A Re-examination of Teacher Training in Music

Paper: Alexander L. Ringer
Panel: Theodore F. Normann, Douglas Kidd, Harold C. Youngberg
At the December 30, 1960, session of the CMS annual meetings, University of California, Berkeley.

According to an attractive four-page pamphlet published jointly by the Music Teachers National Association, Music Educators National Conference, and National Association of Schools of Music, the following qualifications are currently expected of all teachers in the field of music: 1) a broad cultural background, 2) extensive knowledge of music, 3) special performance skill on one instrument or voice, 4) ability and skill in teaching people, 5) administrative ability (for supervisors).1

Few of us who are concerned with the education of young men and women not only for the teaching of music but also for responsible citizenship in an ever more complex world would wish to take issue with such a well reasoned statement. But, while this comprehensive list of desirable "knowledge and skills" represents a welcome advance in policy over past recommendations, some may be inclined to question its realism, indeed its fairness, considering current college curricula and degree requirements which virtually preclude the fulfillment of such high expectations.

Take point one, for example: "a broad cultural background." A leading institution like the Eastman School of Music offers its public school music majors no more than twenty-seven hours of general education at the undergraduate level, including required elementary courses such as English composition and basic psychology. This amounts to just over 20% of the total number of hours needed for graduation. Now, the Eastman curriculum may not be altogether typical, but current teacher training programs generally anything but favor a "broad cultural background." Actually, most study plans are precisely of the type which, as Arthur Bestor puts it so devastatingly, tend to produce "intellectual eunuchs."2 The music education graduate shares his fate admittedly with many others whose minds have been sterilized by "educationist" methods and materials. Yet he is on the whole worse off. At least part of the subject matter touched upon, however lightly, in the training of general classroom teachers bears directly on the duties of future parents and citizens. But even the most inveterate apologists for music education, as it is currently practiced, will have to forego such claims for the "secrets" of the autoharp or the literary values of ninety-nine selected rote songs.

That many music education graduates are painfully aware of their sadly insufficient cultural background was demonstrated some years ago in a follow-up study of graduates of the University of Illinois School of Music. Here are some typical complaints voiced by respondents now teaching in public schools: "The work in general education was of excellent quality—however inadequate in quantity to produce a reasonably educated individual.—Include more courses such as sociology, psychology, economics and philosophy to provide a wider, more varied background for music students as people.—I felt the general education of the music students was grossly inadequate.—I think all teachers as well as college grads should have a general education no matter what field they enter." etc., etc.3

Deficiencies in general education turn into even greater social and psychological liabilities when, as happens so often, the student eventually decides to abandon his or her teaching career in favor of some other profession or on account of heavy family responsibilities. While I have not been able to obtain any statistics to this effect, personal knowledge leads me to believe that this is the ultimate fate of nearly three-fourths of the female students enrolled in music education programs, i.e., the majority of all the music education students, since in this field the girls greatly outnumber the boys. In the end, such an unfortunate person has little left of her college days, except a sense of utter frustration. "This is really none of our business," music educators have told me, "are we our students' keepers?" The obvious answer is: certainly not, if the training of music teachers is your only aim, but quite emphatically yes, if you wish to be considered as educators. In the words of Professor Bestor, "The prospective teacher is entitled to a liberal education, not so much for utilitarian as for broadly human and civic reasons. Before he can be a teacher he must be a man and a citizen. He attends college not primarily to acquire knowledge that he can pass on to others, but to acquire intellectual discipline that he can use in the conduct of his own life."4 And Dean Gordon Sweet of Queens College once told the leadership of the NASM that in his view no college granting the Bachelor's degree, and that includes teacher training institutions, is "maintaining its educational ideal if it does not expect a strong liberal arts program in its requirements for graduation."5

Some of the confusion that besets teacher preparation as a whole is indicated by the indiscriminate use of the very words "education" and "training," terms that have traditionally stood for two clearly distinct concepts. As Joseph Wood Krutch reminded us recently, the educator could always "assume that part of his business was to foster aims, interests, ideals and standards of value different from those which other strong social forces such as economic pressure and the inertia of the average human being tended to encourage. He assumed in other words, that education should exert an influence upon the human condition, not be merely a reflection of it."6 An educator, then, is by definition a creative person whose performance has a direct and crucial impact on the human condition. And in this capacity he may be faced with decisions of a kind for which no amount of training will ever prepare him. For training is properly aimed at the fulfillment of specified tasks, not their creation.7 Whereas training tends to perpetuate the status quo, true education represents "a deliberate attempt to criticize the prevailing condition of man and to create discontent."8 In short, it breeds ideals. Considered in this light, most programs in music education—regardless of variations from state to state and from school to school—amount to outright denials of educational opportunity. At one large midwestern university the instrumental music education major learns about American history and government only in his senior year and then in classes taught at the sophomore level. From an educational point of view such programming is patently absurd; yet, under the pressure of utterly unreasonable training requirements intelligent men of good will feel compelled to condone it.

The so-called Cincinnati Report on the B.A. degree is undoubtedly the most broad-minded document ever approved by the NASM. Yet, it, too, reflects the ambivalence which characterizes all efforts to improve music teacher education. "The prospective school-music teacher who is interested in receiving a broad liberal education," this report recommends, "should be encouraged to take the curriculum for the A.B. degree in Music."9 Surely, in the minds of its originators the question was not whether the prospective teacher "is interested in receiving a broad liberal education," but whether colleges and universities deserving of that designation, or, for that matter, the students themselves can afford not to insist on such a general background, regardless of specialization, and whether in this day and age our public schools have a right to employ individuals whose creative faculties are either non-existent or have remained woefully underdeveloped. Significantly, the curricular proposals made elsewhere in the Cincinnati Report were specifically designed to provide for the kind of "broad cultural background" urged in the major organizations' pamphlet on "Careers in Music." Supposing, as I think we may, that the statements contained in the latter signify more than just another collection of pious phrases uttered in deference to the current outcries against teacher ignorance, would not simple logic force upon those subscribing to it a policy nearly identical with that envisaged by the substance of the Cincinnati Report? Still, when that report first came before the membership of the NASM, a co-sponsor of the "Careers" pamphlet, it was introduced with this apology: "I hope it is clearly understood that the aim of the report at hand is to supplement and enrich the existing philosophy of the NASM, and not to criticize nor replace it . . . we hope that you will feel able to accept it as another approach toward our mutual objectives."10 This preamble is a dramatic example of the self-defeating tendency to be everything to all people. For, at least with regard to teacher education, the two approaches are clearly incompatible.

