![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
In 2008, Brazilian legislators approved a law that added music on a mandatory basis to the basic national school curriculum. Despite the possibilities afforded by this legislation, music educators affirm that many questions remain due to its ambiguity. Given the 2012 deadline for the implementation of this law, there is a need to understand how it was enacted across diverse settings. This study considers the implementation from the perspective of music teachers. Thus, in this interview study, we seek to understand the status of music education throughout the country according to the perspectives of music educators from private and public schools. Such perspectives are situated within reviews of educational history, legislation, policy, and research. Findings point toward the need to (a) address a shortage of music teachers; (b) better define the preparation of professional music educators; and (c) identify pedagogies which are likely to have the greatest impact in implementing this new law.
Introduction
Music is now a mandatory curriculum area in all Brazilian schools, public and private. Although legislators approved law 11.769 in 2008 making music a mandatory curriculum area, music has been present in the basic curriculum at various levels throughout the educational history of Brazil. Following a 2009 amendment of the Brazilian Constitution (Brasil, Presidência da República, 2009), the law now applies to students from ages four to 17.1 This study will focus on how music teachers who teach children ages 6 through 142 perceive the implementation of a legislative mandate which makes music education compulsory in Brazilian schools.
Historically, music has been added and removed from the Brazilian national curriculum in accordance with shifting political interests and educational legislation (Fuks, 1991; Pereira, 2010; Wisnik, 1983). Yet upon the approval of this law, many music educators, musicians, educators, and advocates were optimistic about the future of music education in Brazilian schools (Silva, 2013). Others debated the timing of the law and the ability of teacher preparation programs to meet the mandated implementation by 2012 (Kleber & Palma Filho, 2010, p. 57). After all, in Brazil, some laws are implemented while others are ignored (Silva & Andrade, 2008).
According to this law, public and private schools across the country had 2012 as a deadline to add music to their curriculum. One of the potential obstacles to the implementation of this law is its vagueness (Figueiredo, 2010; Gonzaga, 2010). It does not specify a variety of factors, including: (a) when and how many hours per week students are to receive music instruction; and (b) for how many years music instruction is to be offered in schools. While the law established that music shall be present in the curriculum, there is also a lack of clear requirements with regard to teacher credentials and experiences, methods adopted, and learning objectives. Such vagueness suggests that there are many ways to enact this law without implementing much change, as music may be taught by non-certified music teachers and within the contexts of other content areas. According to Silva and Andrade (2008), this lack of specificity or commitment to music as a worthy curricular area signals that music is still marginalized and misunderstood among other subjects, which are generally perceived as more valuable, such as Portuguese or mathematics.
Within this context, we propose that taking a close look at the implementation is needed. This study provides insights about how music teachers experience and perceive the implementation of the new law that makes music education mandatory in Brazil. Thus, in this interview study, we seek to understand the status of music education throughout the country according to the perspectives of music educators from private and public schools. In order to do so, we contextualize teachers’ perspectives against the backdrop of contemporary international and Brazilian legislation and salient literature regarding curriculum, the teaching and learning of music education, and qualification requirements for professional music educators.
Context
In the international realm, as in Brazil, new legislation related to music in the basic curriculum of other countries has been ratified in the 21st century. For example, as of 2013 the National Curriculum in England requires children to be taught music as an integral subject at Key Stages 1, 2 and 3, i.e., school years 1–9, ages 5–14 (England, Department of Education, 2014). The Australian Curriculum endorsed, in July 2013, The Arts (Dance, Drama, Media Arts, Music, Visual Arts) for levels F–10—Kindergarten (age 5 or 6) through year 10 (age 15–16) (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2013). The United States Constitution does not clarify a role in public education for the federal government; rather, state and local education agencies (LEAs) define curriculum. Nonetheless, federal legislation has exerted tremendous impact on curriculum through the funding of grants to state and local governments. Such is the case with Public Law 107–110, also known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (United States Department of Education, 2002). This legislation includes music within the arts and defines 10 core academic subjects: English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.
To contextualize the new legislation in music education within the legislative realm of Brazilian education, we briefly review how music has been positioned in curriculum and teaching from the time compulsory education was established in Brazil. The Federal Constitution of Brazil was ratified in 1988 and established compulsory education for children from the ages of 6 to 14—grades 1 to 9. The Federal Council of Education (Conselho Federal de Educação) established a core curriculum consisting of Portuguese, social studies, science, mathematics, arts and physical education. Music education was positioned as an inherent part of the general arts curriculum (Figueiredo & Forrest, 2005). During the first 5 years of Basic Education (Ensino Fundamental I), a single classroom teacher, or unidocente, was expected to teach all subject areas, as in many countries.
