The Literature on Non-Competitive Music Festivals for School Music Ensembles

History of Band Contests

In 1923, the first band national band competition was held in Chicago. Sponsored by the music industry, they were designed to stimulate sales of musical instruments. By 1932, over one thousand school bands were competing nationwide.

These first music contests were criticized for their use of ranking systems that awarded one first-place award. This format was criticized heavily and was replaced in 1933 with a rating-criterion system. As their popularity grew, national groups were formed to manage these contests. In the 1950's, these national organizations were disbanded in place of state- and locally-operated contests were justified by their increasing popularity (Burdett, 1985).

Burdett criticizes the early founders of contest for failing to develop philosophy, goals, and objectives for these events. As a result, organizers had to frequently reinvent their contests to keep up with changes in popular culture and public opinion. She writes that contest founders "should have created events which would complement the philosophy, goals, and objectives that were already established for music education" (1985).

The Effects of Competition on Music Education

Temple concluded that participation in contests may actually limit a student's level of musical achievement (1973). He compared bands in Ohio that were competitive (participants in the Ohio Music Educators Association state band competitions) against bands which were non-competitive. No significant differences in the sight-reading abilities of the two groups were found, but students in non-competitive groups scored significantly (.05) higher in musical achievement as measured by the Colwell MAT (Music Achievement Test).

Many have criticized that competition stifles creativity. Music critic Will Crutchfield believes that piano contests have created sterile interpretations of music. Contestants "play it safe" and rarely engage in creative risk-taking (as reported in Kohn, 1986). Research by Teresa Amabile (as reported in Kohn, 1987) indicates that children's creativity is reduced when they are competing for rewards. She states, "people will be most creative when they feel motivated primarily by interest, enjoyment, satisfaction, and challenge of the work itself - and not by external pressures" (p. 55).

Along these lines, Miller believes that music contests impel conformity (1994), since "the same rules apply to everyone, and the game must be played the same way everytime" (p. 31). Research by Schwarz (as reported in Kohn, 1993) supports this assertion. He finds that competition - and rewards - elicits repetitive approaches to solving problems. Once a successful path is found, humans are reluctant to deviate in their patterns, and thus less innovative and less apt to accept change.

Alternatives to Competition

Miller (1994) described a middle school in Plainfield, Indiana which has innovated new philosophies about student competition. This school's extra-curricular policy states that all students may participate in any extra-curricular group of their choosing. In other words, auditions and try-outs are eliminated; all interested students "make the team". In band, this has meant the elimination of chair auditions, student ranking, and challenges. The music teachers use peer tutoring -- pair experienced band students with less experienced band students -- to promote skill acquisition and inter-personal relationships. Anecdotal evidence suggests that "quality has not suffered" (p. 30).

Miller also believes that music directors should avoid specialized groups such as madrigal or show choir ensembles, which only create a system of social castes within a school. Teachers should emphasize the experience and musical facets of group participation over the competitive goals of (1) enhancing the reputation of the teacher, (2) enhancing the reputation of the school, and (3) increasing job stability for music educators.

James Austin (1990a) calls for teachers to develop new approaches which replace the need for competition. He suggests the use of teacher-clinicians and elimination of auditions and ranking. Of significant importance to music educators, Austin believes that a need exists for alternatives to current competitive models; few options currently exist. Cooperative games and goal structures, self-analysis, and non-competitive performances and recitals are further suggested for use in music classrooms. The author stresses that educators should maintain high levels of instructional feedback, focusing on qualitative information that describes instead of ranks.

Finney (1989) advocates non-competitive theater festivals for high school drama departments. He believes that teachers should emphasize the value of participation over the desire to win at all costs. Summarizing his observation of a state theater competition, Finney criticized the behaviors of teachers and students:

Upon my arrival, I was surprised to note how few students seemed to be in attendance. I quickly discovered that most of the students who were participating in the contest arrived an hour or two before their school's presentation, observed one or two of the plays, then quickly got into costume and make-up, put up their set, performed, and then departed. They did not return until the last hour of the last day of the contest, when the awards were presented. The students were not there to share their work with other students; they were there to win. [...] The plays were performed before almost empty houses (p. 39).

As an administrator for the International Thespian Society, Finney observed teachers and students at another state event sponsored by his own organization. At this contest, instead of participating in the educational components of the event -- workshops, presentations, and performances -- contestants choose to rehearse their competitive events (p. 40). The model that he offers could easily be applied to music festivals nationwide.

LaBuda (1997) proposes a one-shot festival for improving instrumental tone quality. Students would receive group and individual instruction from specialists on how to improve their breath support, embouchure, equipment, and other factors that affect tone issues. By drawing in community resources, such a festival could be planned with relatively little money.