The Cincinnati Report states emphatically that "the teacher, the one person on whose shoulder rests the responsibility of transmitting our heritage to the next generation can little afford not to prepare himself in this manner,"11i.e., a liberal rather than a narrowly professional manner. By receiving the report "with thanks by an affirmative vote,"12 perhaps without fully realizing all its ramifications, the membership of the NASM took on the solemn obligation to adopt its philosophy and pursue its implications with logic and determination. Logic, of course, would have led to quite revolutionary changes, and so determination was expended on well intentioned attempts to reconcile irreconcilables. Years ago the same association officially deplored and accepted "only with great reluctance the Bachelor of Arts degree in connection with the professional preparation of teachers of school music."13 Now it duly lists the minimum requirements for that degree together with a few explanatory paragraphs from the original report. But in daily practice, it is the spirit of the earlier "deploration" which prevails.

A truly liberal program not only guarantees the music teacher's right to a general education, it also safeguards his dignity as a musician. For, instead of encouraging the smattering of ignorance that results so often from the surface study of a great number of subjects, it promotes insight, creates an attitude, imparts in the immortal words of Alfred North Whitehead, "an intimate sense for the power of ideas, for the beauty of ideas, together with a particular body of knowledge which has peculiar reference to the life of the being possessing it."14 Is it not ironical, nay shameful, that we who advocate its inclusion into the liberal studies of non-music students fail time and again to turn music itself into an instrument of liberal education for those professionally devoted to it? What could be less liberal in spirit than the average theory course? One widely used textbook, far from stimulating curiosity as to why Bach violated the rules of harmony on specific occasions, orders students to imitate blindly the procedures employed by him in a statistically significant majority of cases. Similarly, instead of illuminating the miraculous interdependence of style and form in the works of a great master and the concomitant infinite variety of his formal patterns, required analysis courses often degrade Beethoven's piano sonatas to the level of sterile exercises in "sonata form."

Eartraining and sightsinging sessions fare even worse. Here countless hours, that could be profitably employed to acquaint the students with good music of all times, are spent aimlessly and without method on insipid exercises and "graded" musical imbecilities. Several years ago it occurred to me that the first volume of the Harvard Anthology of Music might be successfully used as a sightsinging text, giving freshmen their first real taste not only of early music but, more importantly, of some basic issues in music generally. Gregorian chant is eminently suited for beginners attempting to master diatonic patterns intervallically, and secular medieval monophony promotes a feeling for key and simple rhythmic formulas. But, the chant examples also teach lasting principles of melodic structure, while the secular pieces illustrate their modification under the impact of strict rhythmic organization. By the end of the first semester my class had surveyed a good deal of medieval and Renaissance music in this fashion. The students had literally been "with it" and by their own testimony had greatly enjoyed it.15

During the subsequent semester the emphasis was on 18th and 20th century music. Again, only living music was studied—with the same gratifying results. Twelve-tone singing and dictation caused much less difficulty than might have been anticipated. The ears of today's youngsters are thoroughly conditioned to consider all intervals as equals, if only because TV commercials and background music abound with augmented fourths, major sevenths and minor ninths. And the same goes for chordal patterns which were drilled in ever increasing degrees of complexity. Folksongs and nursery type melodies were rarely tackled, but spotchecks showed that such simple materials harbored no difficulties at all.

Ideally, the teaching of theory and history might be combined into a three year survey of musical literature, incorporating eartraining sessions of this type as well as exercises in counterpoint and harmony, geared to the analytic study of various styles in their historical setting. This scheme differs from the Juilliard L and M system in its strong emphasis on an historical manner of presentation, a method that imposes itself not merely for didactic reasons but as the only effective means of conveying to the student a sense of both permanence and change in man and his music. Traditional music history courses, especially of the one year survey variety, often fail in this task because they, too, tend to belabor unrelated facts. However, the historical approach should never be permitted to obscure a basic understanding of non-Western music. Certainly in this age of broadening world horizons the music teacher capable of enriching his school's social studies program with well informed and colorfully illustrated presentations of the music of the world's peoples can make a valuable contribution to general education that will gain him the gratitude of his community and the lasting respect of his peers.

While the dignity of the teacher as a musician demands indeed that he be intimately acquainted with the musical heritage of the world in terms of its history, technical procedures and aesthetic import, his ultimate success depends at least as much on his instrumental or vocal performance skills. Needless to say, any halfway effective enforcement of the pertinent requirement listed in the joint statement on "Careers" would eliminate more than half of the students currently enrolled in music education programs, partly because of their own lack of talent and partly because their curricula make the acquisition of such superior skills virtually impossible. There obviously would be no more room for the student who transfers to music education in order to escape his senior recital (a graduation sine qua non in applied music), or for the young lady who goes into music faute de mieux because she happens to dislike home economics. So much the better. For one's dignity as a musician owes also much to the level of competence of one's colleagues. As of now, some of our best students will not enter the music education program precisely because of the low level of musicianship for which the field is notorious. And this is truly a tragedy, since our children ought to be exposed to the best, not the worst in musical talent and ability.

Emphasis on better performance would certainly go counter to the current philosophy which forces students to acquire the rudiments of the most diverse instruments instead of concentrating on one major performance vehicle in addition to the piano without which effective classroom instruction is virtually impossible. In short, the almost inevitable result would be the total demise of a whole system of instruction which in the words of Jacques Barzun has produced numerous "musical stenographers" but very few real musicians.