In the mid-1990s, the basic curricular system underwent a reorganization. The LDB 9.394/1996—Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional (Law of Guidelines and Bases of National Education)—added music as an optional content area within the general arts curriculum. That is, students did not have to be taught music if other arts were included. This diminished the value given to music, positioning it as a secondary area under the broader subject of arts, thereby igniting discussions and reflections in universities and at professional music and music education conferences. Professional groups joined to defend music education and to refute its relative position in the landscape of Brazilian education. They wanted music to be recognized as valuable, included in the mandatory curriculum and not as an option under the umbrella area of general arts. From these discussions, in 2006, a group named Grupo de Articulação Parlamentar Pró-Música worked closely with Associação Brasileira de Educação Musical (ABEM, Brazilian Association of Music Education) to commence a judicial struggle, often supported by academic theses and dissertations, which culminated in the passage of law 11.769 in August 2008 (Brasil, Presidência da República, 2008a; Figueiredo, 2003, 2010; Sobreira, 2012). The text of the law can be found in Figure 1.
What does the law say?
The new law altered Article 26 of the existing law 9.394 of December, 20 1996, Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional (Law of Guidelines and Bases of National Education). That is, it established music instruction as a mandatory area in basic education (Brasil, Presidência da República, 2008a; Soares, 2012). It stated:
First, “music shall be compulsory content, but not exclusive, of the component curriculum referenced in the second paragraph of this article.”
Second, “the educational systems will have 3 years to adapt to the requirements of articles 1 and 2 of this law.”
Third, “this act will take effect as of its publication date” (Brasil, Presidência da República, 2008a).
The National Congress (legislative branch of Brazilian government) vetoed a paragraph that stated “music instruction will be conducted by teachers specialized in the area” (Brasil, Presidência da República, 2008a). The explanation of the veto was that:
It is important to reinforce that music is a social practice, and in Brazil there are many professionals working in this area without academic or formal preparation in music and who are recognized nationally. These professionals would be ineligible to deliver such content in the manner it is proposed. (Brasil, Presidência da República, 2008b)
What does the law mean?
The 2008 law does not guarantee the expected importance of music in the basic curriculum. Music went from the status of optional content in the arts to mandatory content, but it was still positioned as part of the general arts curriculum. While music was recognized as valuable, in practice, the new legislation did not specify that music must be taught formally. The new law does not clarify the parameters of the teaching of music in basic education. For example, it does not outline when or for how long music must be taught. It does not provide a mandatory or specific curriculum and does not require a licensed or qualified music educator. Music education, while mandatory, does not stipulate content to be taught and objectives to be achieved.
According to 11.769/2008, any person demonstrating music performance skills is eligible to teach, independent of teaching experience, pedagogical preparation, or academic degrees. This openness can be read as a lack of commitment to music as a fundamental and integral content area and may suggest that music is not yet recognized and respected as an integral subject in Brazilian basic education. According to the legislation, any recognized performer can teach music. This stands in stark contrast to areas such as mathematics and Portuguese, both of which require certified teachers. In those areas, having knowledge of the subject is not deemed sufficient to teach. In music, according to this new legislation, subject knowledge is sufficient to qualify one as a teacher.
Curriculum and learning objectives
In order to assure that the basic curricular requirements in all schools are met, there are curriculum policy guidelines published by the Ministry of Education, which provide national standards for all subjects areas, Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais—PCN (National Curriculum Parameters). The National Curriculum Parameters for the general arts content area includes music. The contents and evaluation criteria of music for the primary years are divided into three areas (Brasil, Ministério da Educação, Secretaria de Educação Fundamental, 1997): Communication and expression in music: interpretation, improvisation and composition; Significant appreciation in music: listening, involvement, and comprehension of the musical language; Music as a product of culture and history: music and sounds of the world (pp. 54–56). The list of the criteria to evaluate students’ performances points toward learning objectives:
To create and interpret with autonomy, using different means and sound materials.
Use basic knowledge of musical language, communicating and expressing musically.
Know and appreciate music from one’s sociocultural environment and from the musical knowledge constructed by humanity in different historical times and geographic places.
Recognize and compare—using auditory perception—musical compositions according to the elements of musical language.
Reflect, discuss and analyze aspects of the sociocultural relation established between teenagers and music through technology and culture. (Brasil, Ministério da Educação, Secretaria de Educação Média e Tecnológica, 1998, p. 87)
These are policy guidelines, not legislation, and seek to provide some consistency within the educational system. Besides the PCN, which apply to the entire country, each state/municipality3 has its own guidelines that may align with or differ from the national document. “Schools have the autonomy to plan their own curricula” (Soares, 2012, p. 117). That is, while there are curricular parameters in place, there is no blueprint for the implementation of such parameters. Thus, schools can plan their own curricula as long as it fits within the framework of the National Curriculum Parameters.
