote more arts instruction in the schools. If arts education was to be taken seriously, following the assessment methods used in general education was one mechanism to accomplish it. Regarding the issues related to evaluation in the arts: As concerns for educational standards become more pressing and schools move to give greater stress to academic pursuits, arts proponents face more urgent demands to prove the educational credibility of the arts. Many who are familiar with evaluation believe that, when the arts are tested as seriously as other subjects, they will be perceived as more important by parents, school administrators, and other educators. 48 Fowler, as usual, probed the topic and posed critical questions to the reader: What are the strengths of arts education programs? What are they contributing of value in the total educational process? Are students achieving an acceptable level of literacy in the various arts? What methods and materials are the best for teaching the arts successfully? The answers depend upon evaluation. 49 And ultimately, he brought it all together: Evaluation is a tool. In the intensified race to claim the minds of American youth, it could serve as one means to make sure that the arts command an equable share. As a tool, evaluation can convince. More than mere rhetoric, it promises to 237 provide the hard data needed to persuade the skeptics to the value, role, and educational significance of the arts in American education. 50 Fowler had made similar arguments in the early 1970s, and perhaps the profession would have achieved more credibility among educational reformers had assessment been considered a more important focus in music education from that time forward. During 1987 to 1988, Musical America moved to become its own independent publication and was no longer included inside High Fidelity as it had been since 1965. The magazine incorporated Opus into its covers starting in 1988. It also became larger and more comprehensive but was now published bi-monthly, along with two special issues, rather than twelve times a year. 51 Just as the number of issues of MA was now smaller, so were the number of articles Fowler published during the years 1987-1989. Two articles are highlighted from 1987 and one each from 1988 and 1989. Fowler left Musical America after publication of the July 1989 issue. The May 1987 article reviewed a recent symposium, held at Columbia University, that addressed the topic of ?Arts Curricula in Transition.? 52 Maxine Greene presented the opening address focusing on arts in the schools as they related to creating, experiencing, and sense making. She argued that students should be free in the educational environment to explore and experience the arts on their own terms. Thomas Ewens, Professor of Philosophy at Rhode Island School of Design, focused his talk on the debate between emotion and reason and where the arts and the standard academic curriculum fell into the two areas. In sum, the argument came down to discussing the benefits and disadvantages of discipline-based arts education, which was promoted through the Getty Center at this time. 53 238 Some in the field were concerned that this approach would ultimately hamper creativity and freedom in music and arts education classrooms, while others felt it would lend credibility to a field that needed all the support it could muster. One view might be that if the arts education world spoke the language of the standard academic world, it would be considered a more important and tenable part of American schooling. The purpose of the conference under review was to discuss just these issues at a time when arts education curricula were dealing with ?back-to-basics? attacks from many sides. Fowler weighed in on the debate: In education today there is a distinct movement away from the almost total emphasis on the experiential to more attention on the academic. It is generally agreed that the foremost purpose of schooling is the acquisition of literacy and the ability to reason. Unfortunately, the American public generally perceives the arts as being of the hand, rather than of the mind, of being more akin to elation than edification. Unfortunately, too, we have tended to teach the arts as almost totally a hands-on activity. We now see that this has contributed to the arts being viewed as a frill, as subjects not related to mentation, considered the primary aspect of schooling. 54 This conference offered an important contribution to the debate, and Fowler made a point to bring this to the attention of his readers. He felt that otherwise, outside the halls of the university and government, little knowledge might have been disseminated. In the July 1987 column, Fowler dealt with teacher preparation as an integral part of the reform movement in education. 5 First mentioned are demographic changes happening in schools at the time, followed by curricular changes and calls for accountability that affect the content of classroom teaching. Also noted is the general trend toward academic-centered instruction over experiential-centered learning. Fowler recognized that these trends had a significant impact on education and that pre-service 239 teachers needed to be aware of them to be better prepared to enter the classrooms of the late 1980s. Fowler noted the possible effects on music teacher preparation: The implications for preparing music teachers are enormous. Reaching all the students will require new modes of education at the college level that stretch well beyond performance. Winning the back rows of students to music will require the acquisition of enormous musical insight, teaching expertise, and pure chutzpah. 56 He went on to mention several challenges that impacted music teacher preparation at the university level. These concerns were important because the way music teachers were prepared could influence their success in the classroom. This success (or lack of it) could further impact music education, its students, and its future. The difficult areas included state certification, departmental battles in schools for resources, how music and arts education were valued in a curricular way, along with general understandings of what teachers faced in the contemporary music classroom that differed from their preparation through methods and other education courses. Fowler cited several recommendations culled from various sources, such as the National Education Association, the Carnegie Foundation, and several arts education organizations. One recommendation was to pursue a general liberal arts background before entering a formal education program, along with field-based experiences leading to student teaching. Another recommendation suggested standardization of certification programs nationally, and a third suggested national teacher testing. Yet another combined a bachelor?s degree with a master?s program and specialized internship to ensure young teachers would hold comprehensive preparation for the music classroom. In regard to the training of music teachers, Fowler mentioned developments at three important organizations that influenced the music teacher training. These are the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM), National Council for the 240 Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), and Music Educators National Conference (MENC). 57 He seemed more pleased with the proposals of MENC over the others as partnerships were suggested between music education professors, cooperating music teachers, pre-service music teachers, and college music faculty. He felt that ?this approach promises to have the right mix of the ideal and the real, the theoretical knowledge and the practical experience that are necessary for one to become a good teacher.? 58 Fowler did present a healthy dose of skepticism, however, and mentioned that MENC really had no power to implement, through policy, any of its own suggested recommendations. Fowler clarified his concern: Perhaps this oversight, which is very serious in terms of present trends, would have been avoided if the MENC Task Force had given more emphasis to changing conditions of teaching, the ramifications of the educational reform movement, and the deficiencies in theory and practice within current programs. But the report, if not the whole answer, begins seriously to address some of the major problem areas of teacher education. 59 Fowler still felt the need for change was palpable and critical, but seemed to take solace in the work being done by MENC at the time. While he still questioned their motives and efficacy, at least the discussion was moving forward with reform in mind. In November 1988, Fowler prepared an article commemorating the 150th anniversary of MENC. 60 After a brief introduction to music education in America, Fowler then discussed that MENC seemed to have weathered the recent reform debates dating back to the early 1980s, and that perhaps that the profession was possibly on the rebound. He also mentioned that music in the schools was becoming sufficiently well-positioned that MENC could now begin to look to other issues beyond basic survival. Fowler also 241 suggested that perhaps music and the arts were slowly becoming more solidly grounded in the nation?s curriculum. Never one to rest, however, Fowler suggested further areas that music educators needed to consider in order to keep positive change and growth on the agenda. Topics included general music and pre-service teacher education, the role of and support for minority teachers and students in the classroom (specifically African-Americans), and issues of multiculturalism in music education. Fowler concluded: It is reassuring to realize that, in spite of everything, the music education tradition that started in Boston 150 years ago is still very much alive. That is just short of a miracle, given the fragile state of human and cultural values in many of today?s schools. Music educators are trying to make certain that the future will be better. By recognizing that music is an essential means of confirming the wonders of our multicultural heritage and be determining to make music instruction of basic value to every student, they are reaffirming their claim on the curriculum. 61 Fowler offered the last word, and even in light of his positive comments, still issued a challenge to the profession not to rest until all schools recognized the value of music in the education of all students. In Fowler?s last year as Education Editor with Musical America, he published the article, ?Arts Education Triple Jeopardy,? in March of 1989. 62 Here he reviewed a recently released report from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), titled Toward Civilization: A Report on Arts Education. This report mentioned three primary challenges, or ?triple jeopardy,? affecting arts education in the schools: (1) the arts were not viewed as serious, (2) knowledge itself was not viewed as a prime educational objective, and (3) those who determined school curricula did not agree on the definition of arts education. 63 242 Fowler believed that Toward Civilization took a perennialist view?that acquisition of knowledge was the essence of education. The political and educational reform climate of the time supported this assertion and suggested that following this philosophy would better support music and arts education. Almost needless to say, Fowler did not share this view. He felt that creativity, open exploration, and the process of learning were more important to the understanding and meaning of music. Fowler did not support the notion of attempting to make music conform to the standard academic subjects simply because education was moving in that direction. Fowler clarified his view: It strikes me as a bit odd that the NEA, of all institutions, should move away from an educational model based upon the artist and the making of art toward a model based upon the art historian, theorist, and critic?. If we want to reach all students with the arts?and this report makes great strides in that direction?we are not going to do it by making the arts a tough intellectual pursuit?. The hands-on experience of music is still the best entr?e to understanding it, as well as the best justification for learning something about the composer, the style, the form, and the expressive content. 64 As in almost all of Fowler?s writings over the years, he merely wished to grab the reader?s attention and encourage thought and reflection on how to reform and improve public education through the medium of music and arts education. It seems fitting that the final column reviewed here from Fowler?s years writing for Musical America presented a report in which he portrayed positive reform happening at the time, yet still emphasized the critical importance of keeping the debate alive among those in the music education profession. He concluded in support of what the report might ultimately have accomplished: It is important that these reservations about the report, however serious, not be allowed to detract from its fundamental importance?. This ongoing public information program is intent upon persuading states to redefine and solve the 243 problems of arts education in the public schools?an unprecedented federal effort of incalculable value. One does not have to agree with every detail of what is in this report to champion the action that is being taken. The NEA deserves all the help and support it can get in these efforts. Given that support, the report could result in establishing a new legitimacy for the arts in American public schools. 65 This final idea summarized Fowler?s many years of working towards progressive reform in music education, and what he hoped for the final outcome: full and unconditional support for music and arts education in American schooling. Fowler?s good feelings about the state of music education were apparently short- lived. Reflecting on his 15-year tenure with Musical America, Fowler wrote a note following his final article from July 1989, ?Guarding the Arts in Bali.? 6 His disappointment over the ending of his tenure and what it ultimately meant for classical music and music education in America is evident. As a reminder, MA ceased printed publication altogether in 1992, just around the time Fowler composed this message. He commented on the situation: Little did I know when I wrote this piece after visiting Bali that it would be the final column for MA?so go the fortunes of Classical music in the U.S. The magazine has been struggling to survive for years. Now the new owners decided that the best commercial prospect was to make it a record review magazine. The education column was expendable (Isn?t arts educ. always expendable?). It?s na?ve, but what can you do? It is another sign of the cracks in music education and the diminishing presence of the arts in education. Classical music is in serious trouble. But I had written the column for 15 years, with uncertain impact. Few in music education took notice of the column?s departure or the threatened existence of America?s only Classical music magazine. For my part, I felt relieved not to face the constant deadlines. Time for new ventures. 67 This quote reflects Fowler?s disapointment to an unfortunate ending of so many years of fine work. His entire output had been focused towards support of the noble goal of music and arts education in every school, for every child. These events provide further reason 244 for analyzing and presenting his work to the greater public school and higher education communities, along with other audiences. Additional Writings and Works, 1983 to 1989 As in previous years, Fowler continued to work on numerous projects in his work as arts education consultant and writer. While his primary and consistent output was found through Musical America, he contributed several other important works during the period from 1983 to 1989. Much of this was commentary on current practice, but he also dedicated some effort to offering suggestions and solutions on how to improve practice, and by relation, the state of music and arts education in the schools. As mentioned earlier, in three of his MA columns from late 1983 to early 1984, Fowler had analyzed a group of education reports and books that were released in 1983 and raised much controversy in public school education. 68 The research from these columns proved to be the basis for several other projects in which Fowler was later involved. In 1984, he presented the findings from these reports as testimony to members of Congress during an oversight hearing on arts education. 69 He discussed his analysis and outline of the reports, along with other perspectives. After presenting a general overview, Fowler summarized the reports: I submit that these six reports are sending confusing signals to the American public, to state legislators, to school boards, to administrators and teachers, and to educational organizations regarding the role and value of the arts in education. Depending on which report gains prominence, the arts could become central to education or be even further relegated to the educational sidelines. The point is: these same studies are not sending confusing signals about English, math, science, social studies, even foreign languages and computer science. Necessarily the arts education profession is left to ponder the questions: What might be sacrificed in the rush to produce more scientists and mathematicians? In our haste to make curricular changes, will we forget that there are lots of different kinds of kids out there? What kinds of opportunities for learning truly enable children to develop their fullest potential? 70 245 Paul Lehman, then president-elect of MENC, also testified before this Congressional subcommittee. Fowler was not pleased with the current state of music education, especially with the lack of attention to arts education in the content of these reports, which were supposed to reform education overall but ignored the arts to a great degree. Fowler felt that discussion of arts-inclusion in the curriculum was not moving in the right direction in early 1980s, and he did not hesitate to inform members of Congress about his experienced views on the issue. He continued his advocacy work by reporting in other ways about these seminal reports and their detrimental view of music education in the schools. In November 1984 he completed an article dealing with music education in school and community. This was from the journal, Design for Arts Education, and titled ?Who Owns Arts Education? Some Arts Educators See the Community as Competition.? 71 He posed the questions: who is really in charge of music education, and are the schools the only arbiter of structured and qualified instruction in music? Fowler held the view that school and community could and should work together in partnership toward the musical education of children. He said that, ?unlike other subjects, the arts have the luxury of both in- and out- of-school programs of education that are often elaborate and sequential and are generally taught by experts.? 72 Fowler strongly stated the case: Together, schools and community arts organizations can more adequately end effectively cover the broad range of the history, theory, criticism, and performance of the several arts?dance, music, media arts, theatre, and visual arts. Rather than being a mere supplement to enrich the in-school program, community arts resources, where they exist, can be integrated into the in-school curriculum to extend, enliven, broaden, and deepen it and give it a sense of reality and presence that only come from experiencing the arts as they exist and function in society. 73 246 This article also mentioned several books dealing with the topic. One book dealt with community music and the role of the arts in schools and society, and the other reviewed one of the education reports published in the early 1980s. Fowler kept to the theme of educational reform and its impact on the arts and doggedly made sure the educational and greater communities were aware that the ?back-to-basics? movement was negatively influencing music in public education at the time. In 1984, Fowler edited a report released by the National Endowment for the Arts titled Arts in Education, Education in Arts: Entering the Dialogue of the ?80s. 74 The major focus of the document was to present current educational reform efforts and to clarify them in terms of arts education. The secondary focus was to offer information as to how the arts fit into general education and their role in the reform discussions of the time. Fowler edited multiple authors and viewpoints, and this document was in keeping with much of his work during his career: to present a philosophical view along with a pragmatic way of achieving that goal. Examples of content reviewed here included analysis of the various reports released about educational reform. Again, Fowler had reviewed these and brought them to the attention of the public through various other articles, publications, and presentations. Four principal reports were surveyed: A Nation at Risk, The College Board Study, High School, and A Place Called School. From there, the primary concerns were addressed through many diverse articles and essays. These included ?The Importance of the Arts in Education,? ?The Arts as Academic Disciplines,? ?Maintaining Arts Programs,? ?Equality of Opportunity,? and ?A Balanced Curriculum.? Other essays addressed each of the arts and their unique circumstances and challenges. The report 247 concluded with a segment on evaluation and some compelling statistical data about arts education in America. In 1985, Fowler was invited to be an opening speaker for the Texas Music Educators Association (TMEA) Symposium ?85: Music is Essential to Quality Education. Held at the University of Texas, July 11-13, 1985, broad themes on the role and quality of music education in the schools were addressed. In addition to the speech Fowler delivered and his participation on several panels, he was also asked to prepare the proceedings following the conference. 75 Other notables to speak and participate at the meeting included Francis Hodsoll, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), Elliot Eisner of Stanford University, and Paul Lehman, President of MENC. The invitation to speak during the opening session was a strong statement of respect for his years of service to music education. The report from the conference identified the primary purpose of the symposium, which was to clarify the place of music and the arts in the total education of students in Texas. Selected objectives included documenting the value of public school music programs for use by those outside the music classroom, defining an ideal music curriculum in light of recent national reform reports, determining the status of Texas music programs in the schools, developing convincing arguments to cultivate student intellect and related behavior in Texas music students, and designing effective evaluation systems to promulgate goals of the symposium. 76 In his speech, which like many of his others was accompanied by slides, Fowler addressed the topic of An Agenda: Establishing a Music Curriculum Which Can Be a Significant Force in American Education. His primary premise was that problems with 248 music in American society were also the problems of music education and that school was the logical place to address them. 7 He discussed first the curricular bases for music education in American society and the schools. Then he detailed four areas that explain influences on why problems exist: values, attitudes, participation, and level of education. Fowler commented on the connection: Society and the schools are inextricably linked. In that linkage, if we understand it, are the dynamics for improving the lot of music education. How do we determine curricula? Music education is not only part and parcel of the schools where it exists but also of the society that gave it birth. By engaging with society, by altering our culture, we can change our own destiny. In fact, becoming cultural engineers may be the only way we can take charge of our own future. 