It will be argued, of course, that recommendations of this sort are simply not realistic, that there are not enough young people who are both possessed of the desired academic and musical talents and eager to go into school music. Possibly so, but a major reason may well be that the profession has catered much too long to the academically and musically untalented. Commenting on the fact that only twenty-four of the 104 instrumental music majors graduated from the University of Oklahoma School of Music between 1948 and 1959 were actually teaching in Oklahoma, the Daily Oklahoman of August 21, 1960 had this to say: "Mediocrity has become such a comfortable rut that excellence jars complacent nerves. And what's wrong in Oklahoma is only an aggravated case of what's wrong generally in our country. . . . Take music out of the class of cookery, manual training and driver education. Let it be taught as one of the strongest disciplines of learning." Unquestionably, the academic reorientation of our public schools, which is now in full swing everywhere, will soon force the profession to "show or forfeit." Already powerful voices are heard, urging the abolishment of bands and other extracurricular activities in junior high school, so that children can get down to the serious business of a real education."16 Indeed, as Professor Van Bodegraven once pointed out, "while the emphasis in the schools was primarily on intellectual training, music did not play a particularly prominent part in spite of the fact that (I believe) President Eliot of Harvard paid music the compliment of saying it was the best mind-trainer on the list. Evidently most educators at that time did not believe him. Music began to play a larger part in the total scheme of education in the elementary and secondary schools only with the coming of the newer philosophy which emphasized creative, direct activity, the so-called 'whole child'."17 There is considerable danger that, as the educational philosophy changes once more, music education will again be squeezed out, unless, of course, its representatives can prove that President Eliot was right and that what they have to offer does constitute an intensive, high-level aspect of human learning in general. Dr. Conant, in his study of the American High School, specifically refers to music as a desirable area of intensive study for the "academically talented."18 And the MENC has a committee working on the very subject."19 Surely it cannot be the intention to expose our most talented youngsters to the incompetencies of the academically and musically untalented.

Where real talent is currently available it is often kept in an underdeveloped state, not because of mere negligence but as a matter of principle. At the Eastman School public school music majors take music history only during their freshman year, i.e., at a stage when most of the young men and women have neither sufficient knowledge in music theory nor any other basic prerequisites that would permit them to draw maximum profit from such a course, or, for that matter, allow their instructor to teach it efficiently. Malpractices of this kind are typical of an educational philosophy which holds among other things that prospective teachers familiarize themselves with their subject on a level close to that of their future pupils. In 1952 the MENC said that every music educator must "demand high quality of the highest order from the work of his pupils. It is not good teaching of the art of music to do otherwise. Yet at the same time, the music educator and his field are in a quantitative market, so to speak, and the standards set must be carefully and frequently measured so that 'musical education' is not the result for a few pupils, but that education through music is the result for all the pupils."20 Recently the same organization has come out even more bluntly (and more intelligibly, too) in favor of the doctrine that the paying patron is always king: "Since the schools are supported by public funds, the music program must be for all the pupils."21 Thus, the prevailing philosophy combines a diluted form of business ethics with a totally untenable conception of democracy, according to which "music education is deemed a valid experience to promote democratic, social living,"22 and the "music education curriculum should be organized and taught around principles consistent with democratic ideals."23 Indeed, like their brethren in other fields, music "educationists" use the term "democratic," to quote Professor Bush of Harvard, "as an incantation that serves to glorify socially minded ignorance and triviality."24 In the name of democracy, music is taught by individuals whose infantilism has been academically cultivated and in the name of democracy the materials used are about as representative of music as an art—to quote P.H. Lang—as the comics are of English literature.

In this systematic downgrading process, the powers that be in music education have the full support and active encouragement of the music industry and other mass producers of so-called educational materials. One company has published opera stories in comic form for nearly twenty years. And even a cursory glance at the advertisements in our leading music education journals reveals the commercial roots of much that goes on in the schools. Moreover, since their status is that of paid servants of the community, music teachers find themselves constantly at the beck and call of PTA groups, Lions clubs, and football coaches in ways that encroach deeply upon their dignity as individuals no less than their freedom as teachers. An incredible but true story may serve to illustrate the cumulative effects of all these extraneous pressures and interferences: A few years ago the music supervisor of a sizeable midwestern community explained to the assembled parents of grade and junior high school children how their youngsters were selected for the study of string instruments. "First we thoroughly examine their teeth," he said. "Then we recommend that those whose teeth are found to be inadequate for participation in the band study the violin or 'cello." As it turned out, the dentally ungifted did make a great success of their subsequently formed string group, thanks to the selfless devotion of a truly dedicated music educator. But the image of our dentally determined musical democracy has haunted me ever since.

Now, it would be unfair to condemn a whole system on account of one of its worst representatives. But this man's attitude was not really so atypical; certainly his dilemma was not, considering what he had been taught during his formative years in the name of better community relations and "child-centered" education. In countless hours of indoctrination prospective music teachers are impressed with the necessity of catering to the standards set by their community and, above all, to abide by the myth of the "average." By the time they get into the field they are fully conditioned to stoop down to the lowest common denominator in general and the level of ten or twelve year olds in particular.

"By all means do not attempt to know too much," advisors often tell their innocent victims, "or you'll operate above the heads of both children and adults." Obviously, those committed to this incongruent philosophy never dared to take the high road to knowledge themselves or else they would know better. I, for one, very much doubt that my pre-school rhythm band a dozen years ago suffered from the fact that I taught college as well and was in the process of completing a musicological dissertation. But I do know that my success with the children depended very much on whether or not I could muster sufficient quantities of common sense, enthusiasm and "empathy," that mysterious quality which controls so much in human as well as artistic communication. There are no shortcuts to maturity, and for the teacher maturity entails a unique combination of general education, mastery of his special subject, psychological insight and the passionate conviction that his is the most important mission on earth. This, no amount of purely pedagogical training will ever produce. Hence, it is hardly surprising that music education graduates often express feelings of inadequacy as classroom teachers. At best, methods courses furnish the prospective teacher with useful crutches; at worst, they frustrate his natural enthusiasm and ability.

Ultimately, therefore, the music educator's dignity as a teacher demands that he be free to teach music. A recent MENC publication states with apparent satisfaction that the primary purpose of music education in the secondary school "is to disseminate the cultural aspects of music as an art."25 But how can a teacher put "emphasis on aesthetic values that will enable pupils to recognize and appreciate music of true beauty and greatness,"26 if he has never been intelligently exposed to these values himself? At present, he amounts as a rule to little more than a tax-supported entertainer and/or baby sitter, equipped only to perpetuate and amplify the musical attitudes of a commercial society not to change them. With us, the college teachers, rests the heavy responsibility of preparing him for the educational challenge and opportunities of tomorrow. There always have been and always will be legislators and administrators, boards of education and teacher certification, principals and football coaches, accrediting and professional associations, as well as industrial lobbyists representing publishers and instrument manufacturers, and many other pressure groups of appointed and self-appointed keepers of the musical realm. The vested interests of those opposing school music as music and music education as education are indeed numerous, well-organized, and financially well-heeled. But that should not frighten us into the kind of delaying maneuvers which so often meet demands for change in the academic world with additional demands for committees, surveys and reports, anything at all except honest introspection, common sense reasoning, and courageous action. Much can be accomplished by our work as individuals in individual institutions, but as members of a professional organization dedicated to the promotion of music as a liberal art we ought not to leave this meeting without the determination to act at the national level as well.