Qualifications required to teach music
As seen in Figure 1, the Senate vetoed Article 2 of law 11.769 requiring formal preparation for music educators. The veto was justified by the abundance of professional performing musicians without academic or official music degrees, based on an institutional discourse that content knowledge is enough to qualify as a teacher (Ball, 2012).
Preparation of music teachers in Brazil is regulated by Volume 6 of the 1996 Federal Law 9394—Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional (Law of Guidelines and Bases of National Education) which is dedicated to Dance, Music, Theatre, and Visual Arts. Two types of undergraduate degree are offered in higher education: the bacharelado (bachelor) a non-teaching track in specific content areas, and licenciatura (licensure) in teacher preparation. In Brazil, teachers become licensed through two different processes: the pedagogy degree that applies to general classroom teachers, and the licenciatura plena (full license), which applies to specialist teachers of most subjects, such as biology, mathematics, physics, music, and so on. Depending on the subject, one may earn licensure separately from a Bachelor degree or together with the academic degree. In the case of music education in Brazil, usually one must choose between the bachelor degree, or the licenciatura plena. A generalist teacher in Brazil (teacher of young children) goes by a variety of names: generalist, pedagogue, teacher, polyvalent teacher, among others. Figueiredo (2003) posited that: “Some educators use the term generalist in a pejorative sense, meaning a teacher who has had a general preparation or someone who knows a little about everything” (p. 167).
The 21st century has seen increased discussions about the preparation of music educators who teach in the early grades—dilemmas that the 1997 PCN cannot resolve. Should generalist teachers who work in the early grades be prepared to teach across the arts, or should those who have graduated as arts or music specialists be prepared to teach music in the early grades? (Figueiredo, 2003; Hentschke & Oliveira, 2000).
Figueiredo conducted extensive research on the music education of primary grades teachers in Brazil. His findings are summarized by the following points:
there is a small allocated workload in the curriculum for music preparation of generalist teachers (60 hours on average);
in the majority of universities (15 of 19) only one teacher is responsible for the arts preparation in a general sense—music is a part of the subject that must also include visual arts, drama and sometimes dance;
all the participants consider the music preparation insufficient to adequately prepare generalist teachers;
although the new legislation (Brasil, Presidência da República, 1996) started a transformative movement in Brazilian education, the arts are still considered as less important in terms of an hierarchical curriculum that privileges rationality;
the insufficient music preparation has perpetuated misunderstanding about music in education; one of the concepts still current in the Brazilian context, for instance, is the belief that talent is a pre-condition to participate in music activities; such a concept marginalizes music in school because many people believe they are not talented enough to accomplish any kind of musical experience. (Figueiredo & Forrest, 2005, pp. 90–91)
In addition, the responsibilities of institutions of higher education in preparing music educators at all levels and the capacity of current programs to prepare music educators in response to this new law 11.769 have been problematized internationally (Brasil, Ministério da Educação, Conselho Nacional de Educação/Câmara de Educação Superior, 2013; Gonzaga, 2010; Mas & Narita, 2011; Noal Correa, 2012). For example, in 2010, Keith Swanwick, Professor Emeritus at the University of London and internationally renowned music educator, spoke about his varied experiences with music education in Brazil, what is required of music teachers, and his concerns about teacher preparation programs meeting the demands of the new law (Gonzaga, 2010). Mas and Narita (2011) documented that because of the new law:
Institutions of Higher Education with music degrees started shaping their curricula aiming to train prospective music teachers to work at different levels of schooling. However, it seems that the 72 institutions that offer music teacher education in Brazil are not enough to cover the need for teachers once the law is in operation. (p. 164)
Already in 1997, Souza (1997) argued that the preparation of teacher candidates did not correspond to the reality of Brazil’s educational system. What music education students learn in college is often out of the context of the schools, thereby generating criticism that the curriculum requires reflection, discussion, and reorganization (Bellochio, 2003).
Our review of legislation, policy guidelines, and extant research above reveals growing interest and concern about music education for students in grades 1 through 9 throughout Brazil. Souza (2001) proposed that “the challenge to understand music education … is to be able to explain what happens inside a classroom related to what happens outside it” (p. 38). In this study, from the perspective of music teachers, we take up this challenge—seeking to learn how music teachers’ experiences and practices are affected by the new legislation. As we seek to read words within the contexts of worlds, we employ critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970). Critical pedagogy serves as a lens though which we position music education politically, framing our study.
