Month / April 2026

by nflanagan

I Write the Songs

As a music educator, I was always interested in having my students create music, a goal that gets a lot of lip service in the profession (including being one of the four pillars of the National Music Content Standards).  It’s a seductive idea—you’ll see music labeled as a  creative art in all the curriculum literature.

In real-life music classrooms, it’s a lot more complicated. A whole lot of music education (often the kind preferred by administrators and parents in the community) might best be described as rehearse-rehearse-perform, with the goal being precisely accurate and thoroughly impressive reproduction of already-published music.

There are concerts, parades and halftime shows, maybe an elementary school musical or graded contests. Not a lot of time for messing around with the tools of music, let alone thinking about the cultural importance of music in students’ lives—or even pure enjoyment. In some secondary schools, music is all about competing.

I had some success with students creating their own music (more on that later), but one basic fact I taught all of my students, over more than 30 years, was that there are entertainers and there are songwriters and they are not always one and the same.

If you ask a kindergartener who Beethoven was, chances are he’ll say, “A famous piano player.”  And when Michael Jackson died, in 2009, it drove me crazy when the media talked about his greatest hit songs—Thriller!—many of which were written by other people. Of course, there are superstars who write and perform—but there are also music creators whose considerable body of work is interpreted, for better or worse, by other musicians.

I am old enough to remember when folks started talking about intellectual property as something we needed to pay attention to, in schools. (About the time when schools got Xerox machines and the internet.)  If you’ve ever been at a middle school talent show, watching kids lip sync and groove to pop tunes, you can identify the urge to copy something fun and sticky. The trick for educators is to get past copying, into generating your own ideas.

Acknowledging songwriters and composers is easy and worthwhile when you’re teaching K-12 music—their names are there on the printed page. Credit where credit is due is a great way to start students thinking about the music in their world and how much fun it might be to produce their own.

I am aware of co-writing credits where any performer’s suggestions about a piece of music turn into recognition (and probably financial reward). Maybe it’s impossible to tease out just who made the notes and lyrics so catchy in a simple, three-chord song. Songs—like recipes—feel like templates for creative exploration. A faster tempo and minor 2nd chord replacing that subdominant and voila! Take a sad song, and make it better.

Old bottle, new wine. But still. Carole King wrote some of her best hooks when she considered herself a grind-em-out songwriter, before she sat down at the piano on stage—and then became one (according to the New York Times) of the thirty greatest living American songwriters, with an incredible, innovative catalog of songs.

The NYT piece is fascinating. If you haven’t read it, try naming some of the greatest living songwriters before checking their list. (Confession: there were three of the 30 songwriters I’d never heard of.) Several famous performers were asked to name their favorite songwriters—I found my list corresponded most strongly with Bonnie Raitt’s picks. There’s a quiz to see if you know who wrote some of your go-to songs, and sound samples.

Here’s a free link. It’s a delicious wade into the craft of making sonic art.

So how did this go in my very ordinary middle school band room?
At first, it had to do with technology, when kids had access to audio and video recording at home, and their compositions (solos or groups) could be submitted to me via cassette or disc, then email. The assignment was always broad, and I listened to a lot (and I mean A LOT) of meandering drum solos. But they were creating.

Middle school students were often surprised that ‘songwriters’ didn’t mean people who put music on paper, necessarily. Getting past that, to the idea of trying out an original melody on your band instrument, maybe having your friend the euphonium player drone some long notes underneath. Fooling around, then recording. The rubric for success was “sounds good to you.”

Then we got new warmup books that had blues scales in them and I started to do some of what might be called instructional scaffolding with second- and third-year band kids. We learned the basic twelve-bar blues progression, and kids started improvising blues riffs, using the notes in the chord sequence. The key was not being afraid to make mistakes—the exact opposite of how we usually teach musical performance.

I should repeat that, because that’s what creativity is, in a nutshell: not being anxious about trying something, trusting your own judgment, editing and listening to criticism. Trying again. Starting with a classic template—then making it your own.

One observation: once you encourage kids to create their own music, they’re going to want you to listen to any number of pieces they write. Nothing to do with grades or assignments—just fun.

We spend way too much time pursuing right answers. Isn’t it ironic?

by nflanagan

Let’s Pay Teachers Overtime

The title of the article made me laugh out loud: Should Teachers Get Overtime?

Subtitle: EdWeek Readers have some thoughts.

I’ll bet they do. Fortunately, the readers who responded to EdWeek’s LinkedIn poll obviously had some experience in teacher compensation, not to mention common sense. Because the answer to this question is obviously that teachers ought to be paid fully professional salaries, since it’s a professional job. Starting now.

Back in 2007, I took part in a teacher-led consortium that explored teacher pay. We followed the time-honored education practice of saving the world one white paper at a time, and produced a thick, glossy report filled with suggestions on how to pay teachers for their special skills and performance, enhancing recruitment and retention. We firmly rejected the common belief that paying teachers for their students’ test scores would do anything good for education–but allowed that the single-scale salary schedule had some flaws and might be tweaked.

Mostly, we were looking for ways to pay experienced, proven educators enough to honor their hard-won expertise and, over time, give them additional leadership responsibilities without forcing them out of the classroom. There were 18 “recognized” teachers in the group, union and non-union, and we didn’t agree on all aspects of what professional compensation looked like, other than the fact that teachers were significantly underpaid for the service they provided to their communities.

There was one thing we all agreed on, however: teaching is not, never has been, a 9 to 5, punch in and out, job. Teachers generally get extra compensation for teaching an extra hour (giving up contractually granted planning time)–or for coaching, and other after-school programming.