Fortunately, we stand today no longer alone. The National Association of Secondary School Principals, for example, recommends "that future English teachers be required to do forty percent of their college work in general education, including one foreign language, social science, natural science and mathematics, and forty percent in specific study of an English major and minor program . . . The remaining twenty percent is to be devoted to 'professional education'."27 Substitute Music for English, and you have a program that comes pretty close to meeting the needs of future music educators. To be sure, the critical element of time needed for the maturation of musical knowledge and skills is likely to suffer in any such program designed for completion in four years. But then, there is nothing sacred about the four year program. As a matter of fact, a project sponsored by the National Education Association recently arrived at the conclusion that all prospective teachers ought to be subjected to a six-year program: "This would include five years of college preparation emphasizing the liberal arts, subject specialization and study of educational practice and theory and a half-year of internship under the institution's supervision."28

The current reappraisal of the values and goals of American education goes hand in hand with a drastic realignment of the forces destined to determine its future. Surely, at this crucial juncture the College Music Society would fail in its self-imposed task, were it to remain silent and inactive. We should at least go on record in favor of a five-year music education curriculum conceived basically in terms of the Cincinnati Report, but adding a year devoted to pedagogical training and practice teaching. Teaching methods make real sense only after the subject matter has been mastered to the point where the apprentice teacher's own imagination can be purposefully activated. The immediate practical application of methods and materials under discussion, on the other hand, would eliminate the present duplication of courses offered throughout the entire four year period.

A program of this type would meet the requirements in knowledge and skills outlined in the joint statement on "Careers in Music" realistically. For, 1) in order to become a good musician, the music educator must study music as a liberal art. Training of a narrowly professional kind has never produced a high level of musicianship. Certainly, in order to function efficiently as a teacher in our public schools, he must have absorbed the widest possible range of musical literature not only from the European cultural orbit, but the non-Western world as well. Nothing but the best in music everywhere will do for purposes of instruction. Synthetic and low grade musical materials are inimical to the promotion of music as an art. 2) As a performer, the music educator must be highly proficient in one instrument or the voice in addition to the piano. 3) As a professional educator, he ought to be thoroughly familiar with the history, philosophy, and the psychology of education. The cramming of mechanistic teaching devices, however, can be safely reduced to a fraction of its present importance. 4) And last, but by no means least, the budding music educator should immerse himself fully into the cultural heritage of man. As far as that goes, depth studies in two chosen fields, one in the sciences, the other in the humanities, plus a foreign language and its literature, represent the absolute minimum. Introductory or survey-type courses alone, which are often identified with "general education," rarely produce the kind of insight which enables a man to teach from the fullness of his academic experiences.

Such an intensive and responsible plan of study would eliminate those destined to be the perpetual guardians of mediocrity and attract instead talented youngsters possessed also of the high personal qualifications which are presently the exceptions to the rule among music education students. In short, it would permit superior youngsters to reach the level of intellectual, emotional and artistic maturity which makes ultimately for both better citizens in an evermore complex world and better teachers of music, ready for the educational challenge of tomorrow. Five years ago Henry Leland Clarke predicted that "the time is coming when we shall all have to follow the lead of Pomona College and other institutions by providing the prospective school music teacher with a five year program."29 Ladies and gentlemen, the time has come.



Before proceeding to discuss Professor Ringer's paper let us first glance briefly at some basic facts which underlie and give rise to the criticisms which have been levelled at us this afternoon:

People control the schools. The schools can be little better than the people want. If, following the depression of 1929 and demands for increased governmental paternalism, people desired for their children freedom from responsibility, freedom to have fun and pleasure in life, freedom to be, above everything else, popular and marriageable, then the schools, as always in the course of our history, reflected the people's wishes. If parents are not willing to assume the responsibilities of a home, some agency, however inefficient it may be, will fill the vacuum. If you, as representative of the people, object to public schools paying out for the mentally defective better than fifteen times what is spent on the gifted, I have failed to hear any serious outcry of protest.

The schools are short of teachers. With a population explosion the need runs into the hundreds of thousands each year. To fill the vacuum and man the schools desperate measures have had to be taken. When one is obliged to scrape the bottom of the barrel it is inevitable that rotten apples will turn up. But through the years of this shortage, teachers in divisions of liberal arts have all too often actively discouraged students from seeking a teaching career. Suddenly they discover that their own sources of student supply have been drying up and with little knowledge of the patient, without even a careful diagnosis, they reach for their scalpels and are ready to operate.

Colleges of liberal arts have evaded their traditional responsibilities. Colleges and universities have been more concerned with providing specialized training to feed the demands of the graduate schools than with sound undergraduate education. They have, through utter indifference to public education, created a vacuum. If they now complain of the power wielded by professional education, it stems largely from their own indifference in permitting such a vacuum to occur.

College music departments are staffed by professionals to train professionals. Those teaching music in the public schools are, or should be, concerned with the amateur. There is a considerable difference between the two points of view. Immersed in their various specialties, all too many professional musicians have disregarded or ignored the musical practices of society round about them. They, too, are permitting a vacuum to occur. One great need of our time is for a thoroughgoing study of the place and function and need of the amateur in contemporary life.


* * *

Sometimes it is good to dream. Dreams are often impractical. Dreams, like balloons are easily punctured. But of one thing I feel certain—if we only complain and criticize without taking some responsibility for making constructive suggestions we will not meet very successfully the problems we face. One approach, among many, is to dream, and for a few minutes why don't you dream with me.

Permit me to imagine a situation where I had complete freedom to develop at will a new college up in the glorious Cascade mountains of western Washington. What kind of a college would it be? We would have a small Department of Education housed in our College of Liberal Arts. Only those courses would be taught which had a substantial content and were, part and parcel, related to liberal education; psychology, because a great deal of investigation has been done in learning theories and child development; history, for all through recorded time people have been concerned with the content that lies in the history of education; philosophy, for every philosopher of major significance has added to the body of thought we call philosophy of education. Upon entering his fourth year our student would attend classes half time and spend half time in the schools as a teaching interne. This would continue through a fifth year during which he would be paid a half-time salary for half-time teaching. Upon completion of his fifth year, he would be eligible to take a comprehensive examination over his entire college work and upon this would depend his being granted a certificate to teach.