Theoretical framework
This study was inspired by the ideas of critical pedagogy and Paulo Freire, in particular. We employed critical pedagogy as a theoretical lens as we read the words of law 11.769 within the context of education, and more specifically music education in Brazil. We employed critical pedagogy as a theoretical lens, which afforded us the possibility of simultaneously reading (and analyzing) words and worlds (Freire & Macedo, 1987). Drawing on the ideas and work of Freire (1970), we employed critical pedagogy to understand that schooling and educational practices are politically contested spaces.
As we problematized law 11.769 and its implementation in Brazilian schools, we embraced Freire’s concept of problem posing (Freire, 1970). Drawing on critical pedagogy, we sought to name and problematize issues that can hopefully move the purpose of law 11.769 toward clarity, rather than maintaining the status quo of music being alternately included and excluded in the curriculum according to the value that shifting laws and policies may attribute to it.
Freire proposed that through the consideration of multiple realities, perspectives, and practices, individuals could reframe education as a problem-posing process. In this study, as we critically analyzed the implementation of law 11.769, we listened to the voices of those who have been experiencing the many realities, perspectives, and practices shaped by law 11.769 in the music classroom: music teachers who teach children ages 6 to 14. In doing so, we problematize its aims and purposes—specifically with regard to defining quality teacher educators and the presence of music in the curriculum (be it scope and sequence, time allocation, or dedicated resources). We read its words within the context of the worlds that it affects. This study situates “schools within societies and considers structural forces which influence and shape schools” (Souto-Manning, 2010, p. 10). As critical pedagogy challenges the concept and idea of “culture-free” learning (Grant & Sleeter, 1996), we acknowledge that all learning is contextually situated.
Critical pedagogy positions all knowledge (including music) as being built upon socioculturally and historically situated bodies of knowledge (Banks, 2004; Gutiérrez, 2008; Vygotsky, 1978). As Souto-Manning (2010) stated:
The very premise of critical pedagogy seeks to move away from the model of education that is based on transmission of knowledge to students’ brains like money into banks … Learning is co-constructed through social interactions … Critical pedagogues propose that it is important to assess each student’s historicity and build upon the wonderful backgrounds, legacies, skills, and knowledges students bring with them to the classroom. (p. 11)
We approach this study through a critical lens “because of its focus on empowering teachers and students to be effective agents of their own histories and satisfactions” and by which music educators “can undertake the tremendously serious business of teaching music as reflective practitioners.” This critical perspective “directs us to pay new and closer attention to praxis—whether musical, pedagogical, or curricular—understood in terms of those actions that bring about right results qualified with regard to situated variables and criteria of success” (Regelski, 2005, p. 21).
Freire and Macedo (1987) proposed that worlds and words are socially and historically located. That is, the law and its implementation must be historically and socially situated. Thus far, we have located the law within the history of music education in Brazil. Yet, as argued in this section, to fully understand this new legislation in Brazilian music education, we need to not only closely read the text of the new legislation on music education in Brazil, but also the context of its implementation, learning if and how it comes to life in music classrooms.
Methods
Research question
Our research question is: How are music teachers negotiating the new legislation mandating music in the national basic school curriculum? That is, how are music educators reading the law and writing their own pedagogical practices?
Methodology
To answer this research question, our research design is based on qualitative methodologies (Crotty, 1998) involving critical interpretive analyses of interviews and documents. The research was conducted through individual focused interviews within the context of the existent literature in Brazilian educational legislation and policy, including official documents, and published and unpublished reference works by salient authors. Documents reflect an international scope and interviews reflect national and regional perspectives within Brazil. As we identified documents to analyze, we gathered and selected Brazilian government policy and legislation, as well as published and unpublished research articles, periodicals, and reference works in English, Portuguese, and Spanish that focused in whole, or in part, on law 11.769.
Research participants are current music educators in Brazilian schools and universities, native speakers of Portuguese, and were selected due to their experiences in various regions of Brazil (employing purposeful sampling). They were recruited through personal contacts and their participation was voluntary; they received no compensation and their identities remain protected beyond the general demographics described above.
During the first 8 months of 2013, we interviewed 10 participants selected from the group of 20 music educators originally invited to participate. Interviews lasted between 20 and 30 minutes. Interview data, totaling approximately 4 hours of audio recordings, were gathered via various means including face-to-face interaction (Duncan & Fiske, 1977), telephone, and Skype. Through individual focused interviews we asked research participants to describe their experiences and perceptions around (1) music in the curriculum; (2) changes (if any) related to law 11.769; (3) preparation of music educators; and (4) pedagogical impact in implementing this new law. To facilitate our analyses, we organized transcripts according to these four topics.