78 After presenting the relationship of the four areas to these views on the society and schools problem, Fowler drew the following conclusions: To the extent that we are dissatisfied with the public?s attitudes toward music and musicians, want larger audiences for music, and want music to reach a broader public, and we attempt to do something about these problems, we serve what I call the first fundamental goal of music education: To establish music as a vital and valued art in America society. To the extent that we serve the first fundamental goal, I think we will go a long way toward achieving the second: To establish music as a significant force in American schools. 79 While certainly lofty goals, they were presented in a pragmatic and understandable way, as was typical of Fowler, his writing, and his vision. During April of 1986, Fowler attended The Baghdad International Music Conference in the capital of Iraq. He was one of a handful of presenters and the only American invited to speak. In a later note, Fowler remarked on his fascination with the experience of being in Baghdad, how he was treated as an American, and the reaction of the U. S. Government to his trip. 80 Clearly a moving experience and one that continued his cultural education, it also strengthened his belief that musical experiences connects 249 human beings like few other endeavors. He later wrote a column in Musical America about the trip and conference. 81 Fowler?s conference speech was titled, In the United States: The New Way We?re Justifying the Role and Importance of Music in American Education. 82 The main premise of this speech was how the current rationale in music education was to tie its curricular goals and achievements with those of the standard academic disciplines. Fowler, presenting to a global and multicultural audience, clarified just how the arts were being positioned to become part of the mainstream of American education. Primary topic areas included learning to read and write in the arts, systems of meanings in the arts, learning to think musically, and the necessity for music education. Fowler presents a powerful argument defining the role and importance of music in the schools. He articulated the place of music in the curriculum: Music, like language and mathematics, is a special form of human intelligence. It is a process of thought that is just as basic and essential as any other. It is one of the fundamental ways that humans think about the world and share their thoughts, in this case, their musical insights. In this shrinking world, every form of human communication is important in our quest for human understanding. In this sense, musical literacy is a tool for peace, and that makes it of utmost value. 83 These words were spoken in Baghdad during a time of war and surely resonated with the audiences who were experiencing this unrest at the time. In a personal note commenting on his trip there, he described the life of those he saw living under a dictatorship and the resulting conditions that they, and he, experienced. It is compelling to note the comparisons to the year 2008 and just how Fowler was always brilliantly aware of the real story at all times, whether in music education or the world community. In March of 1987, Fowler wrote an article titled, ?Beyond Survival: Business Support Begins with Respect, Doesn?t It?,? that was published in Vantage Point, the magazine of 250 the American Council for the Arts. 84 Vantage Point was printed five times annually within another monthly publication, Horizon: The Magazine of the Arts. Fowler hoped to reach all audiences that were either involved with or could influence music education in the schools. He recognized that often those outside the schools could have just as much impact on the profession as those inside it. This certainly applied to business support, and Fowler asserted that the music profession had a responsibility to nurture this relationship to keep music education stronger and more prosperous. This article centered on the perspective of several recently released corporate reports addressing educational reform at that time. The general attitude of corporations and the officers in them was that the arts served, at best, a peripheral role in American education. They were concerned with creating a vocationally prepared work force, and while these corporate officers viewed the arts as helpful and complementary, were also not considered basic or essential. Fowler also challenged the arts education community to speak in the language that corporations understand and convince them of the value the arts can play in the total education of children. Thinking of how business could support the arts was an important message to be conveyed in a way that pushed all parties to realize it was in their best interest to do so. Fowler encouraged both business leaders and arts educators to work better together to forge solutions through understanding the unique concerns of the other. He characterized the synergistic relationship of the arts and business: Ironically, is in the self-interest of American business to think differently and more profoundly about the youth of this country as both future employees and consumers. If American youth are sharpened, sensitized, motivated, and made more creative and whole by the arts, American business will be the ultimate benefactor. 85 251 Fowler continued his thinking: Therein lies the heart of a strong private sector relationship between the arts and the business communities. The arts community must seek to establish a genuine interest in understanding the arts and of their worth on the part of the corporate sector. Over the long term, such efforts and the changed attitudes that they instill in our business leaders could result in more stable philanthropic initiatives in the arts that are undergirded by a real sense of social and cultural responsibility. Then our case for support might rest on the corporate sector?s belief in the intrinsic value of the arts, not on the hard luck sympathy we manage to squeeze from the stone. 86 Fowler believed that mutual understanding between arts and commerce would lead to more involved support on the part of the business community. Ultimately music and arts educators had to convince business leaders that it was in their best interest to support the shared goal of arts education for all students, which would lead to more support for business in the end?a winning scenario for all participants. The last several works reviewed from this period maintained important connections to Fowler?s early career and roots along with his vision for music education as presented in this study. He wrote an article for the Music Educators Journal that was published in March 1987 titled, ?What We Know About the Teaching and Learning of Music Performance.? 87 This article, which was a report on the June 1986 symposium commemorating the centennial year of the Crane School of Music at SUNY-Potsdam, illustrated his continued connection with music education, its research, and its goals. 8 A primary purpose of the Crane Symposium was to reflect on the past 100 years of practice in order to improve music education by offering pragmatic solutions to music teacher preparation. Fowler began by identifying the dilemma that research poses for music education: attempting to improve practice through research, which often seemed disconnected to reality. Fowler discussed this intersection of viewpoints: 252 Music educators are often skeptical of the value of research as an aid to help them cope with the exigencies and realities of their everyday responsibilities. Given the fact that much research is of necessity rudimentary in nature, narrow in focus, esoteric in result, and hazy in application, this attitude is understandable. Research as a tool for guiding actions in the empirical world sometimes appears impractical and impossible. However, most music teachers are also aware that they face many options and decisions in determining their actions in the teaching and learning process?. Relying, as many music teachers do, upon lessons learned from prior models does not always satisfy the unique demands of today?s vexing circumstances and dilemmas. But even if research could provide answers, what music teacher could take the time to sort through the thousands of studies to find those applicable to one?s very particular and pressing needs? 89 It was remarkable that Fowler, who had not been an active music teacher for 25 years, still presented his points with such clarity and understanding of what was needed for the profession. He had this unique ability to synthesize a problem, clarify it to his audience, and challenge them to take action to and work to solve it. Fowler summarized the ideas of the various presenters, scholars, research studies, and sessions from the symposium. These ideas included an historical look at the school, reflections on current practice, the teaching of performance skills, connecting learning with the mechanics of teaching and its outcomes, thoughts on time and process involved in learning, music as cognitive activity, and conclusions on facing current challenges in music education. Each of these areas represented a question addressed in the symposium, and Fowler deftly summarized and located them squarely into the context of the late 1980s when the article was written. He challenged both researchers and practitioners to consider the value of their roles in continuing dialogue for reform. He aptly addressed the challenges present in 1987: Given the extraordinary challenges facing music teachers at the present time, they may be more willing than ever to consider research applications that will help them in the classroom. The challenges of the current educational reform movement, the new state graduation requirements that require credit in the arts for all high school students, and the vast changes in the conditions of teaching today 253 such as the increase in the numbers of underprivileged and minority students, teenage pregnancies, dropouts, and the prevalence of drugs?all demand more of every music teacher. As a profession, music education is not becoming easier; it?s getting increasingly difficult. In light of these new challenges, it stands to reason that the preparation of music teachers will have to change accordingly. 90 Fowler completed one of his several books on music and arts education in 1988 titled Can We Rescue the Arts for America?s Children? Coming to Our Senses ? 10 Years Later. 91 The general format of the book Can We Rescue? was in five chapters and presented the many important issues from the 1977 report along with developments that had taken place in the ensuing decade. Fowler pointed out that much of his writing was biased by his view but also made clear that opposing views were presented so the reader could determine which perspective seemed most logical. The chapters were titled: ?A Decade of Introspection,? ?The Nod and Nudge of Educational Reform,? ?The Perennial Issues,? ?The Changing Players,? and ?The View Ahead.? He concluded with commentary of four educators that lend a pragmatic and compelling dimension to the book. 92 To add further detail to the book, the primary focus included the original rationale from 1977 and the current thinking in 1988, which he incorporated into the entire conversation of the book. Other topics included a discussion of the educational reform movement and how it was impacting arts education, how the arts should be taught, who should teach them, and what should be presented to students in the schools. Further areas included emotion versus reason, the role of the media, community resources, evaluation, funding, and how to consider these complex issues among current conditions of music and arts education at the time of its publication and beyond. 254 Fowler also placed the debate over content and practice among the various players involved including federal, state, and local levels, new and old participants, and leadership needs and requirements. He also outlined what he saw as the future challenges to arts education and the promise it holds. While it is not possible to convey every detail of the text, this brief review aims to present the general focus of the book while emphasizing the book and its relationship to Fowler?s vision for music education. Fowler expressed his frustration with the state of arts education at the time. One can hardly blame him when the philosophy of Can We Rescue? had been clearly and compellingly expressed in 1977 when the initial report was released. Here, a decade later, especially in the midst of a period of an intense educational debate, the problems were more evident than ever. Surely this must have been supremely dissatisfying for a man who held the vision that every student should be involved in arts study and who knew the benefits of music education based on thirty-five years in the field. Fowler argued his point passionately: The arts are short-changed in many schools today. The consequences are many children whose possibilities are squandered and whose insights are impeded. But worse, the sheer numbers of these future citizens and their personal barrenness confronts us with prospects of a diminishing cultural future. Coming to Our Senses presented us with the alternative to enter the mind through the human sensorium?our capacity to hear, to see, to move, to say, to feel. That is a far more profound idea than it has ever been given credit for. The arts can awaken the learning mechanism because they touch the true inner being, that aspect of the self that is not body, the part that lies outside the domain of science?call it the soul?the wellspring of dreams, caring, daring, and dedication. They are one of the all too rare ways by which humans can experience emotional thrill and fulfillment, powerful stimuli for motivation and inspiration. 93 He went on to provide a further compelling argument for arts education: We do not need more and better arts education to develop more and better artists. We need more and better arts education to produce better-educated human beings, citizens who will value and evolve a worthy American civilization?. The arts are 255 not just important; they are a central force in human existence. Each citizen should have sufficient and equal opportunities to learn these languages, which so assist us in our fumbling, bumbling, and all-too-rarely brilliant navigation through this world. Because of this, the arts should be granted major status in American schooling. That is a cause worthy of our energies. 94 As Fowler was always interested in reaching the widest audience possible, he also wrote several articles outside of music education that were based on the book Can We Rescue?. Two notable examples, ?Why the Arts in Education: Saving Our Cultural Future,? published in the NASSP Bulletin in October 1989, and ?The Arts Are Essential to Education,? from Educational Leadership in November 1989. 95 The next work highlighted here points to Fowler?s continued connection with music education. He delivered a speech during the symposium Music in American Schools: A Sesquicentennial Celebration 1838-1988, held at the University of Maryland College Park in August of 1988. 96 This meeting was designed to celebrate 150 years of public school music in the United States. The important link here is that Fowler, an invited speaker, presented commentary following the address of Max Kaplan, a well- regarded sociologist of education (and interested party in music education), with whom Fowler studied at Boston University in the early 1960s. Fowler was strongly influenced by sociological views since his own dissertation connected music education with social condition and change. Wiley Housewright was also a guest speaker and had been president of MENC from 1968 to 1970 during Fowler?s tenure as editor of the Music Educators Journal. Fowler?s commentary, ?Culture in Crisis,? was in response to Kaplan?s speech on the theme of ?Music Education and American Culture.? He talked about American culture and the changing circumstances that define it. He also mentioned the 256 underprivileged and minority students that are often left out of the process of music education. This spoke directly to his long-held criticisms of elitism and the need for democracy in music education. Fowler believed that a broader cultural view needed to be considered in American education and that the arts played a unique role in preserving and presenting these multicultural views and perspectives. He noted his perspective : My notion is that we must come to know ourselves as both the many and the one. Sometimes, we humans have to be reminded that we are far more alike than we are different, and it is the alike qualities that are so often overlooked. 97 In essence, Fowler believed that the European view of culture was not the only model from which culture should be derived and transmitted. While a more diverse view may be more common today, this was progressive at the time, especially in the conservative world of music education. Fowler went on to pose an important question: Whose culture shall prevail? For those in the business of passing on culture to the younger generations, the question must weigh heavily on our minds?. A new civilization is emerging, and it is education that can assure a wall-less cultural pluralism where ?music for all? means providing a base to support our differences. I?ve never seen a child turn away from an arts experience because it was black, white, yellow or brown. If we are not to be a country of many separate peoples, we must establish commonalities of culture as well as some understanding across our many distinguishable artistic legacies. From this standpoint, we must make certain as we set about to construct the future, that our cultural policies reflect our multi-racial, multi-cultural make-up as people. 98 The final work under consideration for 1983 to 1989 is a book chapter that Fowler contributed to Music Education in the United States: Contemporary Issues. The chapter title was ?Toward a Democratic Art: A Reconstructionist View of Music Education.? 9 Although his view certainly was influenced and altered over the years from 1964 to 1988, it seemed that Fowler was still interested enough in the reconstructionist view to complete a book chapter about it some twenty-five years after he his dissertation. This highlighted Fowler?s strong connection with the reconstructionist view, his unique vision 257 for music education as represented in the seven objectives outlined in his dissertation, and the emerging themes that were evident in his later work. Fowler began with a brief overview of reconstructionist philosophy, its emphasis on schools as change agents, its connections with Dewey and Brameld, and the role philosophy should play in education and the human experience. Here Fowler defined his reconstructionist philosophy of music education: Philosophies tend to divide between the conservative and the revolutionary. The tendency of some philosophies (e.g., idealism) is to preserve the values of the established order, whereas others (e.g., perennialism) harken back to values of the past. Reconstructionism stands for a rethinking, a reshaping, and a repatterning of the existing order of world civilization. It asks that education assume responsibility for cultural development?. Reconstructionism grew out of progressivism?. The philosophy of reconstructionism is an attempt to meet the needs of an ?age in crisis??. While in many ways progressivism provided education with means, it did not adequately define ends. Reconstructionism views education as a mechanism for enacting a program of clear and precise social reform. 10 A compelling feature about the article is that Fowler not only discussed music education through the reconstructionist lens he used for so many years but also in the contemporary context of the mid- to late-1980s. The principal segments of the chapter addressed important topics that Fowler felt were affecting music education. These included ?Music in American Society,? ?The Problems of Classical Music,? ?The Status of the Arts,? ?Reaching a Larger Public,? and ?Contemporary Art and Communication.? He went on to discuss ?Music in American Schools,? along with ?The Arts as Basic Education,? ?Comprehensive Arts,? and ?Equality of Opportunity.? He concluded the chapter with segments titled, ?A New Rationale for Music Education,? ?The Importance of Creativity,? and ?Infusion of Music,? among others. 258 Fowler approached these topics with a reconstructionist view, and in some ways, they mirror his vision for music education as expressed in his original seven objectives. Fowler suggested music should be viewed as pluralistic and open and not narrow and elitist. He further suggested that the cultural development of young people should be an integral part of general education. He argued that goals of reconstructionist philosophy could reach the public through more effective music education. Other tenets presented by Fowler included music as social self-realization and as democratic art, both of which are part of the seven objectives. Reconstructionist philosophy further promoted the idea that music education should help develop discriminating and cosmopolitan tastes, which could be accomplished through respect for comprehensive music and arts education in the schools. Another important facet espoused the idea that music education could impart creativity and openness in children?s thinking and worldview. While Fowler did not directly list the objectives in the same way in his dissertation, he certainly touched on the concepts and ideas from 25 years earlier as an update of his reconstructionist philosophy of music education. He also presented his philosophy with a contemporary view of the seven objectives and how the themes could be utilized as means to institute change within the profession of music teaching and learning. Interestingly, Fowler was suggesting progressive reform of music education by looking back 25 years into the past. While this philosophy may have seemed new to those in the late 1980s, it was hardly innovative to Fowler. He had been putting this viewpoint forward during his entire career. His writing had always urged a new look at current practice and urged the reader to take challenges seriously to consider fresh and innovative 259 ways that challenged the status quo. It seems clear that the reconstructionist philosophy was in Fowler?s mind, even twenty-five years after he completed his dissertation, and clarified his vision for music education. Fowler presented his first primary goal: The first fundamental goal for music education: to establish music as a vital and valued art in American society. Since American education, particularly the public schools, K-12, constitutes the main system for attaining this goal, the function of music education within that system is crucial. 101 In presenting his second primary goal and offering perspectives for practice, Fowler offered the following thoughts: This discussion of music in American schools suggests some ways to make music more central to the educational enterprise. Emerging from this analysis is the second fundamental goal of music education: to establish music as a significant force in American education. If music education is going to realize its responsibility to the culture at large, it must acquire greater power in the schools. To reconstruct music in American society, music education must revitalize its place in education. 