Technology Manifesto

A fellow Orff teacher sent me a message asking me if I had anything to say to her adult (or college?) students about the use of technology in the music classroom. Somewhere I have written something called the Technology Manifesto, but darn if I could find it. So even though I’m done with jet lag, I found myself wholly awake at 3:00 am and just decided to write something about it. And here it is:

 

“Should computers be used in contemporary music classes?” One way to answer that question is to begin with a few others. “Why should they be used and when and at what age and for how much time and for how much money in my limited budget? What is my vision of music education? Which technologies— xylophones, whiteboards, recorders, Powerpoints, Youtube, etc. — best support that vision? And again, precisely when and why and how much?”

 

My personal vision that I’ve put into practice for over 50 years now is that the human body, heart and mind is where all learning begins and ends. Before we learn how a tool can extend their capabilities— from a leg pat to a drum stroke, from a voice to a flute, from a dreamed choreography to a videotaped one—we first must wholly embrace that which is closest to us— muscle and heartbeat and ideas in the brain and images in the mind. 

 

And since my vision is not limited to the success of each individual learner, but the way that music creates a community of learners, the ways that bodies, hearts and minds can connect with each other, support and entrain and amplify our sense of belonging to each other, is crucial to every decision made about the use of various technologies. To give just one example, students in rows staring up at a two-dimensional screen without touch, taste, smell and the ability to look back at them in hopes to know them creates a markedly different—and in my experience, severely reduced— version of community. Teacher and students holding hands in a circle, throwing out a dance move or gesture or sound or song and collectively shaping it, is a far superior inroad to community. 

 

The broader question in all parts of our life is not whether electronic technology is “good” or “bad,” but what vision does it serve,  what are its particular gifts, what are its limitations, what are some unintended consequences that we are now seeing and documenting with some technologies?  For example, the way phone-based childhoods have replaced play-based childhoods has been proven to be to the great detriment of our children’s mental and physical health. We know this in our bones simply by noticing our children, but if we need some documentation, Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation, amongst a growing collection of other books, will give us the details. So somewhere between continuing to use these technologies—or rather, be used by them— mindlessly,  and throwing them out is the important work of regulating their use. We understand this in other areas— a glass of wine or sip of beer can be lovely, but we understand that alcoholism is a serious problem. Pain killers after surgery are a blessing, but the opioid addiction crisis is a nightmare. As such, we limit children’s access to them and try to educate adults as to their proper use. 

 

A sensible policy of regulation begins with the adults in charge understanding the issues at stake and acting accordingly to protect both the children and themselves. I have created a little Technology Manifesto that helps frame the discussion, a series of questions to consider when wondering what to buy and how to use it. As follows:

 

Is this the right tool for the right job for the right reason for the right age group for the right amount of time for the right cost? 

 

• The right tool for the right job: Is there a simpler tool that can do the job as well? Like writing rhythms on a whiteboard instead of a flashy, glitzy display on a screen. Or notating rhythms with cups on the floor. Might it be worthwhile to wean kids from screens when something else serves the purpose as well or better?

 

The right reason: A  Youtube clip of Louis Armstrong and Dizzy Gillespie performing together on the Jackie Gleason Show or Nina Simone playing and singing I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel to Be Freeat the Montreaux Jazz Festival needs a computer/ Youtube/ screen and sound system. I want my students to know these geniuses and see them at work. A solid reason to use this technology (Youtube and a screen) that does this in a way no other technology can do as effectively. 

 

The right age group: Teachers should be clearly knowledgeable about child development and the young child’s irreducible need to touch, taste, explore, play and interact with the three-dimensional world using all senses. If screens rob children of those foundation experiences through their use at too young an age, nature’s window for building a firm foundation for all future learning is slammed on their fingers. Like all child-raising, screens need the same kind of consideration that sleep, behavioral boundaries, safety, protection, sugar and later alcohol, sex, driving, curfews, etc. do. Instead, tech companies purposefully addict young children to screens for the company’s profit, without considering for one moment the child’s mental, physical and emotional health. Therefore, it is the job of parents and teachers to agree on the developmentally appropriate times to connect children with these technologies. 

 

The right amount of time: The music class in general and the Orff Schulwerk class in particular can be a healing antidote to the greater school culture’s over-use of screens, an oasis where they can be wholly children, playing, exploring and learning with all their senses, their body, voice, intellect and imagination. Given how little time we have with children, consider using it sparingly. 

 

The right cost:  54 years after a school parent bought a set of six Studio 49 Orff instruments for The San Francisco School, the children are still playing those same instruments! Meanwhile, the garage is filled with computers with non-recycleable and dangerous materials that were obsolete after one or two years and cost five times as much as the xylophones. Don’t forget to factor in hiring a tech person (or two or three or more), making space for the machines, the cost of fixing them and upgrading, the cost of increased security measures to that they’re not stolen, the time spent on training teachers to stay up to date with the next incarnation of the machine. Again, it’s simple math. Is there enough bang for the buck to justify these expenses? And where is the proof that they’ve actually enhanced student learning, helped teachers teach better, created a more connected human community? 

 

So next time you’re reaching for the Powerpoint switch, consider all of the above and make a wise choice. The children are counting on you. 

 

P.S. For more,  listen to X Is for Xylophone  on my Spotify ABC’s of Education podcast.