Procedurally, following each interview, we transcribed interactions and responses, translated from Portuguese into English and added interpretive notes as we brought together field notes and transcripts. As interviews were conducted in Portuguese, the authors of this study translated the interviews to English and transcribed them from oral to written format, performing a double translation (Behar, 2003).4 We conducted preliminary retrospective analysis, reading and rereading the primary data, and engaged in open coding (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Authors analyzed the data collected, first by organizing data packets (Rogers & Mosley, 2006) for each interviewee, then breaking apart these packets and looking inductively at instances when music educators’ practices as expressed by the teachers and expectations outlined by the text of law 11.769/2008 collided. After engaging in inductive and deductive coding, we employed constant comparative analysis, comparing each interview to others, and identified the categories present in the findings below.
Findings
Our findings are organized in two categories, which we found prevalent in our analysis of interview data: (1) how music teachers perceived the mismatch between the text of the new law and its implementation; and (2) how music teachers saw the law deprofessionalizing the field of music education. Representative excerpts were extracted from the dataset and are presented below to provide insights into music teachers’ perceptions, although the excerpts do not encompass the myriad details and contexts in the dataset.
How teachers perceived the new law and its implementation
In relation to our inquiry into how music educators are negotiating and reading the new law and writing their own pedagogical practices, by thematically analyzing interview transcripts, we found strong agreement that making music mandatory content in the basic education curriculum was seen as a positive development. Words such as “necessary” and “much needed” were consistently employed with regard to the new law. Music teachers we interviewed read the text of the law positively, and agreed with the premise of the new law. They also agreed that there were issues in the implementation of the new law; in how it came to life in practice. When asked about the importance of music in the curriculum. Participant C noted: “Music in the school curriculum makes people rethink and construct new ideas about what is music and art. It also contributes to new artistic and aesthetics experiences.”
Yet, we also found less enthusiasm when music teachers read their worlds—how the new law was being implemented in their own setting. They mentioned that there were varied interpretations in reading and negotiating the law due to its brevity and lack of clarity. Many indicated that within their settings, the vagueness of the law led to broad interpretations. Below are two representative excerpts portraying how the law came to life:
I think the obligation is outstanding, because until this law there was no music. But the law is not clear, leaving off the frequency of the requirement. It only says you need music activity within the core curriculum but does not determine the frequency of this activity. (Participant E)
The law says that all schools must provide music in their curricula in at least one year of each level. In other words, in the first 5 years some chose to deliver music in every grade. Another school may choose one of the final years so it has music. Other schools have chosen to separate the year into semesters or quarters, each quarter having an emphasis on one of the arts. (Participant B)
Participant E (above) captured the tensions of the law, which establishes music as compulsory, but is not specific enough to actually change the teaching of music in schools. This was a common theme in the interviews we conducted. There was great enthusiasm for the premise of the law, but great frustration with regard to the ways in which it was being implemented in schools. This is further illustrated by teachers who worked in a variety of settings, such as Participant B, who taught music in three schools and spoke of the variation in the implementation of the new law across settings.
When asked about visible changes in music education in public and private schools after the implementation of the law, only one out of our ten participants had seen some changes, nine reported no significant change. Most saw their school administrators taking advantage of the vagueness of the law and the lack of oversight as ways of justifying that practices already in place abided by the new legislation. They did not need a step-by-step blueprint of when, how, and for how long music needed to be taught. Yet, the lack of such a blueprint served as an excuse for school administrators to avoid allocating adequate resources to music. The following representative interview excerpts capture participants’ disappointment with the changes (or lack thereof) they had observed in music education following the implementation deadline of the new law.
The lack of information about how it should be implemented and the non-existence of penalizations for irregular implementation are intrinsic in the law, which does not specify how music education should be offered in the schools, neither by whom, when or how. This ambiguity reflects a heterogeneous scenery, where a minority of schools present great music education programs and a majority present deficient or non-existent ones. (Participant A)
No. Because often these activities are summed up in a graduation chorus or a musical of low quality at the end of the year. (Participant I).
Participant A, speaking from experience as a music teacher in a number of schools was able to speak firsthand of the “heterogeneous scenery.” Participant I denied change and spoke of the peripheral positioning of music education in the school where she taught, which engaged music only as an accessory to events such as graduation. She went on to say: “it is definitely not part of academic knowledge where I teach.” Participant C provided an instantiation of the law that was mentioned by many participants:
The law is so vague that most of the time singing a song in the middle of the arts class is considered music education. There is no control or supervision of the content being taught. A great number of schools, public and private, don’t have music education and try to masquerade with irrelevant music activities inside the arts class. (Participant C)
While singing an isolated song may be seen as relevant musical engagement within the context of other arts activities, participants exemplified such instances as reducing the field of music. In this instance, Participant C indicated that singing a song in the middle of the arts class fully comprised the music education of students. This was also indicative of the fact that almost anyone could teach music, according to the new law—our other significant finding.