Elementary classroom teachers would follow the pattern used on the European continent. That is, they would be expected to have four years of continuous music study along with other subjects and to develop reliable competencies in singing, on the piano, and on one other instrument, preferably the violin or the recorder. They, too, would be expected to take a comprehensive examination before being granted a certificate to teach.

We would, of course insist upon a strong background in liberal arts. This is too complicated a problem to discuss here. Suffice to say that no program of studies can possibly be intelligently developed without first establishing some agreed upon sound and basic premises. With all due respect to Professor Ringer, I would suggest that any program of liberal education based upon Arthur Bestor's hoary doctrine of an education centered exclusively upon "intellectual discipline" is sheer medieval nonsense. For an artist to accept this, is little short of treason. We would emphasize that no man is truly educated unless he possesses a strong sense of values—values which recognize that the development of keen sensibilities may be as important as critical thinking in the fine art of living.

And now we turn to music. Music, by tradition, is one of the liberal arts. It is not always taught as such. Few indeed are the music departments which have developed a strong, defensible philosophy and the staff is burdened with too many specialists—specialists who know their own field but who often have little or no concern for the rest of the college or even for relationships in their own department. Many, because of a European conservatory orientation, have little comprehension of the intent or significance of American educational systems. And over all, there hangs that bleak, dark cloud of professionalism, that sort of mental conditioning which makes the professional strive to maintain the authority and prestige of his group, to preserve and sanctify the standards of values of his associates.

I would consider it of basic importance to impress upon every student that our Music Department had no intention of training professional musicians for the world is already overcrowded with the species—frustrated composers, disappointed concert artists, out-of-job musicologists, and prima donna time beaters. Our goal would be to develop capable and intelligent amateur musicians; individuals who could go into their various societies and find joy and fulfillment through contributing of their gifts, whatever they might be, to the enrichment and betterment of their own homes and their own communities.

Those who plan to teach would meet the same identical standards as any other major in music. They would, however, be advised to register, as part of their general education, for the basic courses in psychology, history, and philosophy of education and to enroll in interne teaching. They would be expected to become rather versatile amateur musicians with ability to sing, and to play upon several instruments, including the piano. Since 18.3 credits, out of a total of 120 semester hours still continues to be the national average for state certification of teachers of music, this leaves ample scope for building foundations both in music and in general education. Music, then, would be a major field of study. It is important to consider what kind of musical diet we might provide.

Let us start with theory. In my college every theory teacher would be a competent composer. To adequately orient him, he would not teach his first year but would spend his time attending classes in all the other creative arts on campus where teaching is based upon the development of the creative powers of each individual; where teaching procedures are possibly a generation or two ahead of music. He would, of course, be expected to compose for the society round about him—for public schools, for church services, for college music students, for musicians in his community. All textbooks on theory would be abolished. Students would be put on their mettle to derive principles and insights from the study of music itself. Our theory teacher would be expected to encourage musical absorption rather than disciplinary stuffing and, since time is needed for absorption, time would be provided. We would have many informal performances and discussions of student efforts. Finally, if there was not a continual state of mental and musical ferment in the division, we would find another staff.

In my ideal school I think we might begin our study of the history of music with the United States, for this is where our students are going to live and to teach. From there we would move into almost any period of time and study it thoroughly, not from the standpoint of composers exclusively, but as a related aspect of a given culture. We would consider it as important to know why the Reformation led to a century of musical stagnation in Scotland, for example, as why it led to a great flowering in Germany. We would be concerned with the fact that an art is a valid measure of a culture only when it reflects a consideration of its social import throughout an entire society. We would consider it ill advised to attempt to cover the whole history of music nor would we confine it exclusively to the Italian-German sphere of influence. If students failed to become drunk with music and its import in a given period, I would be inclined to view the division with some suspicion.

Applied music, like theory, is based too largely on the acquisition of copybook skills. I know. I went through the mill with the teacher sitting at one piano while I aped him at the other. I think I would completely do away with private tuition in music for it is too expensive and too inefficient. If we must imitate a model we can do it far more effectively and with much better examples through the use of recording machines. Students would meet in small classes. Each student would become an independent research worker studying everything he could find in or about a piece of music and apply his knowledge to the art of performance. There would naturally be exciting class discussions and analysis. But what about technique? Well, technique is of secondary importance but, if the need should arise, we would use teaching assistants from upper division classes. Our goal would be to develop independence from rather than slavery to a method, insatiable curiosity rather than virtuoso worship, sensitivity rather than machine-like precision. Those who would seek public adulation in applied music could go elsewhere.

Huge marching bands, fully instrumentated symphony orchestras of grand proportions, full fledged semi-professional opera companies, and highly polished, glistening a cappella choirs, along with intercollegiate athletics, would be abandoned. Every afternoon the Music Department would be overflowing with the performance and study of all types of small and flexible ensembles. Here would be found groups which would be appropriate for a home, ensembles which a community of 10,000 or so could easily maintain studying not for public display, not for promotional objectives, not for personal glorification but to learn about music. Upper division students and those doing interne teaching would take their turn in leading and teaching these groups. Members of the music staff and musicians in the community would be encouraged to participate and advise but no virtuoso faculty conductors would long be tolerated.

I sense our symposium chairman fidgeting. Our dream is overly long and fantasy must come to an end. Let me close with a short summary of some down-to-earth observations.

Before we proceed to construct a program of adequate preparation for teachers of music we must, it seems to me, construct a philosophy which fully recognizes that these people whom we teach will work and instruct in American schools and, often by law, must swear to live by and uphold American traditions. We are obligated to provide some solid bases to help them to understand that the musical life of Yankton, Omak or Fishtail Creek may be quite different from our own memories of Paris, Vienna, or Berlin. Or even quite different from the ivy towers of a university.

If music is to be housed in a college of liberal arts, it should be conceived and taught as a related aspect of our culture. To do this it is necessary to know the functions, purposes, and uses music fulfills in a society. If we think of the arts as being creative, we should recognize the fact that a good case could be made of the possibility that college music instruction, in this respect, lags behind our sister arts by a generation or more; that it may be least cognizant, in its program of studies, of the realities of American life. In or out of class the sense of values a student gains will affect his role in his culture whether as a teacher or as something else. How a student is conditioned, and how he thinks, how well he understands, and to what degree he is willing and able to assume an active role of responsibility will inevitably play an important part in his life whether it be within the confines of his own home or in his larger role as a responsible member of an American community.



