ChoralNet

The professional networking site for the global online choral community.

You are here: Home / Others / Teach Choir Conductors Like Physicians

Teach Choir Conductors Like Physicians

by Leave a Comment


I saw this article today on the Chronicle of Higher Education – and it makes a lot of sense: train future teachers like we train doctors. And by future teachers, I mean all future choral conductors.
 
Read about it: 
Teacher-training programs need to be revamped to focus more on hands-on, clinical instruction, similar to how doctors are trained, a panel of education experts recommend in a report released on Tuesday by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
 
The report, created over the last 10 months by a panel that included teachers, educators of teachers, state-government administrators, and union representatives, calls for sweeping changes in teacher-training programs that would affect almost all aspects of teacher education, including accreditors, education schools, and individual teachers.
 
It finds the current model of teaching, which relies heavily on classroom instruction and course work, inadequate. It outlines a new system of teacher training and education-school accreditation that borrows from the approach taken by medical schools, including their emphasis on hands-on training. “We have a model from medicine, and we ought to use it,” said Nancy L. Zimpher, chancellor of the State University of New York and one of the panel’s co-chairmen.
What do you think?
 

Reader Interactions

Comments

  2. Phil:  Now THERE’S a concept that administrators will love:  the coaching profession already follows the medical paradigm, so obviously we should all be trained the way coaches are!!!  (And actually it might not be that bad an idea!!!)
     
    Consider:  the potential coach is first a performer, playing the game (whichever game it happens to be).  Very few succesful coaches came from a non-playing background.  An MBA won’t get you a coaching job without experience.  This corelates directly to a musician’s apprenticeship.  Every conductor was first a performer.  (In the old days every COMPOSER was first a performer, but we’ve sort of lost sight of that necessity.)
     
    The potential coach, once eligilabiltiy runs out, serves as an assistant to a mentor (i.e., a practicing head coach), often as a grad student but also as a sort of Internship, and may indeed go through several rotations coaching different specialized aspects of the game.
     
    The grad assistant coach may, given demonstrated ability, get an actual paying job as a full-fledged Assistant Coach (a Residency), an perhaps may ultimately be promoted to Offensive or Defensive Coordinator (a Fellowship).  And it is then 100% up to the marketplace whether the most effective Assistant Coaches are tapped to take over as Head Coaches, IF there’s a vacancy, and IF they have not only the talent and experience but also all the other things that are considered necessary.
     
    And of course since there are different levels of leagues, there are different levels of Head Coaching jobs, and there is always the possibility of moving up in the ranks through sideways promotion.
     
    No one can argue that the system doesn’t work, or that it isn’t based on merit (otherwise known as “what have you done for us LATELY?!!!!”).  So why isn’t that a good paradigm to follow?  No specific degree needed, no certification, no Praxis tests, just demonstrated accomplishment.  (And rewarded by moving from zero income to more than your average college president!!!)
     
    With tongue only slightly in cheek,
    John

  3. OK, Steve!
     
    1. I did not say an orchestra conductor should be a sightsinger. L. Bernstein studied solfeggio during a sabbatical at the age of 50, I seem to recall.
     
    2. I did not say a choral conductor should be a singer. I said they are lacking in pedagogical ability. Of course, the better one can sing, the better.
     
    3. I did not say that if one can sing, one can conduct. You are correct;  they are two separate disciplines as taught. They should be more closely linked, I have already opined. 
     
    4. “Singing is the last tool of a choral director?”  What? You make my case. It is a good idea for a non-singer to    remain silent, I agree.  Conduct by singing? Hardly. Who suggested that?
      
         Arnold Steinhardt, first violin in the Guarneri quartet, suggested that string players listen to singers, like Rosa Ponselle.
         Beethoven thought as a singer when composing, I think I read.
     
       It.
     
       EP
     
       

  4. Perhaps the question at this point is: are choral music educators actually teachers or are they more akin to coaches?  If the former, what is the formally adopted curriculum?  How is learning assessed?  Is performance in and of itself the primary desired outcome, or are there other elements taught that hold a place equal in value to performance?  If the latter, what is the need for formal educational training and certification?  Perhaps choral directors should be, as Steve suggests, the music equivalent to the walk-on coach.  Or perhaps the professional choral music educator should be trained more like her core area counterpart as the Chronicle article indicates.
     