“Now anyone can teach music!”: The deprofessionalization of music education
Regarding the preparation of music educators, participants saw the law as an immediate affront to their profession. As Participant G noted: “now anyone can teach music; if you play tambourine at the beach on Sunday while drinking beer, you can be a music teacher.” While they acknowledged the importance of making music a mandatory part of the curriculum, they saw the law as an attempt to deprofessionalize music education. Participant G went on to say that “if anyone can teach music, music can be defined as anything.”
Participants believed that, although not clarified by the new law, music taught by a specialist is optimal. With regard to who is best prepared to implement the mandates of law 11.769, when asked about their perspectives, eight interview participants stated that music should be taught by a specialist. Two reported that a specialist or a generalist who has had preparation to teach music would be acceptable. As Participant E stated: “It can be a generalist or a specialist considering they have qualification.”
Yet due to the limited number of music education programs in institutions of higher education and the current shortage of professionals prepared to teach music, students in basic education typically do not receive the music education mandated by the new law. This observation was made by eight of our interview participants. In representative interview excerpts, participants stated:
taught by a specialist, one who had studied and spent many years of college on it. These years invested in specialization should be valued, and students also have the right to a quality education. (Participant D)
Music should be taught by a specialist. Even though, in accordance with the full curricular structure of the Brazilian schools, it is almost impossible for the majority of schools to have a class taught by a music specialist. Besides, the lack of enough professionals makes it [a class taught by a music specialist] unreal. (Participant F)
When approved by the National Congress, law 11.769, suffered a veto in the paragraph that would have established professional requirements to teach music in schools, and removed the requirement for an academic certificate or degree. In other words, any person who is recognized as a musician may be eligible to work in a school as a music educator. The official justification regarding the existence of good performers working in this area without academic or formal preparation in music who could be successful educators only proves that music education remains an unacknowledged profession throughout Brazil. Another reason that may have led to the interpretation that formal certifications are not a necessity is the incompatibility between the number of schools and the number of credentialed music teachers. Yet, ultimately, regardless of the rationale behind the veto, the participants in this study saw this veto deprofessionalizing music education.
In sum, participants’ perspectives regarding the law and changes in music teaching after its passage offer valuable insights regarding the text and the context of the law (seen by participants as divergent, or misaligned). Conditions leading to this misalignment from the perspective of study participants varied, yet the text of the law was lauded for making music education an inherent and mandatory part of the national curriculum while its implementation is troubling at best, varying significantly across settings and resulting in little overall movement. That is, in most settings, participants reported little change. Participants identified the vagueness in the law as problematic, leading school administrators to avoid changes in the curriculum repositioning music as central in the basic curriculum. So, whereas in many places such specificity may be refuted, in this case, participants longed for specificity as a way to claim a de facto pedagogical and curricular space for music education.
Further, while there was agreement that music should be taught by specialists and a critique of the law for deprofessionalizing music education, since anyone who can play or sing is now legally qualified to teach music, there was also an agreement that the current demand for music educators would be much greater than the available supply. Participants thus considered the intention of the law and the affront to their profession in light of current constraints.
All in all, as we seek to better understand how this new law becomes a reality in Brazilian schools, additional research is needed and may reveal whether our findings are representative of larger phenomena: how music teachers perceive the law and navigate its implementation in schools. While not generalizable, this situated representation has the potential to shed light onto other settings and inform those who are in the process of implementing law 11.769.
Implications
During our research process, the Minister of Education approved a new policy (in December 2013) intended to guide schools, departments of education, professional preparation institutions and teachers of music in support of the new legislation: Diretrizes Nacionais para a operacionalização do ensino de Música na Educação Básica (National Guidelines for the operationalization of teaching Music in Basic Education). Unlike the concise law it seeks to clarify, this document is upwards of 10 pages. These guidelines include a detailed history of the legislation and national debate related to music education in Brazil, and call for schools to create time and space to teach music in and out of the classroom, and departments of education to provide professional development and materials for teachers. It is within the context of this new policy that we offer implications for institutions in the preparation of music educators (and the professionalization of music education) and for the implementation of the new law.
Implications for institutions of higher education point toward a need to create pre-service and in-service teacher education courses in music education to address the shortage of music teachers. This context offers implications for music educators and researchers within institutions of higher education, who have the opportunity to (re)examine, develop, and expand preparation programs for music specialists and general classroom teachers.