Several writers advocate changes to current contest practices. Miller believes that contests should eliminate the ratings system, since a shortage of "best" or "excellent" ratings is deliberately and artificially created (1994). He stresses the use of descriptive feedback as an assessment and improvement tool. Sheldon (1994) cites that adjudication is often inconsistent and unreliable; many judges are simply untrained or unqualified. Instead, festivals should be viewed as an educational vehicle, not the objective itself. Ratings and adjudicators' comments can be useful tools, however, for helping an ensemble and its teacher to learn and improve. The most educationally viable festivals will provide time for an adjudicator to teach the ensemble through discussion and rehearsal. Fiske, however, disputes any use of contest ratings or scores (1983, as reported in Colwell, 1992), since "even highly practiced, experienced adjudicators rarely show a reliability index of .50, that is, 25 percent consistency" (p. 7).

Reely (1993) discusses instructional techniques for student self-assessment based on the comments received from contest adjudicators. He encourages class discussions and written evaluations of these comments, using listening activities which focus on analysis of one given parameter. Students can self-assess their own group, as well as recordings of other groups form other schools. The author asserts that improved student performance, listening skills, and musical understanding will result.

Austin, considered the leading researcher on competition in music, offers several suggestions for directors who choose to participate in music contests (1993). During the rehearsals that proceed the contest, directors should teach students about the rating criteria which will be judged on the adjudication form, be it tone quality, musicianship, or whichever category. While at the contest, students should observe many other performing groups. He offers a written questionnaire activity that asks students to reflect on each of the performances that they attend.

Resistance to Change

The state and national standards have caused music teachers to examine their curricula. Professional music organizations, including groups that represent teachers, industry, and performers, have promoted the standards through conferences, new publications, revised textbooks and method books, and advocacy efforts which call for the full implementation of the standards. Music teachers, perhaps more than any other discipline, have been slow to adopt their national organization's standards, however. Directors of music performance ensembles -- the primary delivery method of music learning in American schools -- say that they do not have enough time to teach all the standards in their band rehearsals.

Joseph Labuta (1997) writes that band directors are slow to accept curricular changes until easy pathways are developed, especially pre-written lesson plans that require preparation to teach. In his ground-breaking book, Teaching Musicianship in the High School Band, he proposed that performance ensembles should be vehicles for teaching musicianship, defined as "knowledge and skill applied to practical music making" (p. 6). He created instructional models for integrating music history and music theory lessons into a traditional performance rehearsal.

Band directors say that their curriculum is dictated by the outside performance demands placed on them by parents, community members, and school officials. These events are vital to their programs: administrators prize "superior" ratings, competition events increase visibility in the community, and students are motivated by winning. Research shows that directors value performances at concerts and contests (Hurst & Ramsey, 1991), but the national standards call on directors to teach beyond performance. The standards require students to develop musical understanding, create new music through composition and improvisation, and make connections between and among the arts and other disciplines.

One exception to this resistance has been in the beginning instrument classroom. In less than a decade, the beginning band curriculum in America has been changed significantly. The three best-selling method books for beginning band instruction - Standard of Excellence, Essential Elements, and Accent on Achievement - each incorporate history lessons, music theory, multi-cultural music, and composition in addition to teaching the basic skills of instrument performance. Marketing materials and advertisements tout each book's ability to satisfy the national standards. Band directors have widely adopted these textbooks. While the intended curriculum may not actually be carried, students are minimally exposed to multi-cultural music examples and may independent complete the history and theory components.

The impetus for the acceptance of change in the beginning band classroom was the national standards; the reason for the widespread adoption of the change can be credited to the method book publishers. This supports Labuda's assertion that band directors will not implement change until easy-to-use materials are available and practical for use (1997).

Miller (1994) writes that physical education teachers have been fast to change their teaching methods based on research that refutes the assumed benefits of competition. Music teachers, on the other hand, "seem to be clinging to out-of-date beliefs about the mythical powers of competing to enhance performance" (p.31), recognizing that "it will be a major task to attempt to dismantle ingrained traditions of competition, but we need to begin somewhere" (p. 33). Austin (1990) concurs that physical education reform - focusing on individualized fitness programs and lifelong participation in recreational sports - is satisfying the same goals that music teachers must work harder to achieve: "provid[ing] students with a positive alternative to the problem-plagued world of competitive athletics, where winning has become larger than life" (p. 48).

Conclusions and Discussion

If a non-competitive philosophy is to be accepted, it must be accompanied by easy pathways that directors can use instead of competition. Until alternatives to competition are developed and are easily accessible to band directors and students, the music contest format will continue to dominate as the primary vehicle for outside performances. Organizations such as the Mid-American Competing Band Directors Association (MACBDA) and Bands of America (BOA) have proliferated the use of marching band contests since their beginnings in the 1970's. Without organizations to plan, promote, and propagate non-competitive events, the status quo will be sustained.

Few models exist for designing a non-competitive band festival, especially one which would seek to cover the national standards. In Illinois, popular show choir clinics are held at Crete-Monee High School and El Paso High School. These events feature workshops and clinicians that are designed to help each ensemble improve their show in a non-threatening environment. Time is allotted at both events for groups to observe one-another's rehearsals and performances. Ironically, the number of show choir clinics is decreasing while the number of competition festivals has remained constant. Music educators need to assert their leadership and develop, support, and propagate non-competitive alternatives to the present contest structure.

References

Abeles, H., Hoffer, C., and Klotman, R. (1995). Foundations of music education. New York: Schirmer Books.

Austin, J.R. (1988). The effect of music contest format on self-concept, motivation, achievement, and attitude of elementary band students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36(2), 95-107.

Austin, J.R. (1990a). Alternatives to competition in music education. The Education Digest, 55(9), 45.

Austin, J.R. (1990b). Competition: Is music education the loser? Music Educators Journal, 76(6), 21-25.

Austin, J.R. (1993). Meaningful contests. The Instrumentalist, 80(77).

Burdett, N.D. (1985). The high school contest movement in the United States. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 458A (DA8609289).

Finney, D. (1989). Student competition: Plague or pestilence? Design for Arts in Education, 38-41.

Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind, and brain. New York: Basic Books.

Hayslett, D.J. (1992). The effect of band contest participation upon band members' perceptions of contest rating importance, musical achievement, and self-worth. Dialogue in Instrumental Music Education, 16(2), 12-18.

History of jazz. [Available: http://www.jazzcentralstation.com/jcs/station/newsstan/history/index.html].

Hurst, C.W., & Ramsey, D.S. (1991). The band contest controversy in music education as evidenced in over fifty-five years of selected research literature. Southeastern Journal of Music Education, 3, 178-187.

Illinois State Board of Education. (1994). Music resource manual for curriculum planning. Springfield, Illinois: Illinois State Board of Education.

Illinois State Board of Education. (1997). Illinois learning standards. Springfield, Illinois: Illinois State Board of Education.

Index of music education festivals. [Available: http://gnn.yahoo.com/Entertainment/Music/Education/Festivals/].

International Association of Jazz Educators. Educational festivals. [Available: http://jp.jazzcentralstation.com/jcs/station/musicexp/educatio/iaje/festival/index.html].

Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., & Nelson, D. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.

Kohn, A. (1986). How to succeed without even vying. Psychology Today, 20(9), 22-24, 26-28.

Kohn, A. (1987). Art for art's sake. Psychology Today, 21(9), 52-57.

Kohn, A. (1992). No contest: The case against competition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Labuta, J. (1997). Teaching musicianship in the high school band. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida: Meridith Music Publications.

Lawn, R. (1986). The jazz ensemble director's manual: A handbook of practical methods and materials for the educator.. Oskaloosa, Iowa: C.L. Barnhouse Company.

Mark, M.(1996). Contemporary music education. New York: Schirmer Book.

Miller, R.E. (1994). A dysfunctional culture: Competition in music. Music Educators Journal, 29-33.

National Commission on Music Education. (1991). Growing up complete: The imperative for music education. Reston, Virginia: Music Educators National Conference.

Pizer, R.A. (1987). Instrumental music evaluation: Forms and procedures for assessing student performance. West Nyack, N.Y.: Parker Publishing Company.

Reeley, R. (1993). Learning from contest comments. The Instrumentalist, 79.

Sheldon, D. (1994). Class Notes: Evaluation Idea Bank, Is Evaluation Fair, Taping Your Teaching. Materials published by the author at the University of Illinois.

Temple, C.P. (1973). A study of the effectiveness of competition festivals in the music education process. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 4827A (UM 74-3327).

University of Wisconsin at Madison. [Available: http://hum.lss.wisc.edu/jazz/].

Winners and losers: Points of view on competitions. (1983). Music Educators Journal, 70(2), 28-33.

Wolff, K.L. (1978). The nonmusical outcomes of music education: A review of the literature. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 18(3), 234-241.

Literature Review	Aims, Goals, & Objectives	Pros & Cons	Timeline and Process
Staffing Needs	Assessment Methods	Internet Resources	E-Mail to David Conrad