102 Fowler convincingly completed his argument on the value of reconstructionism in American schooling some thirty years after it was introduced: The two fundamental goals of music education?to establish music as (a) a vital and valued art in American society, and (b) a significant force in American education?call for sweeping changes in American values and American education. They envision an ideal that has been only barely glimpsed. And they demand a major revision of the way music education itself is conducted. Reconstructionism is an invitation to partake in the process of developing and improving culture. It brings an exciting?and challenging?new dimension to music education and to all the arts. 103 It is evident that Fowler was still firmly a proponent of reconstructionist philosophy and its aims and objectives for music education. In revisiting his original view, one can see that it strongly influenced his vision that music education can serve as a social change agent. The objectives he presented in his dissertation, and to some extent in this book 260 chapter, were elaborated on by the themes that emerged through his writings during the course of his career. Emerging Themes and Ideas During the years 1983 to 1989, Fowler covered a range of topics and ideas, many of which represent the overall philosophy he held throughout his career. The broad themes I identified in this chapter include music for the disenfranchised, music for special needs students, music and arts education advocacy, the use of creativity and how it helps develop intelligence, the state of classical music and its instruction in America, and finally, Fowler?s comprehensive view of arts education in the United States. The first emerging theme from the final period under study begins with addressing music for the disenfranchised. Here Fowler discussed issues related to music for the handicapped and students with disabilities. He also continued the dialogue from previous years writing about issues of race, gender, and social status as related to music and arts education. Fowler firmly believed that arts and music education should be made available to all students regardless of learning ability, physical disability, cultural background, or financial means. He also wrote about the pressing need for more and better programs and more support that would aid teachers in their task of offering music and cultural education to the students and schools where it was needed most, rather than only to those students and schools of affluence and status. A second theme is Fowler?s ongoing work in the area of music and arts education advocacy. The lines were often blurred between the two areas of advocacy as his career moved forward, especially in his writings published in Musical America, where he was addressing the broadest possible audience. He continued to center on music education, 261 however, and more importantly, kept that focus on advocating for programs that would support student growth through artistic and creative activity. He was, by training and experience, a music educator first and foremost. As the literature bears out, arts education as a whole was important to Fowler, but music education remained his central cause. In essence, arts education meant music education, and the two are similar for Fowler when evaluating his writings. The theme of advocacy highlighted Fowler?s efforts to reach outside of music education to better support it within the field. Here he discussed state, national, and international organizations and their work such as the Music Educators National Conference (MENC), National Education Assocation (NEA), International Society for Music Education (ISME), Texas Music Educators Association (TMEA), Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and others. Fowler often wrote about their work, or lack thereof, and commented on the progress he felt they were making and the impact they were having on the profession. In regard to advocacy matters, Fowler also commented on happenings outside of music that would affect music education. These include business relations with music, financial matters, and other economic and industry connections with the arts. He believed that connections with those outside the music classroom were critical to successful programs. He also devoted time to general education reports and books along with other happenings outside music education that could affect the curriculum within it. This period was known for its governmental reform efforts, especially in the early 1980s, and Fowler was engaged in the debate, reporting the details to readers of Musical America and other publications. 262 A third theme is how the teaching of creativity helps develop intelligence in students. Fowler believed firmly that students needed more creative instruction to better understand the diversity in the world around them. In addition to the educational reform issues just mentioned, there was continuing discussion of creativity and music, connections between music and intelligence, the role music played in conveying culture to children, and music and learning. Fowler respected and followed the writings of scholars such as Howard Gardner, Hobbs Professor of Cognition and Education at Harvard University, and also Elliot Eisner, Professor Emeritus of Arts and Education at Stanford University (interviewed for this study). Gardner was known for his work on multiple intelligences, and Eisner had been a long-time advocate of the arts in public schooling. A fourth theme from this period addressed the state of classical music and its instruction in American schools. Issues here focused on teacher quality, specialization among faculty and schools, further discussion on how general education reform was affecting music education, and how music teachers were prepared for lives in classrooms. Classical music had been under siege for many years, and while Fowler did not believe it was the only genre relevant for school music programs, he felt it needed to be preserved along with other forms popular during the day. He also knew it was a much larger issue than simply choice of music but also an issue of instructional practice and effectiveness. Even though Fowler was a strong supporter of music education, music teachers, and MENC, he did not hesitate to criticize the profession when he felt success was not at hand. He did not look at constructive criticism as negative but rather as part of the ongoing dialogue of reform that was needed to keep the profession alive. While he often 263 received negative feedback for his strong views, he was confident that helping improve music teaching and better preparing music teachers only strengthened the profession overall. The passing-on of culture was vital to children?s development and success in school, and he worked to be a part of the conversation that was needed to help MENC and others work toward meeting these important goals. A concluding point in instructional reform addressed specialization in music education of teachers, schools, curriculum, and performance. Schools and teachers that took a narrow view of what music education should or should not be were limiting this discussion, and in doing so, narrowed the choice available to students interested in the study of music and the arts. Fowler believed in a broad and open view of music education so that more and more students would be able to partake in and develop their artistic and creative expression. As with other topics Fowler had raised, he challenged the idea of instructional specialization to ensure that a democratic view of music education was promoted. A pluralistic view encouraged the arts to be offered to all, so everyone could participate, create, and engage intellectually in higher-order artistic thinking and pursuits. A fifth and final theme brings many of the previous themes together. This theme addressed Fowler?s comprehensive view of arts education. In some ways his view related to the democratic view of music education. In other respects, it included his ever- expanding and developing thinking about the role of the arts in schooling and society, and how he reached out to those outside of arts education who could have a strong impact on it. It was during this period that he completed important work in multiple areas that relate back to music and arts education. This work included publications for general education sources such as the Association for Curriculum and Supervision Development 264 (ACSD), and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), among others. Fowler also testified before Congress regarding arts education issues as he had done several times in the past. Working with a broad and comprehensive view of arts education, Fowler completed two principal works during this period. The first is his book Coming to Our Senses, published in 1988, in which he reviewed his thinking of the decade since the initial report of the same name in 1977. The book looked to multiple and diverse aspects of schooling and the arts and suggested why the arts were a valuable and critical component of public school learning. Fowler was not hesitant to present a reform-minded and critical review of those not taking music and arts in the schools seriously. Fowler further discussed distinct challenges faced by the arts education community to remain strong in the public schools. This book is considered one of Fowler?s comprehensive statements advocating for music education in schools and lends powerful support to his assertions through the use of multiple experienced voices in the arts education community. Just as Strong Arts, Strong Schools is considered his final philosophical statement for his career, Can We Rescue? can be seen to address his views up to the time of late 1980s and the end of the third period of his career as outlined in this dissertation. The second and perhaps most important work of the period, which considers the general themes and larger relevance of Fowler?s thinking over time, is a book chapter from 1988 addressing the philosophy of reconstructionism. In this chapter titled, ?Toward a Democratic Art: A Reconstructionist View of Music Education,? Fowler laid out the basic principles of his reconstructionist philosophy. In the writing of this chapter, it 265 seemed apparent that he still believed in music education as an agent of change, and that his seven objectives remained central to his vision. The chapter confirmed that his original vision, although reconsidered through the lens of several decades of professional experience, remained as a foundation to his overall philosophy. The over-arching goals that Fowler suggested in his reconstructionist philosophy were found in his writings throughout this period, demonstrating that he still believed in the power of reconstructionist thought to affect positive change within the music education profession. The connections remained constant and clear from 1983 to 1989 and demonstrated that the objectives still influenced his views and writings, even as broad themes emerged presenting his developing view over time. In sum, Fowler?s vision for music education, as presented through connections to the seven objectives and the larger themes which emerged from them, was alive and thriving during this period in his career. Connections with the Objectives The seven objectives include relating music to the aesthetic and cultural needs of humankind, utilizing music as a means of social-self-realization, understanding music as a means of communication, working towards the attainment of a democratic art, music education as means to development of a discriminating musical taste, development of a more cosmopolitan musical taste, and identifying music as a means to develop a creative life orientation in all students. 104 Several of the seven objectives were evident in his writings from this period and they include esthetic and cultural needs of humankind addressed in works about reason and emotion and music for every child and social self-realization in music discussed as a 266 basic intelligence that should be addressed for all children. The objective of communication is considered through analysis of events at an MENC convention and its principles, in working to reach non-music majors and also music for the handicapped. Fowler addressed the objective of music as a democratic art through his suggestion of music for every child and the importance of reaching all children in schools regardless of talent or privilege. Working toward a discriminating and cosmopolitan musical taste are conveyed through understanding the role of classical music in society and appreciating music for its inherent value. Finally, the development of a creative life orientation was addressed by way of discussing a shameful neglect of creativity in the schools and ways this could be remedied. Other connections between the seven objectives and works during this period include his Congressional testimony on educational reform reports (democratic art), an article on music education in schools and community (social-self-realization), and his address to the Baghdad International Music Conference (discriminating and cosmopolitan tastes). Still others are an article about business support for the arts (communication), a Music Educators Journal article on the teaching and learning of music performance (creative life orientation), and addressing the arts as essential to education (esthetic and cultural needs of humankind), among others. These themes and objectives highlight his enduring connection to music education and its goals as well as his consistent vision for music education through the choice and content of material he wrote, edited, or produced. It is important to keep this in mind as many of his writings seem to expand beyond music education, yet his strong relationship 267 with his philosophy and the music teaching profession remained a core element of his output. Surely his views and thoughts changed as he grew as an individual scholar and writer. However, a clear trend has emerged that his vision remained connected to his original philosophical statement for music education as suggested through the objectives. The analyzed examples here provide some clarity, but Fowler also expressed this message through his selection of topics and the way in which he kept these themes alive throughout his career. Fowler seemed to frame the 25-year period from his dissertation in 1964 to the book chapter on reconstructionism in 1988 as strong support that the reconstructionist view of music education remained a core component of his thinking throughout his career. These are but a few examples from this period that represent ideas from the seven objectives. Fowler viewed these concepts as the basis of his vision for music education, and his writings were the expression of his views to the public. Themes and topics of his work during the many years of his career recall these objectives and continually emphasize the tenets of his vision and how he believed music education could be an agent of social change. Fowler continually urged those in the profession to take notice and look at music education in diverse and reform-minded ways. He believed that music had a larger role to play in society than just the production of high quality performance in schools and could help children develop their own unique voice in the larger world. The seven objectives and the themes that emerged from them in his works were Fowler?s method of 268 considering mechanisms to achieve reconstructionist and systemic reform within the music education profession and general education at large. Concluding Thoughts This chapter presented Fowler?s published works during the final years of this study, from 1983 to 1989. During this time, Fowler completed one of his more important statements on music and arts education, his 1988 book Can We Rescue the Arts for America?s Children? and concluded his fifteen-year tenure with Musical America in 1989. He continued to write numerous other articles, deliver speeches, travel and study, assess the state of arts education in America, and offer his critical advice for how to institute reforms based on his forty-plus years in music education. In addition to identification and analysis, the works were connected with the seven objectives that outlined Fowler?s vision for music education and were contextualized with various trends and developments during their time. A compelling argument of Fowler?s original vision that carried throughout his career was the final book chapter he wrote addressing reconstructionist philosophy. This chapter, from 1988, was where he mentioned the enduring value of the reconstructed view within music and public education. Although several themes had emerged which elaborated his vision during his career, this book chapter emphasized that he still placed value on the original view that he set forth in the early 1960s. Finally, Chapter Six concludes the three primary chapters that have analyzed, contextualized, and connected important works throughout Fowler?s career during his two middle periods, from 1964 to 1973 and 1974 to 1989. The following and final chapter provides a clarification of his vision for music education through the connection 269 of objectives and emergent themes, relationships to contemporary practice, general conclusions of the research, implications for further study, and the final commentary of the dissertation. 270 Chapter Six Notes 1 All of the articles written by Fowler at Musical America are listed chronologically in the bibliography. Articles by guest writers are in a separate section just below Fowler?s columns and listed alphabetically to easier locate the authors and their articles. Even though there were several guest contributors, Fowler had editorial choice of topics and content, and often had lengthy correspondence with them to ensure those published were of good quality and in line with his philosophy and the mission of the column. 2 Lynn Wall, letter to author, June 21, 2006. Today Musical America is published in digital format but is nowhere near as comprehensive as the print version from the years before, and during the 1970s and 1980s, those to which Fowler contributed from 1974 to 1989. 3 Michael L. Mark, Contemporary Music Education, 3rd ed, (Belmont, CA: Schirmer Thomson Learning, 1996), 19-24. 4 Charles Fowler, ?Education Reports (Part I): What Message for the Arts?,? Musical America 33 (November 1983): 10-13; Charles Fowler, ?Education Reports (Part II),? Musical America 33 (December 1983): 9-11; Charles Fowler, ?Education Reports (Part III),? Musical America 34 (March 1984): 12-14. 5 Michael L. Mark, Contemporary Music Education, 3rd ed, (Belmont, CA: Schirmer Thomson Learning, 1996), 25. 6 Ibid., 19-20. 7 Ibid., 20. 8 Ibid., 20. 9 Ibid., 22. 10 Ibid., 23. 1 Charles Fowler, ?The Many versus the Few,? Musical America 33 (February 1983): 10, 12. 12 Ibid., 10. 13 As point of interest and disclosure, Elliot Eisner was interviewed for this study and his views considered in the analysis of Charles? work and philosophy. This article is relevant not only for the content it addresses, but to show an important connection between the two scholars and their similar vision for arts and music education in the schools. 14 Charles Fowler, ?Deciding What to Teach: A New Book Makes a Very Strong Case for 271 the Arts,? Musical America 33 (October 1983): 12-13. 15 Ibid., 12. 16 Ibid., 13. 17 Charles Fowler, ?Education Reports (Part II),? Musical America 33 (December 1983): 11. 18 Charles Fowler, ?Music: A Basic Intelligence.? Musical America 34 (June 1984): 12, 14, 40. 19 Ibid., 12. 20 Ibid., 40. 21 Charles Fowler, ?Music Educators Meet?But Do They Miss the Point?,? Musical America 34 (September 1984): 11-13, 34, 36. 2 Ibid., 13. 23 Charles Fowler, Note commenting on September 1984 ?MENC 1984 National Conference? article, 5 October 1991, Charles Fowler Papers. 24 Charles Fowler, ?Reaching Kids (Part I): How Symphonies Do It,? Musical America 35 (February 1985): 11-13, 15; Charles Fowler, ?Reaching Kids (Part II): How Opera Companies Do It,? Musical America 35 (March 1985): 18-19, 34-35. 25 Charles Fowler, ?Reaching Kids (Part II): How Opera Companies Do It,? Musical America 35 (March 1985): 35. 26 Charles Fowler, ?Classical Music is Singing the Blues,? Musical America 35 (June 1985): 12, 14, 16. 27 Ibid., 12. 28 Ibid., 16. 29 Ibid., 16. 30 Ibid., 16. 31 Charles Fowler, ?The Shameful Neglect of Creativity,? Musical America 35 (September 1985): 10-12. 272 32 Ibid., 10. 3 Ibid., 12. 34 Ibid., 12. 35 Charles Fowler, ?Are Teachers of the Arts Good Enough?,? Musical America 35 (October 1985): 8, 10-11, 24. 36 Lynn Jacobsen and Bonnie Jo Dopp, Charles Fowler Papers Finding Aid, (University of Maryland Libraries, 1999); Gale Reference Team, ?Charles Bruner Fowler,? Contemporary Authors Online (Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson and Gale, 2001); Robert Choate, Documentary Report of the Tanglewood Symposium (Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference, 1968). 37 Charles Fowler, ?Are Teachers of the Arts Good Enough?,? Musical America 35 (October 1985): 8. 38 Charles Fowler, ?Educational Reform: Ferment in the Arts,? Musical America 36 (April 1986): 6-8. 39 Charles Fowler, ?Music for Every Child, Every Child for Music,? Musical America 36 (May 1986): 10-13. This article was re-released later in the MENC ?Soundings,? which was the publication of The Society for General Music, in Spring, 1987. 40 Ibid., 10. 41 Ibid., 13. There are some additional interesting notes related to this article. First, Fowler mentioned June Hinckley, who later was MENC President from 1998-2000. Second, he also spoke in some detail of the programs for high school students in Maryland, where his archives are now located. Third, he mentioned a general music program, instituted in New York State, that eventually became a strong influence on his later book, ?Music! Its Role and Importance in Our Lives.? 42 Charles Fowler, Note commenting on May 1986 ?Music for Every Child? article, 6 October 1991, Charles Fowler Papers. 43 An additional compelling footnote to this article is that Thomas Hatfield took over as Executive Director of the National Art Education Association (NAEA) shortly after John Mahlmann, who became Executive Director of MENC after leaving NAEA. Mahlmann was at NAEA from about 1970 to 1982, and MENC from 1983 to the present-day. Hatfield took over after Mahlmann left and remained at NAEA for another 22 years. Also interesting is the fact that both associations? headquarters are two blocks apart on the same road in Reston, Virginia. 273 4 After substantial work on Fowler?s part, Shirley Fleming took the unusual step of sending an original copy of the article, along with Hatfield?s letter-to-the-editor, several other replies in support of Fowler, and a rebuttal by Fowler himself, and mailed them to many arts educators and administrators. This was not only to clarify the perspective and intent of Fowler and MA, but to rectify a mass letter that Hatfield had sent to the same constituency when he was first angered by the article. 45 Charles Fowler, ?Evaluation: Pros & Cons,? Musical America 36 (November 1986): 9- 12. 46 Charles Fowler, Note about 1972 NAEP assessment, __ June 1975, Charles Fowler Papers; Charles Fowler, Note commenting on 1972 NAEP assessment, __ July 1991, Charles Fowler Papers; Charles Fowler, ?National Survey of Musical Performance,? Musical America 24 (August 1974): 12-13. 47 Charles Fowler, ?Evaluation: Pros & Cons,? Musical America 36 (November 1986): 9. 48 Ibid., 10. 49 Ibid., 10. 50 Ibid., 12. 51 Lynn Wall, letter to author, June 21, 2006. 52 Charles Fowler, ?Reason versus Emotion,? Musical America 107 (May 1987): 34-36. A brief note here about the photos in the article, which include Maxine Greene, professor of many years at Columbia and long-time supporter of arts education. Fowler had known of and admired her work for many years. Further, Hal Abeles was Dean of the Department of Arts in Education at the time, who will also be known to scholars of music education foundations for his seminal work in the areas of history, philosophy, and sociology in music education. Another connection is that Fowler quoted Elliot Eisner in the piece and emphasized the community nature of those in arts education advocacy throughout the past several decades. It also once again emphasized Fowler?s consistent inquiry into educational policy reform and its ultimate impact on music and arts education. 53 This model was essentially designed to create the same kind of rigor and demands on students that was traditionally in place in standard academic areas. Some basic principles included rigorous study, long term planning, codified curricula, sequential lesson planning, certified and qualified teachers, adequate assessments, integration with other subjects, and the use of technology, among other areas. 54 Charles Fowler, ?Reason versus Emotion,? Musical America 107 (May 1987): 36. 274 5 Charles Fowler, ?Teacher Overhaul: Can We Do It?,? Musical America 107 (July 1987): 22, 24, 52, 54-55. It is interesting to note two individuals who were quoted in this piece. One was Thomas Regelski, well-regarded scholar in music education today, then on the faculty of SUNY-Fredonia. Another is Kathryn Martin, at the time Dean of Fine Arts at Wayne State University, who is an interview participant for this study. 56 Charles Fowler, ?Teacher Overhaul: Can We Do It?,? Musical America 107 (July 1987): 24. 