Implications for policy-makers point toward the need for the Ministry of Education to foster the development of courses, research, and partnerships pertaining to initial and continuing education of music, and to reclaim the professionalization of music education in Brazil.
Implications of our study point toward the need to address the disconnect between the law and its implementation. This may be addressed by the collective engagement of representatives from the area in discussions and critical reflections, acknowledging the complexity of this new legislation and its implementation. There are promising and detrimental components which must be contextualized and problematized. The importance of engaging in a critical reflection of this new legislation can be reinforced by the fact that this new law and the recently passed national guidelines were a victory for organized activities that started as small groups of musicians, music educators, and researchers discussing and reflecting on the importance of music in education. The new legislation and policy represent a grassroots victory achieved over many years. Yet, while the law comprises a positive development in music education, making it compulsory, it also deprofessionalizes music education by sanctioning that, as one of the participants voiced, “anyone can teach music!” Thus, while the law comprises a victory for music education being included in the national basic curriculum, it disregards the role of professional music educators in the process.
The facts that music is now mandatory and guidelines for its implementation have been approved, have been interpreted by some music educators as the beginning of a process that will culminate in transforming music into an integral, established subject, such as Portuguese or mathematics. According to our findings, from the perspective of music teachers, there is no clear evidence of this process to date. Music education has not yet achieved standing as a subject that requires specific teaching preparation in music and pedagogy. This is confirmed by our study on Brazilian music teachers’ perspectives of the deprofessionalization of music education sanctioned by this new law.
While the fact that the presence of music education is legally assured as represented by its own standard curriculum within the PCN is indeed a landmark, at this point there is no clear evidence that law 11.769 represents significant transformation in the current status of music education in schools. The national guidelines approved in December 2013 signal hope for those who have long been struggling to assure a place for music in the basic education of Brazil. Yet, the universalization of music education cannot come at the expense of the music education profession.
Notes
1.
Emenda Constitucional Nº 59, de 11 de Novembro de 2009, Art. 208: I—educação básica obrigatória e gratuita dos 4 (quatro) aos 17 (dezessete) anos de idade … (Constitutional Amendment No. 59, From 11 November 2009, Article 208: I—compulsory and free basic education from four (4) to seventeen (17) years of age…). All translations are by the authors.
2.
Ensino Fundamental I, grades 1 through 5—ages 6 through 10 and Ensino Fundamental II, grades 6 through 9—ages 11 through 14.
3.
Municipalities are inclusive of capitals. All capitals are municipalities. One municipality per state is a capital.
4.
Excerpts may appear to be translated ungrammatically but adhere to the original construction voiced by participants.
References
|
ACARA . (2013). Learning areas/subjects, the arts. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum_1/learning_areas/arts.html Google Scholar | |
|
Ball, A. (2012). To know is not enough: Knowledge, power, and the zone of generativity. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 283–293. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Banks, J. A. (2004). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In Banks, J. A., Banks, C. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.; pp. 3–29). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Google Scholar | |
|
Behar, R. (2003). Translated woman: Crossing the border with Esperanza’s story (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Bellochio, C. (2003). A formação profissional do educador musical: Algumas apostas. Revista da ABEM, 8, 17–24. Google Scholar | |
|
Brasil, Ministério da Educação, Conselho Nacional de Educação/Câmara de Educação Superior . (2013). Diretrizes nacionais para a operacionalização do ensino de música na educação básica Retrieved from http://abemeducacaomusical.com.br/sistemas/news/imagens/Diretrizes%20do%20cne%20para%20o%20ensino%20de%20musica.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Brasil, Ministério da Educação, Secretaria de Educação Fundamental . (1997). Parâmetros curriculares nacionais: Introdução aos parâmetros curriculares nacionais. Retrieved from http://portal.mec.gov.br/seb/arquivos/pdf/livro06.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Brasil, Ministério da Educação, Secretaria de Educação Média e Tecnológica . (1998). Parâmetros curriculares nacionais—Ensino médio. Retrieved from http://portal.mec.gov.br/seb/arquivos/pdf/14_24.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Brasil, Presidência da República . (1996). Lei nº 9394, de 20 de dezembro de 1996. Retrieved from http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9394.htm Google Scholar | |
|
Brasil, Presidência da República . (2008a). Lei nº 11.769, de 18 de agosto de 2008. Retrieved from http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007–2010/2008/Lei/L11769.htm Google Scholar | |