I find myself basically in agreement with the speaker and it would be very easy for me to say, me too, and we could all go home a little earlier. But, instead, I think I'll take a few minutes of your time to respond to some of his statements.

A year and a half ago I was asked to represent California at a meeting at Interlochen, the state president's national assembly. At that time I learned the wide variation, differences of opinion in fact, in programs of music education throughout the country. I found it very difficult at times to communicate or to understand what was going on elsewhere when my background was so much different. So with that thought in mind I am going to confine myself to what I know about, namely, California. I enjoyed the statement of our speaker this afternoon—I intend to use it later, that young people sometimes try to get out of music, and into music education by learning the secrets of the auto harp and the literary value of 99 rote songs. Let me assure you that seniors in music education in our California schools do play a senior recital and that excellence of performance on their major instrument is a requirement. Throughout Mr. Ringer's paper he refers to the four-year pattern, that is, four years for a degree and credential. I would like to point out that the present California general credential does require a Bachelor of Arts degree and the credential to be granted after that; in other words, at the end of the fifth year. There are many studies going on in California on the matter of credentials. One in particular that will be presented next month to the State Legislature [since done—Ed.]. This study has been done by a citizens' committee, made up of doctors, lawyers, housewives, farmers, only one professional educator in the committee. These are our new experts in education, their recommendations are going to carry a great deal of weight in the years to come in the matter of teacher preparation. These recommendations are bringing on a general stiffening of requirements, requirements in the subject areas, more content and less methodology as to curriculum. Their recommendations in the areas of music and art are very, very vague and permissive. For example—all that is said regarding music in the elementary schools is that music shall be started no later than the sixth grade. In other words, it's up to the interpretation of the local school district as to when music may or may not be started. Of course this statement makes it possible to start much earlier but it doesn't say they have to. Thus, we find that the professional organizations such as the California Music Educators Association are being forced into areas of activity other than the encouragement of music in our schools and the general raising of musical standards. The officers and committees of our association undoubtedly will be asked to appear before legislative committees, hearings, to explain and defend—yes, defend the position of the arts in our public schools.

Throughout Mr. Ringer's paper there is the implication that the music education organizations control teacher education nationally. I know this is not true here in California. I would submit to you that the great influence in teacher credentials or credentialling is the education departments of the various teacher training institutions. Over the years they have built literally educational empires—requirement upon requirement. They have even developed their own vocabulary; a sort of a jargon so they can communicate with one another and it is almost impossible for the layman to understand. You know, "how is your scope and sequence chart today?" "Is your frame of reference showing?" The core subjects, the block program, correlative studies, integrated learning, etc., etc. I'm sure you could list many more than I.

To me, this is the great challenge. If we want better teachers, teachers better trained, these requirements in the departments of education are going to have to be limited. Fortunately I can say that there is every evidence to indicate that these will be limited as compared to what they have been in the past. They will if the Citizens Advisory Committee Report has any real influence. There is one statement of Mr. Ringer's where I would like to take exception. He said, "Since schools are supported by public funds—the music program must be for all the pupils" and then drew the conclusion that, logically extended, this type of reasoning leads to obvious absurdities, for instance, the army is financed by the American people, every American is entitled to a Commission. Frankly, I can't accept this analogy. Public schools must appear to be equal. It is a matter of degree in amount where the variation is. I'm not saying every school shall have a fine orchestra, every school shall have a fine choir. But they may have limited programs that fit the particular school.

We are finding through the new distributive aptitude testing program, many youngsters with abilities in many fields, that are coming from our lower socio-economic groups. We have no right then whatsoever, to take away or deny these young people opportunities in the arts or any other area. Of course this is one of the most perplexing problems facing school boards and administrators. It's a little like the story I heard about the truck driver who had a very complicated problem. He had a five-ton truck and had to deliver a ten-ton load. "How in the world did you manage that?" he was asked. He said, "The load was canaries, and I had to keep half of them flying all the time." We must remember that these are public schools, they are supported by the public and we are committed to give equal educational opportunities for all.

Thus we find music and the arts are facing a very critical period. Almost daily in our newspapers, magazines, etc., we find school districts being evaluated. They are evaluated as to the quality of the English program, the math program, science, foreign language, and so on. But never anything said about the arts. Why? You gentlemen are members of the faculties that do the evaluating. Here is the great opportunity for the College Music Society to be of service to music education and the arts in our schools. Today the college professor stands higher in the public regard than at any time in history. His advice and counsel are sought out daily. What a marvelous opportunity you have if the members of the College Music Society could take it upon themselves to become a part of these evaluating teams whereby the arts program was evaluated in our schools. Recognition of this sort would mean a great deal.

One other point—if somehow this Society could influence the admissions offices of the various colleges and universities to accept music credits from high schools for prospective music teachers as they do mechanical drawing for prospective engineers. Even if this were a limited amount this would raise the stature and the position of the arts in the public schools immeasurably. It would do more for us and for you, than anything that could be done for the next several years, because I submit to you that the music program in the high school is having a very difficult time staying alive. Young people that are academically able are being channeled and counseled into areas other than music and the arts. These young people are being told there is no future in the arts. Unless something is done, especially from the college and university level, the music program in our public schools will become less and less, and thus, your source of supply will become less and less.



I have no objection to Mr. Ringer's militant approach. Only through controversy and discussion can we grow. I heartily subscribe to his views in the over-all picture, although I must take exception to some of his statements and what I feel are some generalizations which, in my opinion, do not apply in situations with which I am acquainted.

I agree with his general premise that our public school music teachers are generally lacking in a background of liberal arts. The four-year preparation period for teaching leaves too little time for the teacher to specialize in the field of his major and to receive an adequate education in all of the fields which contribute to the well-rounded teacher. In my opinion, this is being corrected in a good many parts of the country. In California, for example, it is becoming general practice to keep the teaching candidate in school for a period of five years during which time he gets in a rather lengthy stretch of practice teaching under the direction of a supervisor and a master teacher. We feel this has been a move in the right direction.

It is, however, still possible for a teacher to secure a credential with no training beyond four years by applying directly to the credentialing office of the State Department of Education. At this time the State Teaching Credentials in California are under scrutiny by many committees. California has been plagued with as many credentials as Heinz has products—in other words, 57 varieties; and it is the hope of many that these credentials can be reduced to a realistic number. At present there is a proposal to reduce these to a total of five. This has met with mixed feelings inasmuch as it would reduce the amount of technical music training for the prospective music educator and more emphasis will be upon the general areas. This in itself would be good except for the fact that we are reluctant to have the requirements in applied music reduced to a point where the training might be considered inadequate. There is also a proposal that so-called "professional education courses" be reduced in number. Many of us feel strongly that these have been overabundant, poorly taught, and, in some cases, altogether inadequate.