57 Each of these organizations had recently released reports and guidelines on teacher preparation in the various arts disciplines. Music education students were bound by state certification requirements that are met by universities through NCATE and the state education board. NASM required music schools to meet certain quality standards, but did not specifically influence music teacher preparation programs like NCATE. MENC, in its report from 1986 on music teacher education, that listed several useful and practical guidelines. As Fowler remarked however, MENC had no oversight authority to assess or implement any of its suggestions, nor put them into practice. 58 Charles Fowler, ?Teacher Overhaul: Can We Do It?,? Musical America 107 (July 1987): 55. 59 Ibid., 55. 60 Charles Fowler, ?Music in Our Schools: The First 150 Years,? Musical America 108 (November 1988): 11-14. Note in this article the mention and quotes of Timothy Gerber, then and currently professor of music education at Ohio State University. Gerber knew Fowler during his lifetime and is an interview participant for this study. Figures like Dr. Gerber, and many others listed in his correspondence in the bibliography, establish Fowler?s longstanding connection to music education, MENC, and practice and reform in the profession over his 45-year career (even when he was not formally working for a university or music education organization). 61 Charles Fowler, ?Music in Our Schools: The First 150 Years,? Musical America 108 (November 1988): 14. 62 Charles Fowler, ?Arts Education Triple Jeopardy,? Musical America 109 (March 1989): 10-12. 63 Ibid., 10. 64 Ibid., 12. 65 Ibid., 12. 6 Charles Fowler, ?Guarding the Arts in Bali,? Musical America 109 (July 1989): 14- 275 16, 27. 67 Charles Fowler, Note about the end of his tenure at Musical America, 6 January 1992, Charles Fowler Papers. 68 Charles Fowler, ?Education Reports (Part I): What Message for the Arts?,? Musical America 33 (November 1983): 10-13; Charles Fowler, ?Education Reports (Part II),? Musical America 33 (December 1983): 9-11; Charles Fowler, ?Education Reports (Part III),? Musical America 34 (March 1984): 12-14. 69 House Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, Oversight Hearing on Arts Education, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., February 28, 1984. 70 Ibid., 24. 71 Charles Fowler, ?Who Owns Arts Education? Some Arts Educators See the Community as Competition,? Design for Arts in Education 86 (November/December 1984): 4-7. 72 Ibid., 4. 73 Ibid., 7. 74 Fowler, Charles, ed. Arts in Education/Education in Arts: Entering the Dialogue of the ?80s (Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 1984). 75 Charles Fowler, ?An Agenda: Establishing a Music Curriculum Which Can Be A Significant Force in American Education,? Speech delivered at TMEA Symposium ?85: Music is Essential to Quality Education, July 11, 1985; Charles Fowler, ed. TMEA Symposium ?85 Report: Music is Essential to Quality Education (Austin, TX: Texas Music Educators Association, 1986). 76 Charles Fowler, ed. TMEA Symposium ?85 Report: Music is Essential to Quality Education (Austin, TX: Texas Music Educators Association, 1986). 7 Charles Fowler, ?An Agenda: Establishing a Music Curriculum Which Can Be A Significant Force in American Education,? Speech delivered at TMEA Symposium ?85: Music is Essential to Quality Education, July 11, 1985. 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid. 276 80 Charles Fowler, Note commenting on April 1986 Baghdad International Music Conference, 6 October 1991, Charles Fowler Papers. 81 Charles Fowler, ?Baghdad International Music Conference,? Musical America 36 (September 1986): 8-11. 82 Charles Fowler, ?In the United States: The New Way We?re Justifying the Role and Importance of Music in American Education,? Speech presented at Baghdad International Conference on Music, April __, 1986. 83 Ibid. 84 Charles Fowler, ?Beyond Survival: Business Support Begins with Respect, Doesn?t It?,? Vantage Point 12 (March 1987): 13-14. 85 Ibid., 14. 86 Ibid., 14. 87 Charles Fowler, ?What We Know About the Teaching and Learning of Music Performance,? Music Educators Journal 73 (March 1987): 24-32. 8 It is interesting to note that Fowler completed his undergraduate work at this institution (SUNY Potsdam) in 1952. By relation, he pursued his Master?s work at Northwestern University and doctoral studies at Boston University. All of these schools are well- established music education institutions and solidify Fowler?s training and background as a qualified practitioner and scholar within the music education profession. 89 Charles Fowler, ?What We Know About the Teaching and Learning of Music Performance,? Music Educators Journal 73 (March 1987): 25-26. 90 Ibid., 32. 91 Charles Fowler, Can We Rescue the Arts for America?s Children? Coming to Our Senses ? 10 Years Later (New York: American Council for the Arts, 1988). 92 One of these educators was Dr. Kathryn Martin, one of the interview participants for this study, and now Chancellor of the University of Minnesota at Duluth. 93 Ibid., 150. 94 Ibid., 151-152. 95 Charles Fowler, ?Why the Arts in Education: Saving Our Cultural Future,? NASSP Bulletin 73 (October 1989): 90-95; Charles Fowler, ?The Arts Are Essential to 277 Education,? Educational Leadership 47 (November 1989): 60-63. 96 Charles Fowler, ?Culture in Crisis,? Speech response delivered at Music in American Schools 1838-1988 Symposium, August 26, 1988. 97 Ibid. 98 Ibid. 9 Charles Fowler, ?Toward a Democratic Art: A Reconstructionist View of Music Education,? in Music Education in the United States: Contemporary Issues, ed. J. Terry Gates (Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1988), 130-155. 10 Ibid., 131. 101 Ibid., 141. 102 Ibid., 154. 103 Ibid., 155. 104 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964), 404, 410, 422, 428, 437, 442, and 448. 278 Chapter Seven: Conclusions, Implications, and Final Thoughts Clarifying the Vision In this study, I have examined the writings of Charles Fowler to better understand his vision and reconstructionist view for music education. The research questions served to meet this goal as a means to analyze the content of his works and to place them in the context of their times. With this chapter, I present the final analytic evidence and supportive arguments to ensure that the assertions of the study are clear. I have divided the chapter into several segments which address the overall research and present the final conclusions of the study. I first revisit the research questions of the study. Second, I provide a brief review of the seven objectives to clarify Fowler?s initial vision for music education, which he presented in his dissertation. Third, I discuss the broad themes that were drawn from the writings themselves and use them to trace Fowler?s vision as it evolved over time, specifically from 1964 to 1989. Fourth, I bring the objectives and themes together to illustrate how they outline his vision over the course of his career. Fifth, I offer perspectives from those who knew and worked with Fowler that speak to his contributions to music education. These voices provide further affirmation for my assertions of the study. From here I expose the relationships of Fowler?s work to current trends that illustrate the value of his writings and views in a contemporary context. Lastly, I offer general conclusions and commentary and suggest implications for further research. These 279 sections are followed by some final thoughts based on the process of the research and general outcomes of the dissertation. Research Questions Revisited As final analysis commences, it is helpful to revisit the purpose and research questions to highlight connections between the content and findings of the study. The purpose of the study was to identify, analyze, and evaluate important works of Charles Fowler from the period of 1964 to 1989. These works were then considered within the context of his vision for music education, which was first articulated in the objectives he outlined in his dissertation and later developed through his prolific writings. A further purpose was to place the works in the context of contemporary music education at the time they were conceived and written. Another significant focus of the dissertation research was to introduce, for the first time, the works of Charles Fowler as a body of literature and suggest four major periods of his career. These periods are intended as an outline for placing his work during his lifetime and to aid in further inquiry into his writings and contributions to music education. These four periods are Roots of a Philosophy (1948-1963), Making a Statement (1964-1973), Reaching a Wider Audience (1974-1989), and Bringing it All Together (1990-1995). The present study has focused on writings from the middle two periods during 1964 to 1989. With these goals in mind, the research questions were: (1)What works were representative of Charles Fowler?s development as a scholar and arts advocate during 1964 to 1989? (2)How did these representative works reflect his vision for music education? 280 (3) How were these works situated within the context of music education during their time? These questions have been explored throughout the course of this study to aid in determining Fowler?s vision for music education and how it was promoted through the prolific writings during his career. Review of the Seven Objectives After examination of Fowler?s writings from 1964 to 1989, one sees consistent connections between the content of the original objectives in his dissertation and that of the works produced in subsequent years. The seven objectives focused on multiple areas of importance to music in the schools, and they represent Charles Fowler?s vision of what could be accomplished by offering musical experiences to all students. The objectives for students and those involved with music education consist of the following: relating music to the aesthetic and cultural needs of humankind, utilizing music as a means of social- self-realization, understanding music as a means of communication, working towards the attainment of a democratic art, developing a discriminating musical taste through musical study, developing a more cosmopolitan musical taste, and constructing a creative life orientation in all students. 1 These objectives formed the basis of Fowler?s thinking early in his career and evolved over time in the works he produced until the late 1980s and early 1990s. The themes that emerged were an outgrowth of the original ideas Fowler put forward in his dissertation, and they emphasized the value of music to serve as an agent of social change. The principal tenet of reconstructionist philosophy is that schools can serve as an instigator of social change within the communities where they reside. Fowler, in his dissertation, took this philosophy created for general education by Theodore Brameld and 281 applied its principles to music education. From this viewpoint, Fowler devised his seven objectives with the idea that music can be a powerful force within schools and can help serve as a significant factor that supports education in its role as social change agent. The works examined and analyzed in Chapters Four, Five, and Six are representative of this view and clarify the foundation that Fowler?s vision for music education remained consistent throughout his career. His vision for music education as a means to positively change lives was critical during its time and remains of paramount importance to this day, even though some of his works were written as many as 30 to 40 years ago. Fowler?s progressive voice, powerful eloquence, and gift for the written word keep his vision strong and his ideas relevant in the context of contemporary music and arts education. Emergent Themes of the Research What broad themes emerged from Fowler?s writings and work from the completion of his dissertation in 1964 to his final year as Education Editor for Musical America in 1989? Combining the broad ideas from Chapters Four, Five, and Six, I identified fifteen themes that emerged from the writings of this period. In Chapter Four, these are reform, professionalization, and democracy. In Chapter Five, these include music in general education, pedagogies of practice, constituencies surrounding music education, music education advocacy, arts education advocacy, the importance of non- Western musical traditions in Western culture, and democracy and diversity in music and arts education. The themes that emerged from Chapter Six are music for the disenfranchised and students with special needs, music and arts education advocacy, creativity and 282 intelligence, the state of classical music and its instruction in America, and a final, comprehensive view of arts education in the United States. The evidence presented in earlier chapters demonstrates the prevalence of these themes throughout Fowler?s life, and the following conclusions are drawn accordingly. The themes are drawn from the writings themselves and are often based on the original seven objectives he presented in his dissertation. The connection between the objectives and themes is now explored and clarified. This includes the original seven objectives from his dissertation along with the fifteen emergent themes from the work of his career and the concise five core concepts that clarify and represent Fowler?s vision for music education. Bringing Connections and Themes Together Charles Fowler held a strong vision for music education and its possibilities. He worked tirelessly during his career to convey this vision so it would influence policy- makers and practitioners to promote and support music education in the schools. He originally outlined his vision through his dissertation and its objectives for music education. As his career progressed, multiple and diverse themes came forward from his writings that clarified and expanded his initial vision for music education. The first objective urges justification for the inclusion of music in education by relating it to the aesthetic and cultural needs of humankind. The themes that Fowler explored include multiple works on music in general education, advocacy, and the importance and use of non-Western music within the American education system. He argued that music should be part of a comprehensive general education that offers cultural and artistic values to students. 283 The second objective suggests that music can be utilized as a means to help students gain a social-self-realization to understand themselves and their place in the world. School-age students are questioning themselves and their life-world and trying to understand where they fit in the community around them. In his writings, Fowler explored themes of creativity and intelligence, music for the disenfranchised and special needs students, and democracy and diversity in music and arts education. Fowler was concerned about an educational system that did not value learning creative approaches to living in the world. He encouraged his audience to consider intelligence in diverse ways, which would not only improve practice, but help children better develop their intellect, self-confidence, and understanding of the people and communities around them. Fowler acknowledged that students of special and unique needs deserved to be present in the music classroom and that administrators, parents, and teachers should take notice. While students need guidance and structure, they also need time to consider their place in the world around them. Fowler argued that music education should and could provide the opportunities for children to explore themselves through multiple creative approaches to life and learning. Fowler revisited this theme throughout his career and urged that music education be an integral part of how the United States as a community consider the value and education of their children. Music has often been considered a means to communicate and bring people of divergent perspectives together, and the third objective reflects this view. Fowler prepared writings that focused on related themes of music and arts education advocacy, talking with various constituencies surrounding music education, and looking at how reform could improve the profession to help move it more concretely forward. To many, 284 Fowler was primarily known as an advocate for music and arts education in the schools. He wrote and spoke eloquently about the need for comprehensive programs and how learning music can bring people together like few other endeavors in education. Fowler frequently addressed audiences outside of the music education profession. He reached out often to those who had an impact on decision-making power over music curricula and programs. Furthermore, he often felt these same persons had little qualified information to make the right choices that could impact many teachers and students in American music classrooms. He fought tirelessly to persuade those in the profession to communicate with those outside the profession. Once a comprehensive view of music education was agreed to, he believed that music in the schools would be considered an important curricular activity like any other. Just as music is a language valued and understood by many diverse groups, so is music a vehicle that provides a truly democratic experience for all students involved, and the fourth objective addressed this goal. Few other classrooms boast an ensemble experience where all students play an equal role in the success or failure of learning and its outcomes. Music education further provides this view from a positive and teamwork- oriented perspective that promotes success of the many, rather than the one. Students learn to think, analyze, and communicate in an environment where their individual contributions are crucial to the success of the group as a whole. Few other academic subjects can boast the holistic value of music through the kinesthetic, visual, and aural modes of learning and development. Another important value of education, and Fowler?s fifth objective, is to help children understand how to discriminate between high- and low-quality experiences and 285 knowledge. Music provides many opportunities to consider various distinctions and multiple views of a taste, style, character, and intelligence. How students are taught and the varying pedagogies of practice used is one theme Fowler explored along with professionalization, and the state of classical music and its instruction in America. Is music being taught in the most effective way, and are students learning what they need to know? This question is one that Fowler asked many times of the profession, which to him, seemed to disregard this important issue. Fowler knew that a workforce of music teachers who insisted on high-quality instruction to open students? minds to music would help children better understand how to improve the social conditions around them. He believed that schools could aid in the reconstruction of communities around them and that music offered opportunities for higher-order thinking like no other subject. Fowler suggested that music educators thinking about pedagogy and learning in innovative ways could help students learn to discriminate between high- and low-quality experiences, and use that skill to make artistic experiences more meaningful. This discriminating view would be applicable to all subjects and create active and engaged learners in schools, even outside of the music classroom. With a clear sense of a discriminating taste, how could students expand their views to look beyond questions of good and bad quality experiences and materials around them? In the sixth objective, Fowler wanted students to expand their view and consider the diverse and cosmopolitan world around them. This pluralistic and multicultural view was ahead of its time and represented a comprehensive approach to music and arts 286 education. Fowler?s writings in this area encouraged all teachers and students to look at the world around them and embrace divergent and compelling views. Finally, Fowler strongly urged the profession to look at ways to teach creativity to students who were often placed in structured learning environments which allowed little room for exploring the world in their own way. This seventh objective suggests that music can support the goal of creativity, investigated through the themes of creativity and intelligence, pedagogies of practice, and looking at music of non-Western cultures. He wanted students to approach problems in their own way and look to unique ways to solve problems. Music provides the individual an opportunity to look at challenges and arrive at creative solutions to address them. Fowler argued that if more students developed this independent approach and took responsibility for their own learning, the impact on American schooling would be wide-reaching and create progressive change. Fowler believed learning opportunities that encourage independent and self- motivated thinking in students would help schools to be agents of change within their communities. He viewed music as a prime curriculum to help schools with this goal. Creative approaches to living and learning were not only good for students and schools, but a way to reconstruct communities and introduce appreciation of beauty into a world where arts and music were considered secondary to other concerns. All students studying music would allow for a more democratic approach, for needed respect of education, and for further improvement to the quality of life for those experiencing it. Fowler?s objectives from his dissertation suggested this view, and the themes from his prolific work illustrate how this lofty and important goal could be accomplished. 287 Finally, from these original seven objectives and the fifteen themes that emerged from them during his career, what are the core concepts of Charles Fowler?s vision for music education? The following concepts distill Fowler?s thoughts and beliefs down to five core ideas which ground his vision for music education: (1) Reform of theory and practice, (2) Democracy of music education, (3) Teaching creative life orientation, (4) Music and arts education advocacy, and (5) Music education as social change agent. From here, it is valuable to consider outside opinions that support the conclusions drawn from analysis of the writings discussed during this study. Voices of Experience on Fowler and His Work Now that Fowler?s vision has been defined, and the material of his writings analyzed and synthesized, some final evidence further represents his vision for music education and its relationship to practice. The perspectives of those who knew Charles Fowler best and worked with him extensively are now considered. Their commentary serves as strong support for Fowler?s voice and ideas as presented through his own writings and works. The individuals interviewed for the study are qualified, competent, and experienced professionals in their own right, familiar with rigorous research practices, writing and advocacy, music education, and other important areas as that are related to Charles Fowler, his life, and his writings. As a reminder, those interviewed for the study are Elliot Eisner, Timothy Gerber, Vincent Lawrence, Kathryn Martin, Philip Moeller, David O?Fallon, Barbara Reeder-Lundquist, and Bruce Wilson. 2 Some of these individuals commented on personal experiences, others professional, and still others on Fowler?s philosophy or contributions. In all, however, 288 each had an enduring regard and respect for Fowler and his work and provided a full and detailed background of his writings and works as they experienced them. All participants were made aware of the research questions and assertions of the study and agreed that Fowler?s life work, in an overall sense, did reflect his vision that music in education could be a strong force for change, in various capacities. More important to this study are the facets of general knowledge, historical connections, contextual understanding, and personal relationships that these individuals had with Fowler. The discussion of their friendships and professional experiences provided a deep and rich understanding of Fowler?s life, philosophy, and work. Their comments further helped to bring the printed word of his writings to life. These scholars clarified my thinking about Charles Fowler and his contributions and affirmed my assertions based on extensive review of his work during the research and writing process. Kathryn Martin spoke of Fowler?s lasting contribution: He never let you stop thinking or become comfortable, so comfortable with an idea that you didn?t keep forging ahead. And I think quite apart from his contribution to the discipline of music, his contribution to thinking people was that you cannot stop thinking. You have to be forceful about what you believe and Charles was one of the most passionate people I?ve ever known about the arts and its influence on our minds and our souls and our being. 