But–as commenters on the EdWeek piece noted–if we were to, say, offer teachers money for staying late to read 150 essays and provide written feedback, or to grade dozens of constructed-response math tests, districts would run out of money by October. Or, as one cynical commenter noted, teachers would quickly be forbidden to do anything above and beyond, because it would be deemed too expensive. So–counterproductive.

It’s worth noting that our report on changing teacher pay for good reasons was written nearly 20 years ago, and while there have been a handful of alternative compensation models since (and also plenty of glossy reports), even EdWeek–seriously, one assumes–is still asking readers if teachers should get overtime.

Bummer.

by nflanagan

It’s Not about Cheating

Recent conversation with a contemporary (a man who worked in sales all his life, and whose grandchildren attend a Christian school):

Him: So what do you think about AI? How will your public schools deal with the fact that AI is going to control all jobs in the future?

Me: AI will certainly have an impact on the job market, but I don’t think the future of work is written in stone. As with all technologies, experience will tell us whether AI is actually useful in enhancing learning in any way. Lots of things that sound good in education turn out to be oversold or hype. Or even counterproductive.

Him: But isn’t AI going to make it impossible to tell who’s cheating? That’s what I’d be worried about if I was a teacher.

Me: What do you mean by cheating?

Him: Well, kids will get AI to write their papers and do their assignments. And teachers won’t know who wrote the paper and will be forced to give it a good grade. And if everyone gets good grades, there will be grade inflation, so it will be hard to pick out the really smart students for the top colleges.

Me: It’s not about cheating. It’s about actual learning. Students learn by doing the work, including making mistakes—whether that work is putting two blocks with three blocks to make five blocks, or testing pond water samples, producing an original haiku in class–or writing a research paper. When people talk about AI and cheating, they’re usually thinking about writing assignments—but there are many more paths to learning, K-12, than writing a paper or answering questions on a worksheet. Besides, teachers who know their students well, and have seen their skills in action, will understand how an AI-constructed response would compare to an actual response.

Him: (dubious) I suppose sharp teachers can catch them that way. Besides, you’ll have more time to ferret out cheaters when AI starts grading student work and writing your lesson plans.

Me: Only someone who knows the students and knows the usual flow of content and skills at that level can write useful lesson plans. And assessing student work is how teachers observe what their students have learned, and what they need next. I personally don’t see AI as being particularly useful in developing instructional materials, either. It certainly can’t develop relationships with kids or inspire them.

Him: Of course, this would all be different for you, as a band director—AI will change everything for regular teachers but maybe not for you. If band even exists as a class any more.

———–

Sigh. This conversation actually happened. And the man I was talking to was not an idiot. He had some magazine-article background knowledge about AI, saw its impact as inevitable and teachers as unfortunately unionized Luddites, unwilling to adapt to a rapidly changing world.

He was also right about musical performing groups—as a K-12 musical specialist, I have been having these conversations about electronic alternatives to learning to play an instrument or sing for three decades. Who would want to go to the trouble, a well-meaning friend who teaches English asked me, to learn to play the bassoon? Or even worry about singing in tune, now that auto-tune is available to fix hot musical stars’ vocal uncertainties?Why not grab a bunch of keyboards and software? Isn’t that all the instruction musicians need to, you know, put out musical content?  

The great danger of using the range of AI products in the classroom has nothing to do with cheating, per se. Fact is, students have been cheating—in the ways we usually perceive as academic cheating—forever.

From writing dates on a shirt cuff to paying someone to take your SATs, cheating is deeply embedded in academic practice. If there is a potentially positive outcome here, it might be disconnecting old ideas about plagiarism and cheating. Instead, we might be teaching our students to assess information they are presented with, comparing it to different analyses, perhaps rooting out alternative facts that aren’t really factual.

Fact is: plagiarism is ill-defined, in an era when students have access to the Library of Congress in their raggedy jeans pockets: “Anybody who embarks on a study of plagiarism hoping for bright lines is in for a foggy shock. One of the pleasing facets of plagiarism is that it doesn’t exist—not in the eyes of the law, that is, and especially not if those eyes are American. There is intellectual-property law, and a law that prohibits the trafficking of counterfeit goods. There are laws against copyright infringement. If plagiarists are sent to prison, however, it will not be because they have filched a slice of poetry, or half a juicy ballad, and passed it off as their own. Plagiarism is not a crime. It is a sin.’”

Here’s another fact: Large language models that support the kinds of AI K-12 teachers and students are being urged to adopt are constructed of plagiarized, if you will, content. Speaking of cheating.

But it’s the original point that matters most here: AI in its various platforms robs students of doing the actual work of learning: absorbing, comprehending, analyzing, synthesizing and so on. I would like to think that this is the reason that states and school districts are banning the use of cellphones in the classroom—to prevent students from believing that graded products represent actual learning.

I would also assert that learn-by-doing classes that require groups of learners (like band and choir, debate, drama and so many others) reward students for all the right habits: working together, interdependence, ongoing skill building toward a clear goal, aesthetic pleasure. Creativity, the antithesis of AI use.

Philosophy professor Kate Manne wrote a terrific piece about preventing her university students from using AI, and how it all worked out:  “I feel strongly, as I explained, that their AI use will prevent me from doing my job in helping them to grow as thinkers and writers.” Spoiler alert: students produced such superior work and thinking that she cancelled the final exam. Read the piece. It’s solid evidence.

Pushback against AI is not and never has been about cheating. It’s about genuine learning.