I am personally inclined to agree with Mr. Ringer that our music education teachers are perhaps less well-educated individuals, in the sense of general education, than teachers in many other fields. Only additional time and teacher preparation can solve this, and a five-year program throughout the country would be a partial solution. In many cases teacher candidates are continuing straight on to master's degrees or are returning to school as rapidly as possible in order to pick up additional credits after they have begun to teach.

Mr. Ringer deplores the philosophy of requiring music education students to acquire the rudiments of most of the instruments rather than concentrating on one major instrument. We believe that the student should develop skill in one major performance field, but the average teaching situation continues to call for the ability to teach all of the instruments. In my position as a department director, I must ascertain the background of all teaching candidates in the various families of instruments. In our school system we cannot operate on a conservatory basis of specialist teachers (I know of only one or two school systems which do), and our teachers must have real performing skill on at least one or two instruments, plus a considerable knowledge of all of the basic instruments from string to percussion. This is a large order, to be sure, and perhaps undesirable, but this is what we must look for in candidates for instrumental teaching if all children are to be served. Surprisingly, we find many teachers who are thus prepared, particularly if they have had a certain amount of previous teaching experience before they come into our system. Furthermore, many of our teachers continue to study the instruments with which they are least familiar throughout a considerable period of time.

I am more concerned about the broad general musical background of the teacher outside of his specialty. Does the vocal teacher have a knowledge of instrumental chamber music, solo, concerto, and symphony literature; and, conversely, does the instrumentalist know anything about the many fields of vocal music? Mr. Ringer has spoken of the lack of knowledge in the areas of so-called "non-western music." Are any of our institutions offering anything adequate along this line?

I am further concerned about the teacher who conducts a good mechanical rehearsal but who is imparting little real meaning of music itself. The development of an accurately performing ensemble does not necessarily guarantee musical understanding on the part of his pupils. It is my feeling that theory, form, literature, style, and some history can be taught in a properly planned rehearsal of a performance group; and furthermore, I would like students to have the opportunity to listen and become acquainted with musical literature they are not equipped to perform at all.

Mr. Ringer has said that the music educator and his field are in a quantitative market, and the standards set must be such that musical education is not the result for a few pupils but that it is offered to all pupils. This is the basic premise of the public school program. Public schools are not in the business of specialization. I contend that music should be denied to no one, even though I do not necessarily subscribe to the former motto of the M.E.N.C., "Music for Every Child and Every Child for Music." However, the subject of music is no sacred cow to be milked in an ivory tower, and I believe that every child has the inherent right to become as well educated in music as he can be and become a musician—even as every child, in theory, has the right to become president.

Mr. Ringer's analogy regarding the American army hardly applies to the field of the public school. Every child is entitled. to the study of all of the subjects that comprise the curriculum of the public schools, and there is no reason to exclude anyone from music and art. As in some of the general academic subjects, the very competition may force him out of the program at a level beyond which he cannot attain, but this does not make him or the subject a failure. Were we to instruct only those with real aptitude for music, we would exclude the majority of our students, and these would include many of our budding scientists, clergymen, physicians, lawyers, engineers, teachers, community leaders, city fathers, symphony board members and Board of Education members. Each of these needs as much "exposure" as possible if we are to maintain music in the curriculum. These are public schools, and we accept everyone we can get; and, believe me, we are limited in what we get. There is a large mass of high school students who cannot become involved in applied music because of academic pressures which leave little time for the art fields. Since our colleges and universities have given very little recognition to the school music program, our academically talented students are steered in almost every direction but that of music and art. These people will never be performers, but they are potential consumers and supporters of music in the community. We have a responsibility toward them, even if it is only to teach them to listen with judgment and discrimination.

The academic departments of our colleges and universities are concerned about the high school curriculum and are helping to shape it. The N.D.E.A. has placed the spotlight on mathematics, science, and languages to the end that teaching will be improved in these areas, but little or nothing has been initiated for the arts in a similar way. We are all familiar with the surveys which have been made by university teams that come into the high schools, but music has been pretty much ignored. It seems to me that it is the responsibility of organizations such as the one meeting here to insist that the high school musical offerings be examined as well. Unless this is done, we will continue the deplorable situation whereby very few colleges or universities accept any music credits for entrance. We have been told that the academic musical background of the students does not measure up to their performance ability, but the colleges could do wonders to remedy this if they set out to do so. We need to have some acceptable criteria set up, whether these be in elementary theory, music literature, or what have you, and then let us teach to these ends. We by no means, however, propose that colleges set up rigid music curricula for high schools, inasmuch as these institutions vary so much from place to place. There are very few high schools presently offering what might be called a music or art major, simply because of unacceptability. Until the time comes that this can be improved, the colleges are going to have to continue to accept an inferior high school product.

As for the statement which has been made that our outstanding young musicians are reluctant to go into the music education profession because of an inferior program of study at the college level, this does not necessarily apply in California. I believe that our teacher education institutions are attempting to raise the standards very steadily. In the period of a decade in which I have been involved in music education in California, I believe that our teacher candidates have come to us consistently better prepared, with the result that our school music standards have been going up. Our performance groups have become better in general, our teaching has improved, and there has been more emphasis upon the development of musicianship and less upon so-called "show." Our best high school music graduates have not all been enrolling in music education courses at the college level, but this is not because they are ashamed to. Many of these people are also academically capable of going into other fields, and they prefer to keep music as a lively avocation. And college music students, in my opinion, do not elect public school music in order to escape preparing for a recital. In our state, I believe, most of our public school music candidates are quite rigorously trained in the field of performance. Certainly the intelligent music student, unless phenomenally talented, is not planning for a professional performance career. He knows that his bread and butter will be thicker if he gets into the teaching field where he has a reasonable assurance of making an adequate living. In fact, many of our professional performing brethren are entering late in our colleges to prepare themselves to teach in the public schools. This might be considered a significant and somewhat healthy symptom. As a result, the performance standards of all of their future pupils should be raised.