3 Charles Fowler thought outside the mainstream and knew that challenging the status quo would lead to more substantive change. Martin continued her commentary: He was pursuing directions that music educators, those with the very strictest definition of music education, were uncomfortable pursuing. And he didn?t feel that the academy itself had room for someone whose perspective on music education was much broader than what it had been traditionally. 4 Vincent Lawrence remarked of Fowler?s work ethic: I think his main goal in life was basically to assist in sort of nurturing humanity through the arts, and he did that I think, and was very unselfish the way he 289 approached those things. Nobody could work harder than Charles to do that. Nobody ever worked that hard. 5 Of his rigor as a scholar and clarity as a writer, Elliot Eisner spoke positively: He was the sober scholar, let me use that word, who had a reflective view of what music education might become and that most broadly, in place of the arts and the culture of education. So, I regarded him quite positively?. [He] wrote with clarity about the importance of the arts and essentially music education, of course. And clear writing and clear thinking in arts education isn?t all that common in my humble opinion. So, when he came along it was like another clear breeze blowing over the field. I thought that was a good thing to have happened. 6 Tim Gerber echoed this view by saying, ?To this day, in the field of arts education, I have not found a writer who writes better.? 7 A further important consideration is the fundamental difference between arts education and music education in terms of advocacy and practice in both fields. Are these two fields similar or different? This issue, although discussed at other points throughout the dissertation, merits a final look. It is clear from analysis of Fowler?s writings that as his career progressed, he was writing more and more about arts education as opposed a to strict discussion of music education. While there were specific works addressing one or the other, he was perhaps better known later in his life as an advocate for arts education rather than just being involved in music. An interesting point is that while arts education is meant to be inclusive, it is not uncommon for music to be considered in one category and art, theater, dance, and others, in another. While Fowler did believe strongly in the power of all the arts to positively impact children and schooling, his roots were still strongly grounded in music education, as has been mentioned. It is also worth noting that several interview participants expressed the view that while Fowler frequently addressed arts education, that music education traditionally was the largest of the fields and had the more powerful lobby. He clearly 290 was a music educator by training, practice, and belief. Like all scholars, however, his view broadened and changed over the years as he himself experienced different circumstances and expanded his knowledge as a writer and advocate. Bruce Wilson further supports this notion by saying, ?I thought he was one of the most significant writers on music and the arts in education. Specifically, he really broadened to be writing about all the arts in education?arts education, not just music education.? 8 Vincent Lawrence continues the thought while commenting on how music education is distinct from the other arts, ?I think his rationale?was that it was the informal experience with music that gave music education its distinct advantage over visual and performing arts.? 9 Lawrence clarified his view: He saw the arts as having intelligence in this sort of role in education, but his pedagogical focus was clearly on much more than music education. Though it is interesting?if I need a model, I remember Charles? captions with a piece of visual art. He moves it to a level of connection to music that I don?t think most people ever have done in music education?. He understood the meaning of visual art in a way that most people didn?t. But he also saw the role of sensuality in music as being a much more visceral approach than the aesthetic response to visual art. The same thing with dance. These were largely spectator kinds of things where in music you could get into the processes of all of it. 10 So it seems that while the distinction between music and arts education can be significant, there are enough examples of Fowler?s grounding in music education to easily infer that Fowler?s vision for music education was apparent much of the time. His vision and philosophy can also be carried with study of the other arts, but his writings on music education carry a particularly focused purpose as they relate to his philosophy. What of his vision was developed from 1964 to 1989? Perspectives can change with time, but it seems his vision was still clear to him throughout this period as strongly 291 evidenced through his writings and viewpoints. Philip Moeller says, ?I think looking at the dissertation and seeing how it, as a relatively developed concept, was the foundation for what came afterwards and how he used that, because I don?t think he ever abandoned it. 1 Vincent Lawrence said, ?You know clearly Charles had a concept of philosophy that did continue throughout his career.? 12 Charles Fowler had a gift for the written word. He was articulate, straightforward, and presented his arguments in convincing terms that could be appreciated by scholars, administrators, and teachers alike. He was assured in his view and presented a large and diverse number of written works that conveyed his viewpoint and moved the profession towards change. Tim Gerber commented on Fowler?s talent for writing: [One] thing that I liked best about Charles was his ability to write persuasive, clear, thoughtful, thought-provoking prose. He was able to think complex ideas and write it in such a way that its eloquence of expression enabled a reader to understand it immediately. 13 As one influenced by reconstructionist philosophy, Fowler believed that music education could be used for reform inside education, and for societal improvement outside of it. Bruce Wilson said, ?I think what he was aiming towards really was music education as an agent of change, in that he felt education required some change. He thought that music education should be an agent of change.? 14 Fowler was a true reconstructionist who believed that music was vital to schooling and society. It was his mission to present this message and convince communities of the larger argument that music education could create positive change and improve conditions. David O?Fallon affirmed this idea: He was so dedicated to the power and beauty of music and the other arts as just essential aspects of being a human being, and to have an education system which 292 either left that out or circumscribed it so tightly was really nothing he could live with. So I think certainly a piece of his mission?I?m not sure it was his whole mission?was that agenda of making the arts a common part of everybody?s learning life. I don't mean even just schooling. I mean broader than that. 15 Continuing further, what can be said to clarify Charles Fowler and his vision for music education?including, but also beyond, the printed word on the page? Who was the man connected to this vision and philosophy? What were his unique talents? David O?Fallon remarked, ?I think he was far ahead of the field in his thinking about how you did music and shared music and made music and how you, therefore, thought about music education.? 16 Tim Gerber stated one characteristic he liked best about Fowler: One was his just absolute love of life. He really saw life as a celebration, music being one aspect of that, the arts being central to that. But his love of life was one of the things that I really enjoyed about him. 17 Vincent Lawrence spoke of Fowler?s talent for getting to the center of what music- making was all about?that moment of connection when the technical elements turn into emotional understanding and excitement. In clarifying the vision, Lawrence explained his understanding of Fowler?s viewpoint: When you teach children music you?the purpose is to give them goose bumps and you only conceptualize about music and make the goose bumps bigger?.You teach that largely by setting up discovery environments and so the amount of interaction with music was very, very comprehensive. That needs to be the bulk of the instruction the interaction with the music. Then the other thing is to relate music to some kind of common dimension in people?s lives. 18 Kathryn Martin continued this line of thinking: One of the most important things that Charlie did was he realized that gifted music students needed to have the opportunity to pursue skills development. But he also was willing to acknowledge, in a way that most music educators at the time were not willing to acknowledge, that music in the schools could play a different role than simply skills development, that there were areas where there was knowledge transfer that occurred through music. 19 293 Barbara Reeder Lundquist echoed many of these sentiments and highly valued Fowler?s perspective and contribution to music education during their professional relationship of 25-plus years. She shared her thoughts on Fowler and his work: I can remember being so heartened by the fact that he was in music and at MENC, and the fact that he was so right on target as far as his interest in not only expanding curriculum, but also his interest in the communicative and the social realization, self-realization of music and the creative life orientation which you have identified as the seven things that he had come up with in his dissertation. 20 Reeder-Lundquist conveyed the deep sense of connection she had with Fowler: It was absolutely wonderful to talk to him. It was so gratifying and so ratifying because I was going to places where there were very entrenched attitudes that were far from what either he, or I had become convinced was necessary to the study of music. 21 A concluding thought offered by Reeder-Lundquist expressed Fowler?s broader view of music education: Charles really had a very much larger perspective, more of a vision than just music education.... [He was] so convinced that it?s way beyond music education and it has to do with the way people live. And the quality of aesthetic experiences is where the precious, the nuance of life is found. 2 From this testimony, the convictions of Charles Fowler are apparent, and I assert that his vision was clear and strong throughout the twenty-five year period of the study, along with the remainder of his career. These voices of experience offer sustained support that Fowler?s vision was indeed strong and clear. Looking at the sheer volume of work he placed into this singular subject of music and its role and value in schools is a serious testament to his lifelong vision for music education: that music can be an agent of social and systemic change, and that its centrality to schools and their purpose is of critical and paramount importance. 294 Relationship to Current Trends and Practices In addition to understanding Fowler in a historical sense, this study further suggests how his ideas relate to current trends in music education and better appreciate the need for research into his works and ideas. This does not presuppose that his work will bear relevance to current trends but that initial research shows him as an active, reform-minded thinker throughout his entire career. This research also indicates Fowler?s consistency of thought over time, including some sources reviewed that were written after the time-frame of this study, such as his final two books in the early 1990s. These works provide further evidence of the regularity and steadfastness of his vision and of his beliefs of the power of music in education. Fowler remained relevant during his career by adapting to educational and cultural circumstances around him while always knowing his audience. This can be seen from his transitions into various types of jobs, the prolific number and variety of his publications, and his willingness to challenge commonly-held views, publishers, institutions and others, in order to publicize the messages he considered important. During his career he addressed topics such as music methods and materials, urban education, assessment, advocacy, keeping music in the schools, creativity, multiculturalism, educational reform, community and business relationships in music education, technology, and the place of music education in general education. An overview of his writings illustrates the progressive nature of his work and thinking. Furthermore, many of his ideas are still highly relevant in the context of the years that have passed since his death in 1995. 295 A first example of his relevance to contemporary music education can be found in Basic Concepts in Music Education II, where he authored the lead chapter. The title, ?Finding the Way to Be Basic: Music Education in the 1990s and Beyond,? 23 addressed many of the pressing issues of the day and outlined many areas that he believed needed deep consideration. This chapter is a cogent example of his work in an historical and contemporary sense because the first edition was written in 1958, and this text was the follow-up and response to the first edition. While Fowler did not contribute to the first book, the chapter in the second edition shows his awareness of these trends over time. Fowler wrote eloquently about these happenings near the end of his life, understood the climate at the time, and considered a forward-thinking view about what the future might hold. Topics included in the chapter are the context of the arts in American society, the context of education, educational reform, testing, and policy. The overall thrust of the chapter was to emphasize that music was a basic and central subject and should be treated as a core component of the educational curriculum. In considering this chapter, along with other ideas that he attempted to address during his career, a rich agenda for music education can be seen. To argue that his ideas are relevant in the 21st-century context, a comparison with the New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning shows that Fowler was knowledgeable about pressing issues that are still debated today. 24 In this foundational text, headings and chapters can be found addressing policy, educational context, curriculum, reform, assessment, music and culture, outcomes in general education, and arts education advocacy, among others. It is further useful to note that philosophy and sociology were 296 given significant weight in the Basic Concepts text. Philosophy played an important role in Fowler?s thinking and writing, having been influenced by reconstructionist philosophy. Furthermore, if the premise holds true that he did believe in music education as a social change agent, it is not far removed to suggest that sociology was an important consideration in his work, as well. This was evident in one of his last works, Music! Its Role and Importance in Our Lives. 25 In this high school general music text, Fowler approached music appreciation utilizing a sociological perspective. Music education philosophy was new at the beginning of Fowler?s career, and sociology in music education was also rare on the landscape of the 1960s music education community. Fowler, however, held a sociological view and considered music an endeavor that was an outgrowth of society, rather than a separate entity that was elite and distinct from other forms of the human experience. Consequently, the fact that he valued these areas of study so early is further evidence of his forward-thinking outlook. It is further useful to note the present-day interest in social justice issues in general and music education research. 26 Social justice issues relate directly to reconstructionism and the notion that education has the power to transform individuals and society. By extension, Fowler?s reconstructed view of music education posits that music study can also accomplish forms of substantive change and that social justice is an important contribution the arts can make to children and education. Fowler?s final work was titled, Strong Arts, Strong Schools: The Promising Potential and Shortsighted Disregard of the Arts in American Schooling. 27 In this book, he laid out his final views on arts education and why he believed they were important to 297 children and schools. Fowler addressed four primary areas, with various essays that discussed how these issues affected the arts in schooling, why they were relevant, and how to overcome the obstacles facing school systems in implementing comprehensive music and arts programs in the schools. The areas Fowler presented were Conditions, Justification, Curriculum, and Reform. He carefully laid out why these conditions existed, described their impact, and offered a compelling justification for inclusion of the arts in education. Fowler then outlined curricular suggestions that would be pragmatic in instituting fine arts in the schools and finally identified how reform efforts outside schools would aid in placing an arts curriculum inside classrooms. These are universal issues affecting music and arts education, and Fowler drew upon the knowledge and experience of his 40-plus year career to provide progressive and continuing ways to work towards comprehensive arts education for all children. This text has become a standard of the literature and emphasizes how Fowler was progressive during his career and continues to remain an important force to the present day. One can see that Charles Fowler was indeed a progressive thinker and writer. This was established by comparing several themes of Fowler?s early and later career, an important book chapter from 1991, and his final published book in 1995, with current trends in contemporary music education. These links illustrate that he not only addressed cogent themes during his own day, but that his thinking remains highly relevant in the current context of music education. I further suggest that these links emphasize the significance of this study by examining how historical thoughts, ideas, and writings, can 298 be useful agents to affect and impact critical aims and goals within the music education profession. General Conclusions of the Study In sum, Charles Fowler was an important figure and prolific writer in music education during his professional career from 1952 to 1995 and was especially active during the years from 1964 to 1989. From his dissertation objectives in 1964, his writings during his middle two periods, the context of his work, and the broad themes and core concepts that emerged from them, I conclude that Charles Fowler believed that music education served a reconstructive purpose in education and society, and that his vision remained connected to his seven original objectives and the emerging themes which grew out of the work and experiences of his career. His vision for music education was a clear call to democratic ideals and a reform- minded approach that included reaching all children through music as critical to the mission of music education. The core concepts, which narrow Fowler?s vision to its most basic elements are (1) Reform of theory and practice, (2) Democracy of music education, (3) Teaching creative life orientation, (4) Music and arts education advocacy, and (5) Music education as social change agent. These core concepts suggest substantive action and look to the largest possible application of theory into practice in order to affect the most positive change and progressive reform for music and arts education in the schools. Although Fowler is primarily known as an arts education advocate, his roots, training, and philosophy were firmly rooted in music education. He attended three institutions that are historically well-regarded universities for the study of music education: SUNY-Potsdam, Northwestern University, and Boston University. He studied 299 with Robert Choate and Max Kaplan and worked extensively with Wiley Housewright, Charles Gary, Vanett Lawler, and Louis Wersen. Fowler has been cited by Michael Mark, Estelle Jorgensen, Hildegard Froehlich, and Richard Colwell, among others. He contributed articles to the Music Educators Journal, the Journal of Research in Music Education, and Musical America, along with other important research journals and various publications. During the course of his career he was a student of music education, classroom teacher, composer, music supervisor, university professor, writer, editor, author, scholar, spokesman, consultant, and advocate. He trained music teachers, attended their conferences, went to their concerts, discussed music education with them, wrote for and about them, edited their journals, and never stopped challenging the profession to continually work to improve practice and pursue reform. Fowler was acknowledged by colleagues as teacher, professor, writer, and editor inside music education and as consultant and advocated outside of it. He was invited to speak, asked to write, contracted to edit and consult, and often cited in many important works of scholarship by seasoned scholars within the profession. These connections being firmly in place, Fowler continued throughout his career to challenge the status quo of music education and its practice. His vision for music education was broad and deep, and he valued progressive change its potential for impact on schools and society. His prolific output, focused on these important goals, attest to his sustained belief that music education plays a critical role in the development of children and the schools they attend. Fowler was a unique figure who was solidly grounded in music education, yet looked outside in multiple directions in order to impact the 300 profession through innovative means to ensure its survival and growth. The prolific writings and works of Charles Fowler are an important contribution to the literature, and his vision for music education is compelling and clear. The interview commentary chosen from the eight participants consulted for the study along with several thousand pages of diverse and relevant documents support the assertions of the study. Fowler often included newspaper clippings and other news and documents that related to the subject of the article or work to which it was attached in the archive. He often was one of the few writers on music and education who took large, federal, or national issues in general education and clarified their relevance to and impact on music education. Music could play a critical role in schools and society, and Fowler fought his entire career to convince those who could influence education to understand this concept. In this way, he was pragmatic as well as philosophical. He knew one had to speak the language of those outside music education to convince them to provide support where it was needed most. Fowler was a progressive thinker for his time. Many of the ideas he suggested are now more common in music and public education. In the mid-1960s, however, he was challenging the status quo in a way that was revolutionary. Several of those interviewed made this point and noted that Fowler encountered professional resistance during much of his career because of his challenge to traditional thinking and practices. Such defiance was not a deterrent but compelled him to work harder to present his views to ?make a statement? and ?reach a wider audience.? 