    What do you think?

  5. Philip and colleagues:
     
    First, thanks for the heads-up.  I read the entire article AND the even more well-thought-out and articulate comments on it.  And as someone whose family includes two MDs, a professional paramedic, and has used nursing students as caregivers for several years I think I’m qualfied to offer an opinion on this.
     
    The biggest falacy here is NOT the question of whether teaching is a profession or a trade, and therefore needs either education or training.  It’s without question a profession (in my opinion and that of many members of my own family), and it is one that requires BOTH broad education and specific training.
     
    No, the biggest falacy is the failure to note (as several comentators properly did) that Medicine–the training of physicians, that is, not of medical technicians of various kinds–is not only a graduate degree, but a graduate PROCESS that continues long after the receipt of the MD degree.  Fresh-minted MDs are NOT allowed to strike out on their own, set themselves up as physicians, and work without supervision.  NO WAY!!!  They go through Internships, Residencies, sometimes Fellowships (one daughter-in-law is presently at that stage), and even more years of advanced training if they choose to specialize.  In fact the other daughter-in-law is finishing up a Masters in Public Health, after getting her MD in Family Medicine.  (Seems a little weird to get a Masters AFTER a Doctorate, but medicine doesn’t exactly follow standard academic form!)
     
    And why is this the case?  Can you spell “prerequisites”?!!!!  Admittance to Medical Schools (which ARE grad schools) is based on entrance exams as well as analysis of your undergraduate courses AND your grades in those courses.  And those entrance exams, as we used to say, are designed to “separate the straight-A students”!!!  Pre-med courses, which can be in a variety of majors but which had better cover the basics of science and particularly biological science, are not only expected but requried.  And I suspect that neither English majors nor Music majors need apply!
     
    And then, WITH that academic background, Med students spend two intensive years in–guess what?–lecture classes, and memorizing all the basic information that as doctors they will have to have internalized and ready at their fingertips.  And–here’s the key to it all–the ones who can’t take the academic stress and can’t learn what’s required are FLUNKED OUT.  And thank goodness they are, or they’d be treating patients and doing so badly and incompetently.
     
    THEN, and only then, the Med students start doing their clinicals, under VERY strict, hands-on and eyes-on supervision.  They are called “rotations,” and nursing students and Veterinary Medicine students do exactly the same thing.  The object is to expose the students to all the different varieties of medicine that exist and that they might want to consider specializing in.  (If the sight of blood and guts feaks you out, you’d better not plan on emergency room or surgery, or plan to become a paramedic!)  And at every step in the process there are things that the MD, nurse, or paramedic IS permitted to do, and other things that they are NOT permitted to do, or permitted to do only on the instruction of a more experienced doctor.  And NOTHING in this long process is equivalent to our dumping a newly-certified teacher into a classroom or a rehearsal room on a sink-or-swim basis!
     
    And yes, nurses do similar things, in terms of both academics and clinical rotations, but they do it on the undergraduate level, which automatically means that they have fewer of the preriquisite courses and end up with considerably less knowledge.  That is not a putdown in any way.  They are ALSO flunked out if they can’t learn and can’t produce, and they are VERY GOOD at what they do, but they do not do what doctors do and they are not legally permitted to do what doctors do.  And basically the same thing is true of medical professionals whose training amounts to a masters degree, including optometrists, dentists, and chiropractors (but not osteopaths, who are fully qualified physicians).  They may ALSO be very good at what they do, but they are not fully-trained physicians unless they have taken advanced Med school training.
     
    So how does all this (and I apoligize for going on so long, but in my own experience unless you have family involved in the medical professions, you don’t really understand the process) relate to either teacher training in general or the education of choral professionals in particular?  Well, in my opinion it really does NOT relate in the slightest!!!  It’s the wrong model and it certainly is not the quick fix that it’s presented as.
     