Mr. Ringer has spoken of the fact that much bad music is taught in the schools. This is undoubtedly true, and we could point to many examples of it. However, through the festivals in this state, we believe that the standards of literature are constantly being raised, largely through the way the teachers police themselves in this respect. No teacher dares to program poor materials in a festival, nor would the adjudicators accept this. We believe this to be a healthy sign. Within our own school system, with which I am best acquainted, we are critical of the materials which are selected for our school music libraries and the way which these materials are performed.

Mr. Ringer's reference to the "dentally ungifted" child is as amusing to me as it is to you, and yet I am afraid that it continues to apply in some places. The supervisor he referred to might have suggested that the unmusical ones of the dentally ungifted which he referred to might have been demoted from the study of strings to the study of the percussion instruments instead. I hope that you understand that I am saying this with tongue in cheek. I am afraid that some people feel that anyone can beat a drum. (In any case we cannot refuse to admit a child into instrumental music.)

As for the reference to what music teachers have to endure in elementary methods courses at the college level, I do not believe that teachers should teach over the heads of their novice students; but I do believe that an artist teacher can be a much better teacher even at the very elementary level.

Our speaker has put his finger directly on the art of teaching youngsters when he speaks of the common sense, enthusiasm, and the empathy of the teacher. These items are the criteria of good teaching no matter what level is being taught, and I believe that no pedagogical training will produce this however good it may be. This is probably inherent in the personality of the teacher. An advanced stage of musicianship and a breadth of education is very desirable in a teacher, but this is no guarantee of success in teaching. Everything else being equal, however, I would always choose such candidates as teachers. Our problem is to find teachers who not only have depth but breadth of education, and again I say that the time presently allotted for securing the bachelor's degree is in general too short to develop both. It is our feeling that learning is not over at the point where the diploma is being presented. Most of us who have taught over a period of years know that real learning often begins after we begin to teach. The self-discipline and the learning which comes on the job is the most valuable kind. Teachers should be encouraged to continue to study and learn on their own, even if they do not receive college credit for this.

We as teachers have the responsibility of passing on the musical heritage of past generations, and we have the even greater responsibility of creating new ideas, stimulating new thinking, and developing the ability to reject that which is poor and to accept that which is good, both of the new and of the old.



[This symposium, chaired by Dean Luther Noss of Yale, provoked a lively and lengthy discussion, both too spirited and long to be included in full in SYMPOSIUM. Mr. Ringer's extemporaneous rejoinder to Messrs. Normann, Kidd, and Youngberg was recorded, then condensed and edited for publication without his having had an opportunity to see his words after they were spoken.—Ed.]

MR. RINGER: I can make my rejoinder brief, because I am very happy to see that everybody agrees with me. The only difference between Professor Normann and myself seems to be that he builds his dream colleges in the clouds and I want to build mine right here on earth. I think that the only difference really between myself and Messrs. Kidd and Youngberg is that I don't live in California. But many years ago I attended the same meeting they attended and I saw them at work and I knew that what is happening now in California was going to happen, and more is going to happen. And at that time already I attended religiously every music educators' meeting I could possibly get to, and I was impressed by the standards of repertory displayed.

But as far as the general point is concerned, I wanted to appeal to the people who teach in the same kind of institution, or similar institutions, that I teach in not just to criticize, but to do something. I feel that the real trouble is one of philosophy, and I think that was partly reflected in what you gentlemen said. You tell us that these are after all public schools and that therefore we have to yield to the demands of the public. This, I would insist as a father and a citizen and a college teacher is not so. It seems to me that we have for much too long failed to give leadership because the intellectual was despised as an "egghead." I insist and am confident that if we have a purpose and we can defend this purpose intelligently, something can be done. If we are men in higher education, then your dream college, with which I wholeheartedly agree almost from every angle, does not have to be a dream college. What I am suggesting is an attitude. We have to have confidence in the fact that as educators we can do more than the politician; we can do more than the businessman and all the others who form the committees on evaluation and make the proposals.

1Careers in Music, 1959, published by the MTNA, MENC, NASM.

2Arthur Bestor, The Restoration of Learning, New York, 1955, p. 245.

3Alfred W. Humphreys, A Follow-up Study of the Graduates of the School of Music of the University of Illinois, unpubl. diss., Urbana, 1955, pp. 136-137.

4Bestor, op. cit., p. 243.

5The Bulletin of the National Association of Schools of Music, no. 42 (Jan. 1957), p. 17.

6Joseph Wood Krutch, Human Nature and the Human Condition, New York, 1959, p. 79.

7Hence the exaggerated values assigned to training by those who identify preparation for life with adjustment to existing social conditions.

8Krutch, loc. cit.

9The Bulletin of the NASM, no. 42 (Jan. 1957), p. 12.

10Ibid., p. 9.

11Ibid., p. 10.

12Ibid., p. 13.

13Henry Leland Clarke, "Music is a Liberal Art," The Bulletin of the NASM, no. 40 (April 1955), p. 26.

14Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education, New York (Mentor), 1949, p. 23.

15The sightsinging exercises were accompanied by dictation in the same style. And, of course, intervals were intensively drilled.

16Cf., James Bryant Conant's "Recommendations for Education in the Junior High School Years," as quoted in Saturday Review, Oct. 15, 1960, p. 83.

17"College Music and Music in the Secondary Schools, A Discussion," Society for Music in the Liberal Arts College, Seventh Annual Meeting (1955), p. 15.

18James Bryant Conant, The American High School Today, New York, 1959, p. 58.

19Cf. William C. Hartshorn, "Music for the Academically Talented," Music Educators Journal (Sept.-Oct., 1960), p. 30.

20Music Educators National Conference, The Function of Music in the Secondary-School Curriculum, Chicago, 1953, p. 9.

21Music Educators National Conference, The Music Curriculum in the Secondary Schools, Washington, D.C., 1959, p. 5.

22Cf. Hartley D. Snyder's review of Growth through Music, in JRME, XI, 1 (Spring 1953), p. 76.

23Frederick C. Kintzer, "General Education and the College Music Program," JRME, II, 1 (Spring 1954), p. 50.

24Douglas Bush, "English Composition and Literature," in James D. Koerner (ed.), The Case for Basic Education, Boston, 1959, p. 108.

25The Music Curriculum, p. 5.

26Ibid., pp. 5-6.

27New York Times, March 13, 1960, E 7.

28New York Times, July 24, 1960, E 7.

29Henry Leland Clarke, op. cit., p. 27.

3383 Last modified on November 15, 2018