|
Brasil, Presidência da República . (2008b). Mensagem nº 622, de 18 de agosto de 2008. Retrieved from http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007–2010/2008/Msg/VEP-622–08.htm Google Scholar | |
|
Brasil, Presidência da República . (2009). Emenda constitucional nº 59, de 11 de novembro de 2009. Retrieved from http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/Emendas/Emc/emc59.htm Google Scholar | |
|
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. St Leonards, Australia: Allen and Unwin. Google Scholar | |
|
Duncan, S., Fiske, D. (1977). Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods, and theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar | |
|
England, Department of Education . (2014). Collection: national curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-curriculum Google Scholar | |
|
Figueiredo, S. (2003). The music preparation of generalist teachers in Brazil. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Google Scholar | |
|
Figueiredo, S. (2010). Educación musical en la escuela brasileña: aspectos históricos, legislación educacional y desafíos. Revista Musical Chilena, 214, 36–51. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Figueiredo, S., Forrest, D. (2005). Primary teachers and music education in a Brazilian context. In Forrest, D. (Ed.), A celebration of voices: XV national conference proceedings (pp. 89–93). Parkville, Victoria: Australian Society for Music Education. Google Scholar | |
|
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Google Scholar | |
|
Freire, P., Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Google Scholar | |
|
Fuks, R. (1991). O discurso do silêncio. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Enelivros. Google Scholar | |
|
Gonzaga, A. (2010). Keith Swanwick fala sobre o ensino de música nas escolas. Retrieved from http://revistaescola.abril.com.br/arte/fundamentos/entrevista-keith-swanwick-sobre-ensino-musica-escolas-instrumento-musical-arte-apreciacao-composicao-529059.shtml Google Scholar | |
|
Grant, C., Sleeter, C. (1996). After the school bell rings. Bristol, PA: Falmer. Google Scholar | |
|
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Hentschke, L., Oliveira, A. (2000). A educação musical no Brasil. In Hentschke, L. (Ed.), Educação musical em países de línguas neolatinas (pp. 47–64). Porto Alegre, Brazil: Editora da UFRGS. Google Scholar | |
|
Kleber, A., Palma Filho, J. (2010). Celeiro de ideias. O Boletim Arte na Escola, 57, 3. Retrieved from http://artenaescola.org.br/uploads/boletins/boletim-57.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Mas, A., Narita, F. (2011). Music education and the construction of musical knowledge in Spain and Brazil. The International Journal of Arts in Society, 6(4), 159–167. Google Scholar | |
|
Miles, M., Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | |
|
Noal Correa, A . (2012, July). The musical work in public spaces for early childhood education in Brazil. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISME World Conference, Thessaloniki, Greece. Abstract retrieved from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p554648_index.html Google Scholar | |
|
Pereira, L. (2010). Um movimento na história da educação musical no Brasil: Uma análise da campanha pela Lei 11.769/2008. 2010. 450 f (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Google Scholar | |
|
Regelski, T. (2005). Critical theory as a foundation for critical thinking in music education. Visions of Research in Music Education, 6. Retrieved from http://www.rider.edu/~vrme Google Scholar | |
|
Rogers, R., Mosley, M. (2006). Racial literacy in a second-grade classroom: Critical race theory, whiteness studies, and literacy research. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 462–495. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Silva, A. (2013). A educação musical de volta à escola: a lei n° 11.769/08 e a situação da música em duas escolas de Goiânia. São Paulo, Brazil: Novas Edições Acadêmicas. Google Scholar | |
|
Silva, V., Andrade, M. (2008). Música na escola pública: Desafios e soluções. Curitiba, Brazil: Secretaria de Estado da Educação do Paraná. Google Scholar | |
|
Soares, J. (2012). The nature of the engagement of Brazilian adolescents in composing activities. In Odena, O. (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 113–132). Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Google Scholar | |
|
Sobreira, S. (2012). Disciplinarização da música e produção de sentidos sobre educação musical: investigando o papel da ABEM no context da Lei n, 11.769/2008 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Google Scholar | |
|
Souto-Manning, M. (2010). Freire, teaching, and learning: Culture circles across contexts. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Google Scholar | |
|
Souza, J. (1997). A pesquisa em educação musical. In Associação Nacional de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Música (Ed.), Anais do X encontro da ANPPOM (pp. 49–53). Goiânia, Brazil: ANPPOM. Google Scholar | |
|
Souza, J. (2001). O formal e o informal na educação musical no ensino médio. Encontro Regional da ABEM SUL, 4, 38–43. Google Scholar | |
|
United States Department of Education . (2002). Laws and Guidance, Text of No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Wisnik, J. (1983). Getúlio da paixão cearense (Villa-Lobos e o Estado Novo). In Squeff, E., Wisnik, J. (Eds.), Música (pp. 129–191). São Paulo, Brazil: Editora Brasiliense. Google Scholar |