Music Education of the People, by the People, for the People

When Abraham Lincoln stood at Gettysburg in 1863, he described a vision of democracy that has endured far beyond its historical moment. He spoke of a government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” a phrase that has come to represent not just a form of governance, but a broader idea about ownership, participation, and purpose.

While his words were directed toward a nation, they offer a powerful way to think about other systems that are meant to serve people. Education is one of those systems. Music education, in particular, presents an opportunity to examine whether what we say we value is truly reflected in how we design learning experiences.

In workshops, I often describe popular music as people’s music. By that, I mean the music that lives in everyday life, the music people listen to, create, and connect with outside of school. When I think about popular music education through that lens, I find myself returning to Lincoln’s phrasing, not as a quotation to be analyzed, but as a structure that helps clarify what music education could become.

Music education of the people, by the people, for the people.

This is not a slogan. It is a way of examining how music education currently functions and how it might expand to better serve the students in our classrooms .

Music Education of the People

Lincoln’s phrase begins with “of the people,” emphasizing that a system must originate from those it represents. When applied to music education, this idea challenges us to reconsider where musical value is located.

Too often, school music programs operate from the assumption that legitimacy comes from the curriculum. Students are expected to enter the classroom and adapt themselves to a predefined set of musical practices, repertoire, and standards. In this model, music education exists independently of the students and is delivered to them.

However, students do not enter music classrooms empty. They arrive with deeply formed musical identities shaped by years of listening, participation, and cultural experience. They know songs, styles, artists, and sounds that matter to them. These experiences are not peripheral to learning. They are central to it.

Christopher Small describes music as something people do rather than something that exists as an object. His concept of musicking reinforces the idea that music is always embedded in social and cultural contexts (Small, 1998). When we take this perspective seriously, it shifts the focus from the music we select to the music students already carry with them.

Music education of the people recognizes that musical value does not begin in the curriculum. It begins in the lives of students. It validates their identities and uses their lived experiences as the starting point for learning. This aligns with research showing that engagement increases when learning connects to students’ identities and experiences (Fredricks et al., 2004).

This does not mean abandoning existing traditions. It means expanding our understanding of what counts so that more students can see themselves reflected in the music classroom.

Music Education by the People

Lincoln’s second phrase, “by the people,” speaks to participation and agency. A system is not truly democratic if people are only recipients. They must also be active contributors.

In music education, this raises an important question. Who is making musical decisions?

In many traditional settings, students are positioned primarily as performers of decisions that have already been made. The teacher selects the repertoire, the notation determines the parts, and the goal is accurate reproduction. While this model develops important skills, it represents only a portion of what it means to be a musician. Musicians do more than perform. They choose what to play. They create new music. They arrange, improvise, and collaborate. These actions require decision making and ownership.

Lucy Green demonstrated that students develop deep understanding when they engage in informal learning practices that mirror how musicians learn outside of school (Green, 2008). Randall Allsup similarly advocates for participatory approaches where students share in the process of musical decision making (Allsup, 2016).

A music education by the people creates space for students to act as musicians in this fuller sense. It invites them to contribute ideas, shape musical outcomes, and take ownership of the creative process.

At Amp Camp this past summer, every band was required to write and perform at least one original song. Most groups chose to balance this requirement with learning covers. However, one band made a different decision. They chose to perform only original music. Their focus shifted away from replicating existing songs and toward developing a shared sense of groove and connection. They listened closely to one another, experimented with ideas, and built something that felt authentic to them. The emphasis was not on perfection. It was on collaboration and creativity.

What emerged from this process was a strong sense of ownership. The students were not simply playing music that had been assigned to them. They were creating music that belonged to them. That band did not lower the bar. They changed what the bar measured.

In that moment, music education was not something being delivered to students. It was something being created by them.

Music Education for the People

Lincoln’s final phrase, “for the people,” directs attention to purpose. A system must serve the people it is designed for. If it does not, it must be reconsidered. In music education, this leads to a difficult but necessary question. Who is being served, and who is not? In many schools, a large number of students do not participate in music programs. This is often interpreted as a lack of interest. However, structural barriers such as prior experience requirements, scheduling conflicts, cost, and narrow definitions of musical success can limit access.

Paulo Freire emphasizes that education should be constructed with learners rather than imposed upon them (Freire, 1970). This perspective highlights the responsibility of educators to design systems that are inclusive and responsive.

A music education for the people examines its own structures and asks whether they invite or exclude. It seeks to remove unnecessary barriers and create multiple pathways for participation. It values belonging alongside achievement and considers success in terms of how many students are able to engage meaningfully with music.

This is not about lowering standards. It is about ensuring that the benefits of music education are available to more students. When music education is designed for the people, it shifts from selecting participants to serving them.

Connecting to the National Core Arts Standards

The idea of music education as of, by, and for the people is not separate from our professional frameworks. It is already embedded within the National Core Arts Standards (National Coalition for Core Arts Standards, 2014). These standards define artistic processes as creating, performing, responding, and connecting. Each of these processes reflects an aspect of Lincoln’s framework.

OF the people → Connecting
Students relate music to personal meaning and lived experience, reinforcing the idea that learning begins with identity.

BY the people → Creating
Students generate and develop musical ideas, make decisions, and shape artistic work. This reflects the understanding that musicians do not simply perform music. They choose, decide, and create.

FOR the people → Access across all processes
All students are meant to have opportunities to create, perform, respond, and connect. The standards are designed for all learners, not just a select few.

When viewed through this lens, the National Core Arts Standards already support a vision of music education that is participatory, inclusive, and student centered. The challenge is not in redefining our goals, but in fully realizing them in practice.

Closing Reflection

Lincoln’s words were intended to describe a nation, but they also offer a way to evaluate any system that claims to serve people. Music education has long been valued for its ability to develop skill and appreciation. These outcomes remain important. However, they do not fully capture what music education can become when it is designed with people at the center.

The question is not simply whether music education should change. The question is whether it reflects the people it is meant to serve. When music education becomes of the people, by the people, and for the people, it does more than sustain tradition. It expands participation, deepens connection, and creates space for more students to see themselves as musicians.

In that sense, the goal is not to replace what exists, but to bring music education closer to the lives of the people it is meant to serve.

References

Allsup, R. E. (2016). Remixing the classroom: Toward an open philosophy of music education. Indiana University Press.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.

Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Ashgate.

National Coalition for Core Arts Standards. (2014). National Core Arts Standards: A conceptual framework for arts learning.

Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The meanings of performing and listening. Wesleyan University Press.