28 That Fowler was forward-thinking is only one part of the picture, but it does illustrate a critical component of his reconstructionist philosophy: if music education was 301 to be a social change agent, it could only be carried out through the music teacher and the profession. Fowler was that agent?teacher, professor, scholar, writer, editor, spokesman, and advocate?working towards positive change and progressive reform within the field. Fowler?s circle of influence affected multiple and diverse participants in the professions of arts education. He worked to reach all who were involved and interested in teaching and learning and who worked toward improving the conditions of children through study of music and the arts. Fowler considered many different purposes and values for the arts in schooling, Learning in the arts offers students a way to understand its intrinsic and personal value for each individual and their circumstances. Another view suggests that the ?doing? of the arts can enhance a child?s education and broaden their view of academic study and its meanings and knowledge. The arts can also provide a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction and memory of positive impact and understanding the broader picture of the study of music. These views of the value of music emphasize Charles Fowler?s belief in a student- centered instructional approach to music education. The majority of his works relate to the student in the music classroom with multiple branches of theory, practice, and dialogue emanating from them. Imagine the music student in the center of a circle, with connections to internal issues in one direction?teacher, curriculum, learning, performance, assessment, and other ideas; and external issues in another direction?home and societal conditions, budgets, local, state and federal education policy, reform and advocacy, and others. One can use this image to put into practice the work and writings of Charles Fowler. 302 During the course of his career, Fowler addressed nearly every major issue affecting music education, both inside and outside the profession. He crossed the line between academic and professional writing, considered multiple research methodologies, internal and external issues in education, and the role and purpose of music education in American schooling. So ultimately, what was his greatest gift: originality of thought and ideas, ability to articulate the value of music education, visibility and reach of his advocacy, or the tangible impact of his vision? 29 It seems that all of these apply to Fowler?s legacy, but perhaps his unique contribution was his ability to present an idea in a compelling way that enlivened the reader and encouraged a sense of possibility and real change to the lives of children through arts education and its experiences. This powerful writing and communicative ability makes his work valuable in the most supreme sense: Fowler spoke to multiple stakeholders about the most critical issues surrounding music and arts education during his entire career. By extension, the research presented here allows his voice to remain heard in the continued dialogue surrounding reform inside and outside of music education, the importance of music in general education, and its larger value to schooling, community, and society. Implications for Further Research This study represents a first examination into the oeuvre of Charles Fowler?s writings, and opportunities for further research are numerous. This dissertation is an initial introduction to his life and work, and four periods of his career were identified that organize his output based on seminal and important events that occurred during his lifetime. The focus of this dissertation has been the middle two periods, which include 1964 to 1973 and 1974 to 1989. Consequently, an obvious starting point for further 303 research is analysis and discussion of works and events from the first period of 1948 to 1963, and the fourth period, from 1990 to 1995. Another area of useful research would be continued analysis of writings that could not be reviewed for this study. Fowler was prolific in his output, having written over 230 articles, several books, and many speeches and presentations. He edited dozens of journals and magazines, wrote several hundred letters, notes, commentaries, scripts, related research, and personal writings. In this study, by necessity, I carefully selected the presented documents according to the purpose of this dissertation, which was to better understand Fowler?s vision for music education. As a result, a large number of works remain for consideration. His papers, housed in the Special Collections in the Performing Arts at the Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library at the University of Maryland College Park, consists of 236 boxes that covers approximately 120 linear feet of space?certainly plenty to fill an active research agenda for any music education scholar. 30 With this wealth of material available, one can foresee many possible avenues to pursue looking at further writings of Charles Fowler. Other options to consider might be a compilation of letters with commentary, a collection of lesser-known articles placed in context or centered on a specific theme such as advocacy, teaching practice, federal policy, reform issues, assessment, and others. A deeper look into Fowler?s biography and his personal background and life would be a beneficial complement to scholarly work and professional writing to understand his viewpoint as an individual, professional, scholar, and writer on music education topics and issues. 304 Further consideration of his time and his output at MENC would shed more light onto his work as editor and writer in earlier days in his career. Another important historical study might be comparison of Fowler materials with relevant documents at the MENC Historical Archives at University of Maryland. Perhaps consideration of the MENC archives would further help contextualize Fowler and his work in the broader world of music education. One could also perhaps see other interpretations of events from the time that Fowler was working as editor of the Music Educators Journal to better understand his impact, why the MEJ was believed to be so progressive, and how those techniques might be applied to music education research today. This would also be useful to help MENC continue to develop ways to reach outside the profession to promote the message of music education as beneficial to all students. How was Fowler?s work viewed within music education? What kind of exposure did he have in the profession and how was his work valued? This would be interesting to better understand his reach as a unique figure who was grounded in music education but worked primarily outside of it. Perhaps this could be extended to his work at Musical America, considering the audiences he was reaching there and the impact he had on those interested in music education but not working as music teachers in the classroom. In essence, was he able to be a more influential change agent for music education because he could reach audiences both inside and outside of the profession? It would also be very useful to reprint the articles published in Musical America into a single or multi-volume set, with annotations and/or critical commentary, possibly including that of significant figures represented or related to the articles. The nearly 170 columns that Fowler either wrote or edited during his tenure at Musical America 305 addressed numerous topics relating to music and arts education, policy issues, teaching techniques, advocacy tools, innovative programs, and myriad perspectives on the value and purpose of arts education in the schools. These would be valuable not only to scholars looking at how past practice can better assist future reform, but also for practitioners looking for support in promoting the character and value of their work with children in the schools. Another interesting project would be utilizing the interviews from the study and offering informed commentary from those who worked extensively with him. These perspectives on Fowler and his contributions could possibly garner more interest in his message, philosophy, and writings. From there, perhaps greater interest in his archival material might take place, and additional researchers could take advantage of the wealth of material included in his papers. Publication of several important speeches presented by Fowler, with commentary, would be another interesting volume. A study of selected works with a focus on social justice would be a means to more strongly connect music education with the growing field of research on conditions of equity in education. The Charles Fowler Colloquium was started at the University of Maryland in 1993 and focused on innovations in arts education. Further discussion is needed in this area, and Fowler?s work and ideas are excellent starting points to continue the dialogue. These colloquia and other meetings could continue at the University of Maryland or elsewhere, with the most important focus being to bring scholars and teachers of music together to discuss how to support and grow music and arts education programs in the schools. The publications of proceedings would follow in the tradition that has taken place since the first colloquium in College Park. 31 A festschrift would be a welcome 306 addition to the literature and an important way to honor Fowler?s lifetime of work devoted to music education, by the very people who benefited from his dedication to the profession. The primary value of many of these suggestions would be to acquaint a new generation with these important and timely works regarding music and arts education. Fowler was guided by his vision and philosophy, and there are many additional works that explore further his unique view and role of music education that are worthy of further analysis. He was also pragmatic and action-oriented in his suggestions and writings. To think of ways that additional research could be used in a practical context would be a beneficial contribution to the profession. Some of these ideas were mentioned above, such as annotated collections and other compilations of compelling and useful material that are currently lesser-known to the academy, public schools, and other institutions and individuals. There are many other options to consider in investigating further the contributions of Charles Fowler, and this list represents a mere beginning. By putting all of these ideas together, however, the larger goal is to reach a wider audience that would be the beneficiary of further inquiry into the vision and work of Charles Fowler. This would afford the opportunity for his unique and progressive view to become more familiar to a new generation of students, music teachers, and scholars. The legacy of Charles Fowler to music education should be recognized and praised so that his writings will still be valued, appreciated, and implemented within music and arts education in present and future contexts. Fowler?s unique message highlighted critical concerns and issues when he conveyed it, which are still compelling 307 and important in the present context. The needs of the profession are too great to ignore the valuable resource of Charles Fowler and his excellent work and vision for music education, which were progressive during his lifetime and remain relevant to this very day. Final Thoughts and Commentary Can music affect and reform all ills of public education? The obvious answer is no?there is no wholesale prescription to fix most anything. This is no reason to abandon the challenge, however. While change may be slow, it can occur and achieve positive effect. As passionate as Charles Fowler was in his convictions of the value of music education, he was also realistic and pragmatic in his view. He knew reform took time and that it was difficult to measure?but never gave up?even amongst the fiercest opposition from both inside and outside the profession. As former Vice-President Al Gore said recently, ?social change, like climate change, is nonlinear.? 32 Anyone who has worked in the hallowed halls of education, public or otherwise, can certainly attest to this view. That Fowler persevered amongst difficult obstacles is the larger point. He was certain in his convictions. He knew that music education was a change agent, and its true and full impact only remained to be seen. Through his eloquent rhetoric during 45 years of arguing for the cause of music education in the schools, he presented his thoughts clearly, with passion, and in an articulate way that would convince even the strongest skeptic. The prose of Charles Fowler was a clarion call to action through a flowing message of hope. This continued belief should remain under consideration today as the reform of music education and its placement in general education remains challenged yet still of vital necessity to children, schools, and communities. 308 The debate continues and Fowler?s voice can still lend a powerful perspective that music in schools is important to children and society. A recent article in The New York Times discussed the topic of art in the schools and its value to children?s development and general education. 3 The main premise contended that it is important for children to study art and music, but new and stronger reasoning needs to be formulated to preserve arts education in the schools. The thesis presented in this article from 2007 could be considered synonymous with Fowler?s lifework since 1964: offer clear and convincing arguments for music and arts education so that no doubt remains as to its contribution and value. Fowler was progressive in his thinking, thorough in his conviction, strong in his approach?and his vision and writings still ring true to this very day. Multiple perspectives influence change in music education. These are the music student, music teacher, general teacher, parent, principal, school board member, superintendent, business leader, community member, mayor, governor, representative, senator and society at large. Fowler communicated with all of these constituencies in a qualified and compelling manner. This is the ultimate value of this research and of Fowler?s contribution?it speaks to all of us: the music student, parent, band director, orchestra conductor, choir instructor, general music teacher, elementary and secondary practitioner, university professor and academic hierarchy, and community and society. Charles Fowler spoke to musician and non-musician, student and parent, teacher and administrator, school board member and superintendent, community member and business leader. He believed as part of his vision for music education that music is an agent of social change, and that quality instruction inside the music classroom helps children to achieve great performances and experiences that convince those outside the 309 classroom to appreciate and value it. Music educators must take note of Charles Fowler and his voice so that the potential of music education?in its aesthetic, social, communicative, democratic, discriminating, cosmopolitan, and creative ways?can truly be an agent of change that education has yet to know. 310 Chapter Seven Notes 1 Charles Fowler, ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education? (PhD diss., Boston University, 1964), 404, 410, 422, 428, 437, 442, and 448. 2 For further detail about the interview participants, please see Chapter Three of this dissertation that deals with the methodology and lists all eight individuals interviewed along with their institutional affiliations or connections to the study. These interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed for further review and analysis. They have aided in synthesizing the information used in this chapter and others, which support the research findings and assertions of the study. As a quick reference, those interviewed were Philip Moeller, Bruce Wilson, Elliot Eisner, Timothy Gerber, Kathryn Martin, David O?Fallon, Vincent Lawrence, and Barbara Reeder-Lundquist. 3 Kathryn Martin, Telephone interview with author, 10 July 2007, Duluth, MN. 4 Ibid. 5 Vincent Lawrence, Telephone interview with author, 26 July 2007, Pittsburgh, PA. 6 Elliot Eisner, Telephone interview with author, 3 July 2007, Stanford, CA. 7 Timothy Gerber, Telephone interview with author, 8 July 2007, Westchester, PA. 8 Bruce Wilson, Telephone interview with author, 26 June 2007, Canaan Valley, WV. 9 Vincent Lawrence, Telephone interview with author, 26 July 2007, Pittsburgh, PA. 10 Ibid. 1 Philip Moeller, Personal interview with author, 21 July 2006, Washington, DC. 12 Vincent Lawrence, Telephone interview with author, 26 July 2007, Pittsburgh, PA. 13 Timothy Gerber, Telephone interview with author, 8 July 2007, Westchester, PA. 14 Bruce Wilson, Telephone interview with author, 26 June 2007, Canaan Valley, WV. 15 David O?Fallon, Telephone interview with author, 19 July 2007, Minneapolis, MN. 16 David O?Fallon, Telephone interview with author, 19 July 2007, Minneapolis, MN. 17 Timothy Gerber, Telephone interview with author, 8 July 2007, Westchester, PA. 18 Vincent Lawrence, Telephone interview with author, 26 July 2007, Pittsburgh, PA. 311 19 Kathryn Martin, Telephone interview with author, 10 July 2007, Duluth, MN. 20 Barbara R. Lundquist, Telephone interview with author, 6 August 2007, Seattle, WA. 21 Ibid. 2 Ibid. 23 Charles Fowler, ?Finding the Way to Be Basic: Music Education in the 1990s and Beyond,? in Basic Concepts in Music Education, II, ed. Richard Colwell (Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1991), 3-26. Although this chapter was written in 1991 and technically outside of the 25-year period of analysis of the dissertation, this piece is important because it reflects his thinking of the 1980s (and even earlier) as to the relevance, importance, and value of music education. 24 Richard Colwell and Carol Richardson, eds., The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). 25 Charles Fowler, Timothy Gerber, and Vincent Lawrence, Music! Its Role and Importance in Our Lives (New York: Glencoe Publishers, 1994). Again, this source was written after 1989, but represents Fowler?s pragmatic approach or practical application of his theory of music education as beneficial to children and society. In creating a music appreciation text for high school students, he put forth the theories and ideas from his career in a praxial way that is useable by teachers and students. It is interesting to note that few, if any, other texts exist devoted to music appreciation and understanding for high school level students. 26 Richard Colwell and Carol Richardson, eds., The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002); Hildegard C. Froehlich, Sociology for Music Teachers: Perspectives for Practice, (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007). These texts from the bibliography provide some insight into current views on sociology and social justice in music education. While the focus of this dissertation is not a thorough discussion of current social justice trends, it is important to note these texts and other scholars in the field to highlight Fowler?s relevance to the work and continued contemporary importance. While by no means exhaustive, selected other authors working in this field include Roberta Lamb, Elizabeth Gould, Sondra Wieland Howe, Estelle Jorgensen, Hildegard Froehlich, Barbara Reeder Lundquist (also interviewed for this study), and Randall Allsup, among others. 27 Charles Fowler, Strong Arts, Strong Schools: The Promising Potential and Shortsighted Disregard of the Arts in American Schooling (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). 312 28 As I suggested earlier in the dissertation, I have determined four periods of Fowler?s career. The middle two, which are the focus of this study, are 1964 to 1973, ?Making a Statement,? and 1974-1989, ?Reaching a Wider Audience.? 29 Philip Silvey raised these compelling questions near the end of the study. They offer another interesting way to help narrow Fowler?s most important contributions to the field to succinct and focused conclusions. 30 Lynn Jacobsen and Bonnie Jo Dopp, Charles Fowler Papers Finding Aid, (University of Maryland Libraries, 1999). 31 The proceedings from several of the early colloquia presented in Charles Fowler?s name are listed in the bibliography under Secondary Sources. 32 James Traub, ?Al Gore Has Big Plans,? The New York Times Magazine, May 20, 2007, 50. 3 Robin Pogrebin, ?Book Tackles Old Debate: Role of Art in Schools,? The New York Times, 4 August 2007, (NYTimes Online). 313 Bibliography Primary Sources Special Collections and Private Papers Fowler, Charles Bruner. Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts, Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland, College Park Maryland. Articles at Musical America by Charles Fowler Fowler, Charles. ?Interdisciplinary Model Programs in the Arts for Children and Teachers (IMPACT).? Musical America 24 (April 1974): 17-20. _____. ?Alan Lomax?s ?Cantometrics? Links Song Style to Life Style.? Musical America 24 (May 1974): 17-20. _____. ?Cantometrics, Continued: In Search of a Musical Universal.? Musical America 24 (June 1974): 14-17. _____. ?Comment on Music Educators National Conference (MENC) New National Headquarters Building.? Musical America 24 (June 1974): 1. _____. ?Music Educators National Conference (MENC) 42nd Annual Convention.? Musical America 24 (July 1974): 14-15, 40. _____. ?National Survey of Musical Performance.? Musical America 24 (August 1974): 12-13. _____. ?Institut de Hautes Etudes Musicales (IHEM) in Montreux, Switzerland.? Musical America 24 (October 1974): 9-12. _____. ?Gary Karr, Performer and Teacher.? Musical America 24 (November 1974): 11- 13. _____. ?Parks, Arts & Leisure Project.? Musical America 24 (December 1974): 11-13. _____. ?Education in the Arts: Getting It All Together.? Musical America 25 (February 1975): 6-8. _____. ?Music In Our Schools Day: An Opportunity to Take Stock.? Musical America 25 (March 1975): 12-14. 314 _____. ?Developing Musical Perception: Dalcroze Still Works.? Musical America 25 (April 1975): 6-8. _____. ?J. C. Penney Launches a Bicentennial Music Celebration.? Musical America 25 (June 1975): 8-9, 39. _____. ?Arts & Business: Partners.? Musical America 25 (July 1975): 12-13, 39. _____. ?Music Career Curriculum Development Study of the Wisconsin Conservatory in Milwaukee.? Musical America 25 (September 1975): 4-6. _____. ?The Media are Music Education.? Musical America 25 (October 1975): 7-9, 40. _____. ?Artists in Schools: They Make a Difference.? Musical America 25 (November 1975): 8-9. _____. ?The Smithsonian: Teaching our Musical Heritage.? Musical America 26 (January 1976): 8-9. _____. ?The Alliance for Arts Education: Force for Change.? Musical America 26 (February 1976): 8-11. _____. ?The Music Educators National Conference (MENC): David Faces New Goliaths.? Musical America 26 (April 1976): 8-9. _____. ?Aesthetic Education: New Thrust at Lincoln Center.? Musical America 26 (May 1976): 8-9. _____. ?Poverty: An Ingrained Idea.? Musical America 26 (June 1976): 10-11. _____. ?Copyright and the Classroom.? Musical America 26 (July 1976): 8-9. _____. ?The Accountability Dilemma.? Musical America 26 (August 1976): 8-9. _____. ?CEMREL ? Bringing Education to its Senses.? Musical America 26 (September 1976): 9-11. _____. ?This is the Army.? Musical America 26 (October 1976): 8-9. _____. ?Valuing Our Cultural Treasury.? Musical America 26 (November 1976): 8-11. _____. ?Sex Bias in the Music Room.? Musical America 26 (December 1976): 8-9. _____. ?The New Defense.? Musical America 27 (February 1977): 9, 39. 315 _____. ?The Role of the National Endowment.? Musical America 27 (March 1977): 12, 34. _____. ?Special Treatment for the Gifted: Harrisburg Riverside Arts Center.? Musical America 27 (April 1977): 14, 15. _____. ?Arts Resource Teams in the Schools: Project ARTS.? Musical America 27 (May 1977): 12-13, 18-19. _____. ?More Arts for the Handicapped.? Musical America 27 (June 1977): 9-11. _____. ?The Community School Movement.? Musical America 27 (July 1977): 12-13, 40. _____. ?At Kennedy Center: A Laboratory for Musical Theater.? Musical America 27 (August 1977): 8-9. _____. ?A New Rationale for the Arts in Education.? Musical America 27 (September 1977): 13-15. _____. ?The Richmond Bill: H.R. 1042.? Musical America 27 (November 1977): 16. _____. ?Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) Funds: A Boon to North Carolina.? Musical America 27 (December 1977): 16-18. _____. ?Learning Music Via TV.? Musical America 28 (February 1978): 14-15. _____. ?The American Assembly Look at the Future.? Musical America 28 (March 1978): 10-11, 40. _____. ?What?s Wrong with Music Education?? Musical America 28 (April 1978): 7, 40. _____. ?The Big Fight in Minnesota.? Musical America 28 (May 1978): 12-13. _____. ?The Tanglewood Symposium Revisited.? Musical America 28 (July 1978): 14- 15. _____. ?Enlightenment at Little Rock.? Musical America 28 (August 1978): 10-11. _____. ?Cantometrics: A New World for the Music Classroom.? Musical America 28 (September 1978): 10-11. _____. ?The Arts in Rural Oklahoma.? Musical America 28 (November 1978): 14-15. _____. ?Jazzmobile: A Community Educational Force.? Musical America 28 (December 1978): 11. 316 ____. ?Symphony Orchestras as Teachers.? Musical America 29 (January 1979): 16-19, 40. _____. ?Teaching Music Like Math: It Works.? Musical America 29 (February 1979): 10-11. _____. ?Musical Encounters in Los Angeles: A Program of the Young Musicians Foundation.? Musical America 29 (April 1979): 8-9, 26. _____. ?The NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) and Education: A Long-overdue Truce.? Musical America 29 (June 1979): 14-15. _____. ?Disney Productions Looks at Education.? Musical America 29 (July 1979): 9-12. _____. ?Black Participation at the Kennedy Center: Goals are Set for Cultural Diversity.? Musical America 29 (August 1979): 16-17, 40. _____. ?The Christmas Carol Hassle.? Musical America 29 (September 1979): 14-16. _____. ?Senior Citizen Symphony Brings Music to Children: Winston-Salem ensemble.? Musical America 29 (October 1979): 16-17. _____. ?Arts by the Handicapped: A National Very Special Festival Opens Doors to Self-Expression.? Musical America 29 (November 1979): 12-14. _____. ?The Arts in Education Program: Little Rock Shines.? Musical America 29 (December 1979): 8-9, 37. _____. ?Funding for Arts Programs: The Total is Not So Bleak.? Musical America 30 (February 1980): 14-15. _____. ?Montclair and the Arts: A Blue-Ribbon Affair.? Musical America 30 (March 1980): 10-11, 15. _____. ?In Tribute: The JDR Fund.? Musical America 30 (April 1980): 12-13, 15. _____. ?Ferris State College: Where the Arts are for Everyone.? Musical America 30 (May 1980): 14-15, 18. _____. ?Arts Education: Does the Left Hand Know?? Musical America 30 (June 1980): 10-11, 37. _____. ?Public Universities: The New Cultural Centers.? Musical America 30 (July 1980): 8-9, 15. 317 _____. ?Older Americans: A New Resource of Creative Talent.? Musical America 30 (August 1980): 9-12. _____. ?Young Scholars in the Arts Are Honored.? Musical America 30 (October 1980): 17, 19. _____. ?Wagner?s Ring for Children? You Must Be Kidding!? Musical America 30 (November 1980): 12-13. _____. ?The Blossom Festival School: Ohio Has an Answer to Tanglewood.? Musical America 30 (December 1980): 6-8, 14. _____. ?Music in Our Schools: An Agenda for the Future.? Musical America 31 (March 1981): 14, 20. _____. ?A Visual Aid to Music Appreciation: Slide Projections De-mystify the Score.? Musical America 31 (April 1981): 14-17. _____. ?The Met Says Let?s Make an Opera.? Musical America 31 (May 1981): 12-15. _____. ?Music & Children: Three Methods of Approach Resources.? Musical America 31 (June 1981): 14-15, 40. _____. ?Music of the Americas: Organization of American States (OAS) Recordings are a Gold-mine for Public Schools.? Musical America 31 (July 1981): 18-20. _____. ?Music With a Difference at CalArts.? Musical America 31 (August 1981): 12-14. _____. ?The Kennedy Center?s Imagination Celebration.? Musical America 31 (September 1981): 10-13. _____. ?The Rockefeller Fund Offers Grants to Schools.? Musical America 31 (October 1981): 6. _____. ?A National Advocacy Program in Support of Stronger Arts Education Programs, sponsored by Arts, Education and Americans, Inc. (AEA).? Musical America 31 (November 1981): 11-13. _____. ?Arts in the Schools: A Comprehensive View.? Musical America 31 (December 1981): 10-11. _____. ?Lincoln Center Institute: It Tangles With the Issues.? Musical America 32 (January 1982): 11-13. _____. ?High Schools of the Arts.? Musical America 32 (March 1982): 11,40. 318 _____. ?Changing Schools Through the Arts.? Musical America 32 (April 1982): 10-11. _____. ?Musical Achievement: Good News & Bad.? Musical America 32 (May 1982): 12, 24. _____. ?The Lack of Professionalism in Higher Education.? Musical America 32 (June 1982): 14-15. _____. ?Cheers for Radio City Music Hall.? Musical America 32 (July 1982): 13-15. _____. ?Musical Toys for Tots: They Can Spark a Life-long Interest.? Musical America 32 (August 1982): 10-12. _____. ?The Lack of Professionalism in Higher Education Education?Continued.? Musical America 32 (September 1982): 13-14. _____. ?Electronic Music Revisited.? Musical America 32 (October 1982): 16,19. _____. ?Baldwin Sets the Pace: One Company?s Answer to Cutbacks in the Schools.? Musical America 33 (January 1983): 6-8, 40. _____. ?The Many versus the Few.? Musical America 33 (February 1983): 10, 12. _____. ?The Music Came from Deep Inside: A New Report ? Handicapped Children Respond to the Arts.? Musical America 33 (March 1983): 13-15. _____. ?Little Leagues, Science Clubs & Opera: The National Opera Institute?s 25-year Plan.? Musical America 33 (April 1983): 13-15. _____. ?Arts Recognition and Talent Search (ARTS) Program Support Young Talent.? Musical America 33 (May 1983): 11-13, 38 _____. ?Where Does Our Talent Come From? The ARTS Program.? Musical America 33 (June 1983): 12-14. _____. ?A Video History of Western Music.? Musical America 33 (August 1983): 9-11. _____. ?What to do When Your Child Won?t Practice.? Musical America 33 (September 1983): [manuscript only]. _____. ?Deciding What to Teach: A New Book Makes a Very Strong Case for the Arts.? Musical America 33 (October 1983): 12-13. _____. ?Education Reports (Part I): What Message for the Arts?? Musical America 33 (November 1983): 10-13. 319 _____. ?Education Reports (Part II).? Musical America 33 (December 1983): 9-11. _____. ?A Look into the Crystal Ball.? Musical America 34 (January 1984): 6-9. _____. ?Education Reports (Part III).? Musical America 34 (March 1984): 12-14. _____. ?New York State?s Flourishing Summer School.? Musical America 34 (April 1984): 9-12, 33. _____. ?Congress & the Arts: Getting With It.? Musical America 34 (May 1984): 6, 29, 40. _____. ?Music: A Basic Intelligence.? Musical America 34 (June 1984): 12, 14, 40. _____. ?Arts Education: A New Role for the NEA?? Musical America 34 (July 1984): 9- 11, 35. _____. ?Arts in Basic Education: A Fight for Life?? Musical America 34 (August 1984): 13, 18. _____. ?Music Educators Meet?But Do They Miss the Point?? Musical America 34 (September 1984): 11-13, 34, 36. _____. ?National Public Radio (NPR) Survives the Crunch.? Musical America 34 (October 1984): 12-15. _____. ?Arts Policy in the U.S: Do We Have One?? Musical America 34 (December 1984): 10-13. _____. ?The Arts in Our High Schools: New Data.? Musical America 35 (January 1985): 2, 35-37. _____. ?Reaching Kids (Part I): How Symphonies Do It.? Musical America 35 (February 1985): 11-13, 15. _____. ?Reaching Kids (Part II): How Opera Companies Do It.? Musical America 35 (March 1985): 18-19, 34-35. _____. ?Horace?s Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School.? Musical America 35 (May 1985): 2, 8-9. _____. ?Classical Music is Singing the Blues.? Musical America 35 (June 1985): 12, 14, 16. _____. ?Art: A Process of Mind.? Musical America 35 (July 1985): 13-15, 40. 320 _____. ?The Shameful Neglect of Creativity.? Musical America 35 (September 1985): 10-12. _____. ?Are Teachers of the Arts Good Enough?? Musical America 35 (October 1985): 8, 10-11, 24. _____. ?The NEA (The National Endowment for the Arts): Broader Support for Arts Education.? Musical America 35 (December 1985): 11-13, 18. _____. ?The Businessman as Reformer: Where Are the Arts?? Musical America 36 (January 1986): 2, 39, 40. _____. ?The Colorado Philharmonic.? Musical America 36 (February 1986): 9-11. _____. ?The Arts in American Schooling.? Musical America 36 (March 1986): 6-8. _____. ?Educational Reform: Ferment in the Arts.? Musical America 36 (April 1986): 6- 8. _____. ?Music for Every Child, Every Child for Music.? Musical America 36 (May 1986): 10-13. _____. ?The Crane School: One Hundred Years of Excellence.? Musical America 36 (June 1986): 6, 10, 14,16. _____. ?Academic Excellence in Teaching the Arts.? Musical America 36 (August 1986): 6-7, 12. _____. ?Baghdad International Music Conference.? Musical America 36 (September 1986): 8-11. _____. ?Bringing in the Dropouts: Symphonic Music Helps (The New York Philharmonic Salute to High School Students Program).? Musical America 36 (October 1986): 8-11. _____. ?Evaluation: Pros & Cons.? Musical America 36 (November 1986): 9-12. _____. ?International Educators Seek New Solutions: The 1986 International Society of Music Educators (ISME) World Congress at Innsbruck.? Musical America 36 (December 1986): 10-12, 14. _____. ?First Lessons: Review of the Report on Elementary Education from the U.S. Department of Education.? Musical America 107 (March 1987): 7-9. _____. ?Reason versus Emotion.? Musical America 107 (May 1987): 34-36. 321 _____. ?Teacher Overhaul: Can We Do It?? Musical America 107 (July 1987): 22, 24, 52, 54-55. _____. Musical America?s 1987 Young Artists Special 107 (September 1987) [no article] _____. ?Where Have All the Violins Gone?? Musical America 107 (November 1987): 11-13, 17. _____. ?The Chamber Music Mystique.? Musical America 108 (March 1988): 10-14. _____. ?Whose Culture Should We Teach?? Musical America 108 (July 1988): 14-17. _____. ?Music in Our Schools: The First 150 Years.? Musical America 108 (November 1988): 11-14. _____. ?Arts Education Triple Jeopardy.? Musical America 109 (March 1989): 10-12. _____. ?Guarding the Arts in Bali.? Musical America 109 (July 1989): 14-16, 27. Articles at Musical America by Guest Authors Baklanoff, Joy Driskell. ?Ethnic Music: Put it in the Classroom.? Musical America 36 (July 1986): 7-8, 40. Bloom, Kathryn. ?Can the Arts Survive in the Schools?? Musical America 26 (April 1976): 10-11, 40. Cooper, Peggy. ?A Statement to Congress.? Musical America 27 (October 1977): 16-18, 37. Cox, David, Jr. ?Music for the Visually Handicapped.? Musical America 27 (January 1977): 10-11, 38. Culver, Anne M. ?Group Dynamics: A New Approach to Piano Pedagogy by Guy Duckworth.? Musical America 30 (January 1980): 14-15, 39. _____. ?Reaching Non-Music Majors.? Musical America 32 (December 1982): 13-14, 25. Duning, Natalie. ?The Nashville Institute for the Arts.? Musical America 31 (January 1981): 13-15. Gaines, Joan. ?Opera Reaches Out.? Musical America 28 (October 1978): 25-29. Hoffa, Harlan. ?A Call to the Arts to Gain Strength in Unity.? Musical America 24 (September 1974): 14-15, 27, 40. 322 Hoffman, Melinda M. ?String Training on the Cape: Barnstable Public Schools Strings.? Musical America 28 (January 1978): 14-15. Holmberg, Selby. ?Boston University?s Tanglewood Institute.? Musical America 31 (February 1981): 12-15. Jacobs, Arthur. ?International Society for Music Education (Sixteenth Conference in Eugene, Oregon).? Musical America 34 (November 1984): 13, 23. Jones, Lonna. ?Yesterday?s Rumors versus Today?s Realities.? Musical America 32/2 (February 1982): 12-13, 40. Kaplan, Barbara. ?Kod?ly Method.? Musical America 25 (December 1975): 10-13. Mills, Joseph A. ?The National Association of Negro Musicians: An Interview.? Musical America 29 (August 1979): 14-15, 20. Peterson, Melody. ?The Eagle Rock Jazz Band.? Musical America 28 (June 1978): 10-11. Rubin, Judith A. ?How the Arts Can Help.? Musical America 25 (May 1975). Schooley, John H. ?Learning & Teaching Through Technology at Home and in School.? Musical America 34 (February 1984): 14-17. Schooley, John H. ?Starting an Instrument: How to Do It Right.? Musical America 32/11 (November 1982): 6,32. Sherman, Robert W. ?A Call to Throw Off European Dependency and to Learn by Doing, in Our Own Way.? Musical America 25 (August 1975): 10-11. Shetler, Donald J. and Thomas S. Smith. ?The Making of an Orchestra Player.? Musical America 29 (May 1979): 14-15, 37-38. Small, Christopher. ?Music: A Resource for Survival (How Young People Are Bypassing the Classical Tradition).? Musical America 35 (November 1985): 6-10. Snow, Mary. ?The Arts Can Improve Reading: New Proof.? Musical America 30 (September 1980): 11-12, 39. Stinson, Susan. ?Inner Process versus Outer Result.? Musical America 107 (January 1988): 12-13, 52. Sullivan, William. ?San Diego State Goes Comprehensive.? Musical America 29 (March 1979): 10-11. 323 Trusty, Shirley. ?Arts in Education: The Time Has Come.? Musical America 26 (March 1976): 8-11. Willoughby, David. ?Non-Music Majors: It?s Their Turn Now (Third Annual Institute for Music in General Studies (MGS-III).? Musical America 35 (April 1985): 10-13. Articles at Other Publications Authored or Edited by Charles Fowler Fowler, Charles. ?The Arts in American Schools: A Conversation.? American Association of University Women Journal 66 (February 1972): 2-6. _____. ?The Arts Are Essential to Education.? Educational Leadership 47 (November 1989): 60-63. _____. ?Beyond Survival: Business Support Begins with Respect, Doesn?t It?? Vantage Point 12 (March 1987): 13-14. _____. ?The Case Against Rock: A Reply.? Music Educators Journal 57 (September 1970): 38-42. _____. ?Discovery: One of the Best Ways to Teach a Musical Concept.? Music Educators Journal 57 (February 1970): 25-30. _____. ?Discovery Method: Its Relevance for Music Education.? Journal of Research in Music Education 14 (Summer 1966): 126-134. _____. ?The Editor as Advocate.? College and University Journal 10 (February 1971): 25-26. _____. ?The Editorial Board: Years of Progress.? Music Educators Journal 56 (May 1970): 71-72. _____. ?Integral and Undiminished: The Arts in General Education.? Music Educators Journal 64 (January 1978): 30-33. _____. ?Integral and Undiminished: The Arts in General Education.? The Education Digest 43 (April 1978): 53-55. _____. ?Management of Decline.? New York University Education Quarterly 8 (Spring 1977): 26. _____. ?The Misrepresentation of Music: A View of Elementary and Junior High School Music Materials.? Music Educators Journal 51 (May 1965): 38-42. _____. ?Music: A Sound Approach to Living.? Music Educators Journal 50 (February- March 1964): 51-52, 57. 324 _____. ?Music Education: Joining the Mainstream.? Music Educators Journal 54 (November 1967): 49-80. _____. ?The New Arts Education.? College Music Symposium 16 (Spring 1976): 19-25. _____. ?The New Arts Education.? Today?s Education 65 (March-April 1976): 72-74. _____. ?Nine Issues of Music Educators Journal.? Music Educators Journal 53 (September 1966): 75. _____. ?Perspectivism: An Approach to Aesthetic Evaluation.? The Journal of Aesthetic Education 2 (January 1968): 87-99. _____. ?What We Know About the Teaching and Learning of Music Performance.? Music Educators Journal 73 (March 1987): 24-32. _____. ?Who Owns Arts Education? Some Arts Educators See the Community as Competition.? Design for Arts in Education 86 (November/December 1984): 4-7. _____. ?Why the Arts in Education: Saving Our Cultural Future.? NASSP Bulletin 73 (October 1989): 90-95. _____, ed. ?Youth Music: A Special Report.? Music Educators Journal 56 (November 1969): 43-74. Chapters in Books Authored by Charles Fowler Fowler, Charles. ?The Discovery Method: Its Relevance for Music Education.? In MENC Sourcebook III, edited by Bonnie Kowall, 126-134. Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference, 1966. _____. ?Finding the Way to Be Basic: Music Education in the 1990s and Beyond.? In Basic Concepts in Music Education, II, edited by Richard Colwell, 3-26. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1991. _____. ?Toward a Democratic Art: A Reconstructionist View of Music Education.? In Music Education in the United States: Contemporary Issues, edited by J. Terry Gates, 130-155. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1988. Periodicals Edited at Music Educators Journal by Charles Fowler Fowler, Charles, ed. Music Educators Journal 52, nos. 1-6 (1965-1966). _____, ed. Music Educators Journal 53, nos. 1-9 (1966-1967). 325 _____, ed. Music Educators Journal 54, nos. 1-9 (1967-1968). _____, ed. Music Educators Journal 55, nos. 1-9 (1968-1969). _____, ed. Music Educators Journal 56, nos. 1-9 (1969-1970). _____, ed. Music Educators Journal 57, nos. 1-9 (1970-1971). _____, ed. ?Facing the Music in Urban Education.? Special Report, Music Educators Journal 56, no. 5 (January 1970). Books Authored by Charles Fowler Fowler, Charles, and Robert Buggert. The Search for Musical Understanding. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1973. _____. Can We Rescue the Arts for America?s Children? Coming to Our Senses ? 10 Years Later. New York: American Council for the Arts, 1988. _____, Timothy Gerber, and Vincent Lawrence. Music! Its Role and Importance in Our Lives. New York: Glencoe Publishers, 1994. _____, Timothy Gerber, and Vincent Lawrence. Music! Its Role and Importance in Our Lives. 2nd ed. New York: Glencoe, 2000. _____. Strong Arts, Strong Schools: The Promising Potential and Shortsighted Disregard of the Arts in American Schooling. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Documentary Reports, Proceedings, and Brochures by Charles Fowler Fowler, Charles, ed. Arts in Education/Education in Arts: Entering the Dialogue of the ?80s. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 1984. _____. TMEA Symposium ?85 Report: Music is Essential to Quality Education. Austin, TX: Texas Music Educators Association, 1986. Fowler, Charles. The Arts Process in Basic Education. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Education, 1973. _____. The Case for Special Federal Support for Washington?s Independent Cultural Organizations. Washington, DC: National Symphony Orchestra, 1977. _____. Final Project Performance Report: Arts and Entertainment Career Conference. Orlando, FL: Walt Disney Productions, 1979. 326 _____. Rationale for Music in American Schools. Washington, DC: Committee for the Advancement of Music Education, 1977. _____. Two Descriptive Grant Statements. Baltimore, MD: Maryland Ensemble Theater Association, 1980. Presentations and Speeches by Charles Fowler Fowler, Charles. ?An Agenda: Establishing a Music Curriculum Which Can Be A Significant Force in American Education.? Speech delivered at TMEA Symposium ?85: Music is Essential to Quality Education, July 11, 1985. _____. ?ASOL Address.? Speech presented at American Symphony Orchestra League Conference, June 16, 1982. _____. ?Can the Arts in Schools Survive?? Speech presented at the Arts Club of Washington, October 7, 1976. _____. ?Culture in Crisis.? Speech response delivered at Music in American Schools 1838-1988 Symposium, August 26, 1988. _____. ?In the United States: The New Way We?re Justifying the Role and Importance of Music in American Education.? Speech presented at Baghdad International Conference on Music, April __, 1986. _____. ?Strong Arts, Strong Schools.? Presentation at the national conference of The Getty Center for Education in the Arts, February 4-6, 1993. _____. ?The New Arts Education.? Presentation at the state conference of the Maryland Music Educators Association, October 16-19, 1975. _____. ?The Tanglewood Symposium and Our New State of Consciousness.? Speech delivered at The Tanglewood Symposium Revisited: Music in American Society Ten Years Later, March 10-12, 1978. Interviews with Charles Fowler Fowler, Charles. ?Interview with Charles Fowler.? National Public Radio Commentator. Performance Today. Washington, DC: WETA, November 17, 1988. _____. ?Interview with Charles Fowler.? National Public Radio Commentator. Performance Today. Washington, DC: WETA, September 21, 1992. _____. ?Interview with Charles Fowler.? National Public Radio Commentator. Performance Today. Washington, DC: WETA, September 8, 1994. 327 Letters Written to/from Charles Fowler and Related Correspondence Aquino, John. Personal letter to Gerard McKenna, Reston, VA, 26 September 1978. Baker, Terry. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, Long Island, NY, 27 May 1986. Brooks, Richard. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, New York, NY, 14 July 1982. _____. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, New York, NY, 15 July 1982. _____. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, New York, NY, 26 August 1982. Choate, Robert. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Boston, MA, 22 October 1964. _____. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Boston, MA, 28 May 1965. Cyr. Gordon. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, Towson, MD, 30 May 1982. _____. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, Towson, MD, 25 August 1982. Eisner, Elliot. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, Stanford, CA, 19 April 1982. Fischbach, Gerald. Personal letter to Thomas Hatfield, Mequon, WI, 1 May 1986. _____. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Mequon, WI, 20 May 1986. Fleming, Shirley. Personal letter to Gordon Cyr, New York, NY, 9 June 1982. _____. Personal letter to Gordon Cyr, New York, NY, 15 June 1982. _____. Personal letter Charles Fowler, New York, NY, 1 September 1982. _____. Personal letter Carter Harman, New York, NY, 10 June 1982. _____. Personal letter to Thomas Hatfield, New York, NY, 1 May 1986. _____. Personal letter to Arts Educators/Administrators, New York, NY, 31 July 1986. Fowler, Charles. Personal letter to Robert Choate, DeKalb, IL, __ September 1964. _____. Personal letter to Bonnie Kowall, Washington, DC, 28 February 1965. _____. Personal letter to Wiley Housewright, Washington, DC, 16 March 1970. _____. Personal letter to Robert Klotman, Washington, DC, 14 April 1970. 328 _____. Personal letter to James Hardy, Washington, DC, 6 May 1970. _____. Personal letter to James Hardy, Washington, DC, 26 May 1970. _____. Personal letter to Robert Klotman, Washington, DC, 19 June 1970. _____. Personal letter to Barbara Kaplan, Washington, DC, 21 May 1975. _____. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, Washington, DC, __ January 1976. _____. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, Washington, DC, 4 February 1977. _____. Personal letter to Calvin Kytle, Washington, DC, __ April 1977. _____. Personal letter to James Michener, Washington, DC, 16 May 1977. _____. Personal letter to Will Schmid and Gerard McKenna, Washington, DC, __ November 1977. _____. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, Washington, DC, 28 December 1977. _____. Personal letter to Joe McKaughan, Washington, DC, 3 August, 1981. _____. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, Washington, DC, 1 March 1982. _____. Personal letter to Sally Schott, Washington, DC, 3 April 1985. _____. Personal letter to Sally Schott, Washington, DC, 2 October 1985. _____. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, Washington, DC, 15 July 1985. _____. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, Washington, DC, 30 January 1986. _____. Personal letter to William Hughes, Washington, DC, 30 January 1986. _____. Personal letter to Terry Baker, Washington, DC, 12 May 1986. _____. Personal letter to Sally Schott, Washington, DC, 12 May 1986. _____. Personal letter to Gerald Fischbach, Washington, DC, 13 May 1986. _____. Personal letter to William Hughes, Washington, DC, 14 May 1986. _____. Personal letter to Thomas Hatfield, Washington, DC, 20 May 1986. _____. Personal letter to Gerald Fischbach, Washington, DC, 28 May 1986. 329 _____. Personal letter to Phyllis Young, Washington, DC, 28 May 1986. _____. Personal letter to Donald Shetler, Washington, DC, 5 June 1986. _____. Personal letter to Thomas Hatfield, Washington, DC, 12 June 1986. _____. Personal letter to John Mahlmann, Washington, DC, 24 June 1986. _____. Personal letter to Milton Rhodes, Washington, DC, 24 June 1986. _____. Personal letter to Jane Remer, Washington, DC, 30 June 1986. _____. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, Washington, DC, 24 July 1986. _____. Personal letter to Marvin Rabin, Washington, DC, 25 July 1986. _____. Personal letter to Robert Culver, Washington, DC, 4 August 1986. _____. Personal letter to James Kjelland, Washington, DC, 4 August 1986. _____. Personal letter to Marvin Rabin, Washington, DC, 4 August 1986. _____. Personal letter to Thomas Ewens, Washington, DC, 11 August 1986. _____. Personal letter to Hal Abeles, Washington, DC, 3 December 1986. _____. Personal letter to Michael Mark, Washington, DC, 24 September 1987. _____. Personal letter to Bruce Wilson, Washington, DC, 8 August 1988. Hardy, James. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Wichita, KS, __ May 1970. Harman, Carter. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, New York, NY, 7 June 1982. Hatfield, Thomas. Personal letter to William Tynan, Reston, VA, 28 April 1986. _____. Personal letter to NAEA state presidents, Reston, VA, 2 May 1986. _____. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Reston, VA, 18 July 1986. Hope, Sam and Moody, Charles. Personal letter to David Rockefeller, Reston, VA, 22 August 1977. Hughes, William. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Tallahassee, FL, 4 February 1986. Jordan, Thomas. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Dayton, OH, 2 June 1982. 330 Karr, Gary. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Berlin, Germany, 20 August 1982. Kerr, John H. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Washington, DC, 10 November 1976. Kjelland, James. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Los Angeles, CA, 14 December 1986. Klotman, Robert. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Bloomington, IN, 6 April 1970. _____. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Bloomington, IN, 22 April 1970. _____. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Bloomington, IN, 7 May 1970. Kytle, Calvin. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Washington, DC, 20 April 1977. Mahlmann, John. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Reston, VA, 2 July 1986. Mark, Michael. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Towson, MD, 22 September 1987. _____. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Towson, MD, 28 January 1988. _____. Personal letter to Max Kaplan, Towson, MD, 19 May 1988. McKaughan, Joseph. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, New York, NY, 30 July 1981. _____. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, New York, NY, 14 September 1981. _____. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, New York, NY, 2 December 1981. McKenna, Gerard. Personal letter to John Aquino, Milwaukee, WI, 4 October 1978. Moody, Charles. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Reston, VA, 19 August 1977. Morrison, Jack. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, Washington, DC, 1 April 1982. Patterson, Jerome. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Ann Arbor, MI, 15 February 1978. Rabin, Marvin. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Madison, WI, 9 June 1986. _____. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Madison, WI, 31 July 1986. Remer, Jane. Personal letter to Charles Mark, New York, NY, 5 July 1986. Rice, Glenn. Personal letter to Peggy Cooper, Stockton, CA, 16 September 1977. Schmid, Will and McKenna, Gerard. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Milwaukee, WI, 13 October 1977. 331 _____ and _____. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Milwaukee, WI, 21 July 1978. Schott, Sally. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Houston, TX, 14 May 1985. _____. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, Houston, TX, 9 January 1986. _____. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, Houston, TX, 30 May 1986. Taylor, Clifford. Personal letter to Shirley Fleming, Philadelphia, PA, 14 June 1982. Wilson, Bruce. Personal letter to Charles Fowler, College Park, MD, __ August 1988. Personal Notes by Charles Fowler Fowler, Charles. Note about meeting Norman Redmon at MA regarding possible future MUED articles. Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland, __ July 1969. _____. Note about 1972 NAEP assessment. Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland, __ June 1975. _____. Note commenting on 1972 NAEP assessment. Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland, __ July 1991. _____. Note commenting on Glenn Rice letter of 16 September 1977. Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland, __ July 1991. _____. Note commenting on April 1978 ?What?s Wrong with Music Education? article. Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland, __ July 1991. _____. Note commenting on September 1984 ?MENC 1984 National Conference? article. Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland, 5 October 1991. _____. Note commenting on May 1986 ?Music for Every Child? article. Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland, 6 October 1991. _____. Note commenting on April 1986 Baghdad International Music Conference. Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland, 6 October 1991. 332 _____. Note about 1970 MEJ urban education special issue. Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland, __ May 1992. _____. Note about the end of his tenure at Musical America. Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland, 6 January 1992. _____. Note regarding importance of seminal MEJ article from 1965. Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland, 2 June 1992. _____. Note regarding Coming to Our Senses Congressional testimony. Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland, 3 June 1992. _____. Note about Robert Choate?s personal influence on Fowler. Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland, __ July 1992. _____. Note about public speeches beginning in the mid-1970s. Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland, __ July 1992. Unpublished Works by Charles Fowler Fowler, Charles. ?Some Creative Approaches to the Musical Training of the Prospective Elementary Teacher: A Practical Guide.? (Unpublished manuscript, 1961). Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland. _____. ?Notes for History and Philosophy of Music Education.? (Class Notes from Boston University, 1962). Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland. _____. ?Survey of the Main Philosophical Concepts in Education and Music from the Romans Through the Renaissance.? (Class Paper from Boston University, 1962). Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland. _____. ?A Reconstructionist Philosophy of Music Education.? PhD diss., Boston University, 1964. _____. ?Speech for Boston University: Music Education from the Outside.? (Unpublished manuscript, 1975). Charles Fowler Papers. Special Collections in the Performing Arts. Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, University of Maryland. 333 Secondary Sources Articles by Other Authors Bates, Eric. ?(An Interview with) Bill Moyers.? Fortieth Anniversary Special Double Issue. Rolling Stone 1025/1026 (May 2007): 111-112. Binelli, Mark. ?(An Interview with) Norman Mailer.? Fortieth Anniversary Special Double Issue. Rolling Stone 1025/1026 (May 2007): 68-72. Brokaw, Tom. ?(An Interview with) Jimmy Carter.? Fortieth Anniversary Special Double Issue. Rolling Stone 1025/1026 (May 2007): 55-58. Davies, Mary Ann. ?The Craft of Teaching - Integrative Studies: Teaching for the Twenty-First Century.? The History Teacher 34 (April 2001): 471-475. Mark, Michael L. ?A History of Music Education Advocacy.? Music Educators Journal 89 (January 2002): 44-48. McCarthy, Marie. ?The Past in the Present: Revitalising History in Music Education.? British Journal of Music Education 20 (February 2003): 121-134. McCarthy, Marie. ?Music Matters: A Philosophical Foundation for a Sociology of Music Education.? Bulletin of Council for Research in Music Education 144 (2000): 3-10. Pogrebin, Robin. ?Book Tackles Old Debate: Role of Art in Schools.? The New York Times. 4 August 2007. (NYTimes Online). Smith, Ralph. ?The Naked Piano Player: Or, What the Rockefeller Report ?Coming to Our Senses? Really Is.? Journal of Aesthetic Education 12 (January 1978): 45-61. Smith, Victoria. ?The Music Assessment of the 1971-1972 National Assessment of Educational Progress: A History.? Journal of Historical Research in Music Education 22 (January 2000): 47-64. Traub, James. ?Al Gore Has Big Plans.? The New York Times Magazine, May 20, 2007, 42-50. Chapters in Books by Other Authors Floden, Robert. ?Research on Effects of Teaching: A Continuing Model for Research on Teaching.? In The Handbook of Research on Teaching, edited by Virginia Richardson, 3-16. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 2001. 334 Lundquist, Barbara. R. ?Music, Culture, Curriculum, and Instruction.? In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by Richard Colwell and Carol Richardson, 626-647. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Heller, George, and Bruce Wilson. ?Historical Research.? In Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by Richard Colwell, 102-114. New York: Schirmer Books, 1992. McCarthy, Marie, and J. Scott Goble. ?Setting the Praxial View in Historical Context.? In Praxial Music Education: Reflections and Dialogues, edited by David Elliott, 19-51. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Paul, Stephen, and Jeanne Ballantine. ?The Sociology of Education and Connections to Music Education Research.? In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by Richard Colwell and Carol Richardson, 566-583. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002. Periodicals by Others Bessom, Malcolm, ed. Music Educators Journal 58, nos. 1-4 (September-December 1971). _____, ed. Music Educators Journal 59, no. 3 (November 1972). Kowall, Bonnie, ed. Music Educators Journal 51, nos. 3-6 (January-July 1965). Books by Other Authors Abeles, Harold, Charles Hoffer, and Robert Klotman. Foundations of Music Education. New York: Schirmer Books, 1984. Besson, Malcolm E., Alphonse M. Tatarunis, and Samuel L. Forcucci. Teaching Music in Today?s Secondary Schools: A Creative Approach to Contemporary Music Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980. Bogdan, Robert, and Sari K. Biklen. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998. Brameld, Theodore. Education for the Emerging Age: Newer Ends and Stronger Means. New York: Harper and Row, 1950. _____. Philosophies of Education in Cultural Perspective. New York: The Dryden Press, 1955. 335 _____. Toward a Reconstructed Philosophy of Education. New York: The Dryden Press, 1956. _____. Cultural Foundations of Education: An Interdisciplinary Exploration. New York: Harper and Row, 1957. _____. Education as Power. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. _____. The Use of Explosive Ideas in Education: Culture, Class, and Evolution. Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press, 1965. Colwell, Richard, ed. Basic Concepts in Music Education, II. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1991. _____, and Carol Richardson, eds. The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Creswell, John. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall, 2002. Elliott, David. Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Froehlich, Hildegard C. Sociology for Music Teachers: Perspectives for Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007. Gall, Meredith, Joyce Gall, and Walter Borg. Educational Research: An Introduction. 7th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2002. Gilpin, Patrick J., and Marybeth Gasman. Charles S. Johnson: Leadership Beyond the Veil in the Age of Jim Crow. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2003. Gitlin, Todd. The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage. New York: Bantam Books, 1987. Heller, George. Charles Leonhard: American Music Educator. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1994. Howell, Martha, and Walter Prevenier. From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001. Jorgensen, Estelle R. In Search of Music Education. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1997. 336 _____. Transforming Music Education. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2003. Kaplan, Max. Foundations and Frontiers of Music Education. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1966. Leonhard, Charles, and Robert House. Foundations and Principles of Music Education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1959. _____. Foundations and Principles of Music Education. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1972. Mark, Michael L. Contemporary Music Education. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Schirmer Thomson Learning, 1996. _____. Music Education: Source Readings from Ancient Greece to Today. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2002. _____, and Charles L. Gary. A History of American Music Education. 2nd ed. New York: Schirmer Books, 1992. McCarthy, Kevin, Arthur Brooks, Julia Lowell, and Laura Zakaras. The Performing Arts in a New Era. Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 2001. McCarthy, Marie. Toward a Global Community: The International Society for Music Education 1953-2003. Nedlands, Western Australia: ISME Publications, 2004. Reimer, Bennett. A Philosophy of Music Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970. _____. A Philosophy of Music Education. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1989. _____. A Philosophy of Music Education: Advancing the Vision. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2003. Documentary Reports and Brochures Arts, Education, and Americans Panel. Coming to Our Senses: The Significance of the Arts for American Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977. Choate, Robert, ed. Documentary Report of the Tanglewood Symposium. Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference, 1968. Schmid, William and McKenna, Gerard, eds. The Tanglewood Symposium Report Revisited: Music in American Society Ten Years Later. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978. 337 Gaines, Joan. Approaches to Public Relations for the Music Educator. Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference, 1968. Hermann, Edward. The Music Teacher and Public Relations. Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference, 1958. The Music Revolution: The Sounds Coming from 14 Innovative Music Programs for Tots to Teens. Chicago: American Music Conference, 1974. U.S. Congress. House and Senate. Committee on Education and Labor & Committee on Human Resources. Joint Hearing on The Arts are Fundamental to Learning. 95th Cong., 1st sess., May 25, 1977. U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education of the Committee on Education and Labor. Oversight Hearing on Arts Education. 98th Cong., 2nd sess., February 28, 1984. Letters to/from the Author and Related Correspondence Campbell, Patricia. Response to information inquiry, Seattle, WA, 12 June 2007. Eisner, Elliot. Interview request granted, Stanford, CA, 19 June 2007. Eisner, Elliot. Interview consent granted, Stanford, CA, 3 July 2007. Gerber, Timothy. Interview request granted, Salt Lake City, UT, 18 June 2007. Gerber, Timothy. Interview consent granted, Columbus, GA, 25 July 2007. Kelly, W. Thomas. Response from Congressional Cemetery, Washington, DC, 22 June 2006. Lawrence, Vincent. Interview request granted, Pittsburgh, PA, 25 July 2007. Lawrence, Vincent. Interview consent granted, Pittsburgh, PA, 26 July 2007. Levold, Ervin. Response from Rockefeller Archive, College Park, MD, 5 June 2006. Levold, Ervin. Response from Rockefeller Archive, College Park, MD, 13 June 2006. Lundquist, Barbara R. Interview request granted, Seattle, WA, 18 June 2007. Lundquist, Barbara R. Interview consent granted, Seattle, WA, 6 August 2007. Martin, Kathryn. Interview request granted, Duluth, MN, 20 June 2007. Martin, Kathryn. Interview consent granted, Duluth, MN, 2 July 2007. 338 O?Fallon, David. Interview request granted, Minneapolis, MN, 16 July 2007. O?Fallon, David. Interview consent granted, Minneapolis, MN, 20 July 2007. Podolsky, Erin. Response from Thomson Gale Publishers, Pontiac, MI, 8 June 2007. Resta, Craig. Information inquiry to Rockefeller Archive, College Park, MD, 1 June 2006. Resta, Craig. Information inquiry to Rockefeller Archive, College Park, MD, 12 June 2006. Resta, Craig. Information request letter to Congressional Cemetery, College Park, MD, 21 June 2006. Resta, Craig. Interview follow-up to Philip Moeller, Columbus, GA, 20 September 2006. Resta, Craig. Information inquiry to Patricia Campbell, Columbus, GA, 11 June 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview request to Elliot Eisner, Columbus, GA, 18 June 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview request to Timothy Gerber, Columbus, GA, 18 June 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview request to Barbara R. Lundquist, Columbus, GA, 18 June 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview request to Kathryn Martin, Columbus, GA, 18 June 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview request to David O?Fallon, Columbus, GA, 18 June 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview request to Bruce Wilson, Columbus, GA, 18 June 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview details to Elliot Eisner, Columbus, GA, 25 June 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview details to Timothy Gerber, Columbus, GA, 25 June 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview details to Kathryn Martin, Columbus, GA, 25 June 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview details to Bruce Wilson, Columbus, GA, 25 June 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview follow-up to Bruce Wilson, Columbus, GA, 26 June 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview request to David O?Fallon, Columbus, GA, 26 June 2007. Resta, Craig. Information inquiry to National Endowment for the Arts, Columbus, GA, 3 July 2007. 339 Resta, Craig. Interview follow-up to Elliot Eisner, Columbus, GA, 3 July 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview follow-up to Timothy Gerber, Columbus, GA, 9 July 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview follow-up to Kathryn Martin, Columbus, GA, 10 July 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview request to David O?Fallon, Columbus, GA, 13 July 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview details to David O?Fallon, Columbus, GA, 17 July 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview request to Vincent Lawrence, Pittsburgh, PA, 24 July 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview details to Vincent Lawrence, Pittsburgh, PA, 25 July 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview follow-up to David O?Fallon, Columbus, GA, 26 July 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview follow-up to Vincent Lawrence, Columbus, GA, 26 July 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview details to Barbara R. Lundquist, Columbus, GA, 2 August 2007. Resta, Craig. Interview follow-up to Barbara R. Lundquist, Columbus, GA, 6 August 2007. Wall, Lynn. Response to Musical America inquiry, New York, NY, 21 June 2006. Wilson, Bruce. Interview request granted, Canaan Valley, WV, 19 June 2007. Wilson, Bruce. Interview consent granted, Canaan Valley, WV, 27 June 2007. Wilson, Bruce. Fowler exhibit information, Canaan Valley, WV, 27 June 2007. Interviews with Persons of Interest Eisner, Elliot. Telephone interview with author, 3 July 2007, Stanford, CA. Gerber, Timothy. Telephone interview with author, 8 July 2007, Westchester, PA. Kelly, W. Thomas. Telephone conversation with author, 21 June 2006, Washington, DC. Lawrence, Vincent. Telephone interview with author, 26 July 2007, Pittsburgh, PA. Lundquist, Barbara R. Telephone interview with author, 6 August 2007, Seattle, WA. Martin, Kathryn. Telephone interview with author, 10 July 2007, Duluth, MN. Moeller, Philip. Personal interview with author, 21 July 2006, Washington, DC. 340 O?Fallon, David. Telephone interview with author, 19 July 2007, Minneapolis, MN. Podolsky, Erin. Telephone conversation with author, 7 June 2006. Pontiac, MI. Wall, Lynn. Telephone conversation with author, 16 June 2006, New York, NY. Wilson, Bruce. Telephone interview with author, 26 June 2007, Canaan Valley, WV. Presentations and Proceedings McCarthy, Marie. ?Expanding the Foundations and Frontiers of Music Education: Max Kaplan?s Perspective on the Social Roles of the Music Educator.? In Symposium ?99: The Sociology of Music Education II, edited by Roger Rideout, 142-152. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000. _____, ed. Winds of Change: A Colloquium in Music Education with Charles Fowler and David J. Elliott: Proceedings of the Charles Fowler Colloquium on Innovation in Arts Education, 1993. New York: American Council for the Arts, 1994. _____, ed. Cross Currents: Setting an Agenda for Music Education in Community Culture: Proceedings of the Charles Fowler Colloquium on Innovation in Arts Education, 1995. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Libraries, 1996. _____, ed. Music Education as Praxis: Reflecting on Music-Making as Human Action. Proceedings of the Charles Fowler Colloquium on Innovation in Arts Education, 1997. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Libraries, 1999. _____, ed. Enlightened Advocacy: Implications of Research for Arts Education Policy and Practice. Proceedings of the Charles Fowler Colloquium on Innovation in Arts Education, 1999. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Libraries, 2001. _____, ed. The Art of Partnership. Proceedings of the Charles Fowler Colloquium on Innovation in Arts Education, 2001. http://www.lib.umd.edu/pal/scpa/fowlercolloq.html, 2003. PhD Dissertations and Masters Theses Boston, Sheila C. ?Satis N. Coleman (1878-1961): Her Career in Music Education.? PhD diss., University of Maryland, College Park, 1992. Crone, David T. ?A Historical Descriptive Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Education Policy and Its Influence on the Music Education Curriculum in the New York City Public Schools, 1950?1999.? PhD diss., Seton Hall University, South Orange, 2002. 341 Gasman, Marybeth. ?A Renaissance in Nashville: Charles S. Johnson?s Use of Philanthropy to Build Fisk University in the Post-War Period.? PhD diss., Indiana University, Bloomington, 2000. Goble, J. Scott. ?Ideologies of Music Education: A Pragmatic, Historical Analysis of the Concept ?Music? in Music Education in the United States.? PhD diss., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1999. Kim, Patricia Costa. ?Making Music Their Own: School Music, Community, and Standards of Excellence in Seattle, 1960?1975.? PhD diss., University of Washington, Seattle, 1999. McCarthy, Marie. ?Music Education and the Quest for Cultural Identity in Ireland, 1831- 1989.? PhD diss., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1990. Rozen, Brian D. ?The Contributions of Leonard Bernstein to Music Education: An Analysis of His 53 ?Young People's Concerts?.? PhD diss., University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music, Rochester, 1998. Smith, Victoria. ?The Music Assessment of the 1971-1972 National Assessment of Educational Progress: A History.? Master?s thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1997. Other Works and Sources Arneson, Arne Jon. The Music Educators Journal Cumulative Index 1914-1987. Stevens Point, WI: Index House, 1987. Gale Reference Team. ?Charles Bruner Fowler.? Contemporary Authors Online. Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson and Gale, 2001. Gale Reference Team. ?Charles Bruner Fowler.? Contemporary Authors Online. Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson and Gale, 2004. Jacobsen, Lynn, and Bonnie Jo Dopp. Charles Fowler Papers Finding Aid. University of Maryland Libraries, 1999. MENC Taskforce for National Standards in the Arts. The School Music Program: A New Vision: The K-12 Standards, Pre-K Standards, and What They Mean to Music Educators. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference, 1994. Mish, Frederick. ed. Webster?s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. 9th ed., vol. 1. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1988. Moeller, Philip W. Design Concepts and Visual Impressions as Realized in the Residence of Kenneth B. Dresser and Charles B. Fowler. Unpublished manuscript, 1996. 342 Resta, Craig. Arts Advocacy at Its Infancy: The Early Writings of Charles Fowler. Unpublished manuscript, 2003.