    For starters, prerequisites.  What percentage of incoming Freshman music majors already have the amount of music theory, music history, and conducting experience that it takes to be a good conductor?  Less than 10%?  Probably more like less than 1%.  If any of them ARE advanced, it will be as performers.  They still have a LOT to learn!  And we’re supposed to put them in front of classes for “clinical experience” when they haven’t learned the basics?  Pretty dumb idea!
     
    Now this university has taken a step in what may be the right direction, but it was forced on us.  We’ve now had at least three waves of drastic state budget cuts in about the past 10 years.  It has affected every aspect of our teaching:  you can’t keep doing more with less indefinitely, but that’s what we’re expected to do.  And two specific things happened as a result of just the FIRST round of budget cuts.  (1) The sciences lost funding and had to stop teaching their undergraduate lab courses, WHICH WERE A UNIVERSITY REQUIREMENT FOR GRADUATION, so our Provost had to backtrack and delete the university requirements.  And (2) directly affecting us, our School of Education (which had already been downgraded to a Department of Teaching & Learning) lost so much funding that they decided to eliminate all their undergraduate courses completely, and to concentrate only on teaching graduate courses.  And that included our undergraduate music education courses, which were listed as Education courses (for obscure reasons relating to the number of hours allowed in the major) but which were being taught by our own music faculty!!!
     
    Well, the results have been both good and bad.  We no longer can graduate certified music teachers in 4 years.  Our music ed course is now more of a “pre-education” course, and the students have to be admitted to the Graduate School in order to finish a Masters in Education, do their Student Teaching, and get their Certification.  That is GOOD in that we can put more actual education and more student observing into their undergraduate years, thus preparing them better for the profession, and they finish with a Masters that puts them higher on the Salary Schedules.  It’s BAD in that it costs them the time and money for an additional year of school before they can get a job, and it COULD lead to not getting jobs that can be filled by 4-year graduates from other schools who will be LOWER on the Salary Schedules.  But our students seem to think it’s a good thing, and that’s good enough for me.
     
    And our professor who works with them on the graduate level told us something I would never have thought of.  A big part of her job is to help take those students out of a student mind-set, and help them build a new self-image as a teacher and not just one of the kids.  And she thinks that is an absolutely essential change in mindset.  So overall I have to say that our students are better prepared now than they used to be.
     
    Finally, I really have to question the makeup of the Panel that originated the report.  Without identifying ayone specific, it says that it included teachers (a Good Thing), educators of teachers (i.e. college profesors, who by definition have opinions that might not be based in reality or in valid research because they have to publish to survive), state-government administrators (who are almost always political appointees and are NOT to be trusted in any real-world situation), and union representative (huh??????  which union?  from which part of the country?  with what qualifications?).  Sounds an awful lot like the committee of blind men trying to describe an elephant!!!  But what it really is is a room full of competing agendas, which can ONLY report out something that everyone can agree on (or maybe just a majority can agree on, which of course is absolutely political and not in the slightest scientific!).
     
    And one final word, regarding the comments that teachers should be majors in the fields they teach in.  Sounds like a no-brainer, right?  Trouble is, it IS!  My older daughter is in the last stages of gathering data for her dissertation for a Ph.D. in Math Education.  One of the big questions these days is exactly how much math training a math teacher actually DOES need in order to teach math effectively.  And guess what:  it appears to be a lot less than you would think, because a lot of the really advanced math will never be used in the classroom, while understanding how students learn and how best to present and sequence the more basic concepts are absolutely decisive to successful math teaching.  And the answers discovered in elementary school math teaching do NOT necessarily map well to secondary school math teaching (which is what her dissertation is investigating).
     
    So does a General Music teacher need a Ph.D. in musicology?  Probably not.  But does a General Music teacher need to be an effective performer?  Darned right!!!  Kodaly got it right:  Only the finest musicians should be PERMITTED to teach!
     
    (Which is what the posted article actually tries to say, but gets immediately off track by considering only the Med School model.)
     
    All the best
    John

  6. All or Any,
     
    Thank you, Philip, for bringing attention to one of my pet concerns, make that peeves.
     
    There is a distinct difference between the way instrumentalists learn music and the way singers do. The ins. learns basic theory as he/she plays the first note on the instrument. Most singers sing by ear for years before they are subjected to any theory. The instruction offered by a middle school band or orchestra director is away ahead of the choral teaching of the same age, it seems. It’s the nature of the beast — ANYBODY CAN SING.
     
    Could one say that choral conducting study has been modeled after orchestral conducting study, in spite of the fact that so many singers have had little or no instruction? Large choruses enlist some singers who have little of no vocal study background. Not so the orchestra; players have studied their instruments.
    Now the problem is this: in my observation, choral directors are lacking in significant vocal pedagical ability, even if they, themselves, can sing.
    Nevermind that one can try the techniques of Robert Shaw or the Olaf tradition; any chorus will be better if the diredtor can really sing. Are there orchestra conductors who have not studied an instrument? I know — Shaw did not. That is the reason he relied so heavily on rhythm. When asked whether one need vocal study, he said, “The more, the better!”
     
    Again, Philip, Thanks. More later as this continues!
     
    EP

  7. Greetings,
    The best training/education programs do use a similar model.  Students work with expert artist-conductors in choral ensembles and have the chance to practice in schools.  I suggest that the quality of instruction depends more on the instructor than the model.  Future choral conductors need a better early and more a more comprehensive music education.   Too few young choristers who receive school credit are required to listen to music, demonstrate knowledge of musical theory and an understanding of style, and be accountable for their development through individual testing.   Too few choral conductors have had to demonstrate that they can conduct with precision and artistry.  The medical schools have more demanding entrance requirements and many excellent musicians are admitted there. 🙂
     
    Wayne Toews

  8. Several thoughts – means that, if medicine’s training is the model, there is an excessive front-side timeline for education (are we aiming to produce, at the end, all DMA’s or DMEd’s – or are we prepared for lesser degrees of training/experience equivalent to anesthesiologists and nurse practitioners and physicians’ assistants – and what exactly would THAT look like?) before the individual is actually in the field “fully accredited.”  Not necessary, not even healthy in the end.  I’m all for practical experience (it would have been nice in my case had this happened under a mentorship or two – but that’s my problem).  Furthermore, while it may be attractive to think of music as having a substantive if not principal aspect that is technical/mechanical, unlike medicine there is in music a far larger aspect that is creative (yes, I give credit for the diagnostic element in medicine which IS intuitive/feeling, but medicine DOES emphasize the science and WANTS to think of itself (culture) as scientific – which in my view has a very different vibe for the approach to the “patient” – and frankly, given the doctors out there and their handling of patients, do you want conductors treating the musical “patient” in the same way?).  I would agree only thus far to the complaint offered in the article, that more hands-on training is desirable for future teachers/conductors – but I don’t think the medical school model is the way to go.
     
    Ron Duquette

  9. Disclaimer:  I was a lousy student, and regret it everyday.  But, I think I’ve learned my lesson.  On with my comment.
     
    I saw this article, too.  And, my first impression was, I think, the same as yours.  I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that I learned a whole lot more either on the job or in masterclasses than I did in the actual classroom.  BUT – I think those that responded at the end of the article make some very good points, namely in the question: is teaching a trade, or profession?  That’s a tough one to answer when you look at teacher training.  I ended up not getting a teaching degree, (struggled for 2 1/2 years in a music education program – turns out I’m a teacher after all and learned everything the hard way, but that’s a long story) but I’ll admit to taking advantage of the “dumbed down” academic courses that are offered to education majors.  Could I have done well in “real” chemistry and “real” math?  Oh yeah – probably.  But the loop hole was there, and I took it.  I guess what I’m trying to say is that I tend to agree with all the responses within the chronicle that say that if we’re going to treat teaching as a profession, academic standards within the teaching degree need to increase – AND – more hands-on experience is needed before we feed the new teachers to the wolves.   
     

Leave a Reply

© 2026 American Choral Directors Association. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy