New Policy Brief Released

The Music Education Policy Project is pleased to announce the release of Music Education Policy Brief #2: Reducing Music Teacher Turnover and its Consequences. The brief was written by Sung Eun Kim, a doctoral student and research assistant with the project, and David Barg, who completed his Masters degree at BU in 2010.

New Bibliographic Resource

The Music Education Policy Project has begun compiling an annotated bibliography of literature in music education policy. It is available on the resources page of the MEPP web site. The bibliography, compiled by graduate students at Boston University, will eventually include all peer reviewed literature (including dissertations) focused on both policy and music education. If you have published an article, dissertation, book, or chapter that should be included in the bibliography, please email us.

New Policy Dissertation

Congratulations to Michael Pratt, who recently defended his dissertation entitled Assessing the Initial Impact of the Michigan Merit Curriculum of 2006 on Music in High Schools: A Survey of Public School Implementation of New High School Graduation Requirements. He conducted his survey to determine if music teachers' concerns that the MMC would negatively impact music programs were warranted. In a majority of schools, the percentage of students enrolled in music increased. Many schools were adding new music courses. The complete abstract appears below.

With the passage of the Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC) in 2006, the state of Michigan went from being among the states with the fewest state-mandated high school graduation requirements, with a half credit of civics being the sole requirement, to among the states with the most comprehensive requirements in the nation, including: 4 years each of English and math, 3 years each of science and social science, 2 years of world language, 1 year each of health/physical education and visual, performing, or applied arts (VPAA). The purpose of this study is to discover the initial effects of the MMC on high schools in Michigan. What changes do high schools in Michigan anticipate to their music programs as a result of the MMC? What ways do school administrators anticipate that students will fulfill the visual, performing, or applied arts requirement of the MMC? Each of the public high schools and public school academies (charter schools) in the state of Michigan (the schools affected by the MMC) were surveyed to ascertain what their schools had been and will be doing regarding their existing high school music programs as a result of the MMC, with focus on the new requirement for visual, performing, or applied arts. Many of the questions asked produced data used to calculate various ranges and percents of data, such as students enrolled in various music classes by various classifications. Respondents described the music classes in their schools before and after implementation of the MMC. Schools described changes made as a result of the new requirement for visual, performing, or applied arts. Many music educators in Michigan thought the MMC would hurt music programs and potentially eliminate programs and jobs. Comparison of this before and after data showed how little music classes were affected by the MMC. At times schools make policy decisions for reasons of expediency, or based on dubious rationale such as the “squeaky wheel” principle. This study is important so that future decisions affecting music programs in public high schools can be made based on a foundation of empirical evidence rather than from simple conjecture.

Music in Obama's Vision for Education

This past week, the Obama administration unveiled its vision for the reauthorization of ESEA. Secretary of Education Duncan noted that there is more to education than math and reading: Other subjects, including the arts, are important too. Under the new plan, NCLB's emphasis on grade level proficiency is out, and a new concern for college or career readiness is in (of course readiness is a tricky concept to define). Although the new law will likely continue to include sanctions for the lowest-performing schools, it appears to focus more on rewarding innovation. It remains to be seen, however, if this approach will result in an inequitable distribution of scarce resources. Will the least-resourced schools being shut down due to poor student achievement and the best-resourced schools receive still more funds to support their innovative ideas?

What is the place of music in this new model, and what does the change mean for advocates? I believe that arguments relating music to achievement in other subjects become less necessary. Instead, advocates need to focus their arguments on how music education can make students college ready, or career ready. More importantly, music education curricula need to reflect those outcomes. Every part of what we do needs to be reevaluated to determine its place in an education system with newly defined goals. Does the typical performance-based program help all students to be college ready?

NCLB's impact on Art Education

The National Art Education Association recently published a report from a study of the impact of NCLB on art education programs. The results will undoubtably be used to support arguments by both critics and proponents of the law. On nearly every question, the largest number of participants reported on minimal, if any impact. But, for every question, more people reported negative impacts than positive impacts. The full report and executive summary can both be accessed here. The reported is purported to be the first substantial study of NCLB's effects on art education. Unfortunately, the recommendations from the NAEA report focus on advocacy and what teachers can do. Hard policy recommendations are notably absent.

The study is based on teachers perceptions and opinions about the law and its impact, and provides little hard data. Compare this to other studies that have been big on numbers, but short on context, such as this oft-cited study by the Council for Basic Education. If studies are to inform policy makers as they work to reauthorize ESEA and develop other new policy, they need to get at numbers and contextualize them. They need to ask the right questions. Several BU students are conducting such studies at the state level now, but collecting hard data on changes in enrollment, scheduling, course offerings, and staffing after changes have happened is challenging.

Large scale, longitudinal studies of policy implementation are needed in music education. They are the best way to truly understand policy and inform policy recommendations.

FY 2011 Budget: What's in it for Music Education?

President Obama submitted his 2011 budget to congress today, and it is informative to look at the implications of the appropriations for music education. Music educators should pay special attention to funding for the following areas: The National Endowment for the Arts
and the U.S. Department of Education. It is important to note that the figures in this budget are subject to adjustment as Congress acts on the President's requests.

According to an article in The Washington Post, The President's request for the National Endowment for the Arts this year was the same as his request last year, although the $161.3 million request represents a reduction of almost 4% compared to the last year's actual budget. The NEA is hoping to launch a new program called "Our Town" that funds community-based programs. Such programs might offer an opening for schools to connect to the community. Hopefully the proposed cut to the NEA's budget will not jeopardize the new program.

The President's budget request for the Department of Education can be found here. Of most interest to music educators at the K–12 level are the requests related to ESEA, which Secretary of Education Arne Duncan says are a signal of impending "bold changes" to ESEA. Included are a $197 million increase in competitive grants for "programs designed to promote a well-rounded education, supporting comprehensive literacy, STEM and other core subjects including history and arts." Unlike programs such as Race to the Top, which prioritize STEM subjects, these grants may actually provide strong opportunities for music education programs to receive federal funding. Another item of interest is the "$539 million for innovative teacher and leader reforms such as performance pay, bringing the total to $950 million." Such an increase indicates that the administration is serious developing and implementing such reforms. It is imperative that leaders music education leaders begin to think seriously about (a) how K–12 music teachers would best be served with such reforms and (b) how we can include our concerns in any policies that might result. 

Access to Music Education

A previous post to this blog described a dissertation that concluded that Texas Universities may be out of compliance with certain laws regarding music teacher preparation. One of my own students has uncovered a situation in another state in which a large number of urban schools may be out of compliance with state laws that mandate that all students be afforded the opportunity to receive music instruction. His early results led me to wonder how many states require that secondary schools offer music instruction be offered at various levels, and just how many students have (regardless of state laws) access to music education, especially at the high school level.

Massachusetts is one state that does not require schools to offer music to its students. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most high schools outside of Boston do offer music as an elective, while only a few of Boston’s 45 high schools have music. This lack of equity is disturbing, but hardly surprising. It does demonstrate a need for strong policy that will make opportunities available to all students. But, how far-reaching should such a policy be?

Would charter and magnet schools, which students usually attend instead of their local traditional high school, be exempt? Charter schools are criticized for many reasons, one being that students in those schools often have fewer opportunities than those in a more traditional high school. Indeed, many charter high schools do not currently offer music programs. Proponents of charter schools would argue, though, that since those students chose to attend those schools, they chose not to enroll in music.

Would schools need to offer music instruction for credit, taught by “highly qualified,” certified instructors? Many urban schools partner with external agencies to offer music instruction. How might (and do) such partnerships fit into any current or future policy?

Advocates for music education have been waging a fight to keep music in the schools since it was first introduced into the curriculum. The time may be ripe now, when policy is being rewritten, to address concerns about equity and opportunity in music education. The first step in that effort, though, is to determine what “equal” or “equitable” opportunities are right for our students.

The Future of ESEA

Earlier this week, the USDOE hosted a “listening and learning session” with arts education leaders. The meeting was intended to inform federal policy makers in preparation for the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), commonly known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Richard Kessler, executive director of the Center for Arts Education, summarized the meeting here. As the reauthorization process gets underway, it is important that we take stock of the current situation and the potential impact of any future policies.

By many accounts, damage was done to music education programs when schools shifted funds and time away from the arts and other non-tested subjects toward tested subject areas. Although NCLB allowed schools to use NCLB funds for all core subjects, including the arts, many schools and districts either did not know of those opportunities or chose to use those opportunities for other subjects. So, although NCLB provided flexibility in many respects, its demands narrowed the vision of those who implemented the law in the schools.

It is far too early to know for certain what the next iteration of ESEA will look like, but a review of recent federal education policy discourse provides some clues. For starters, the Education Policy Blog provides a look back at Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s first year. I think that the biggest indicator is the DOE’s Race to the Top program and its focus on both the so-called STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and math) and the development of new assessments. I suspect that the DOE’s explicit “preference” for STEM subjects in awarding RttT grants will find their way into ESEA as well, which would be disastrous for arts education.

How might we ensure that the next reauthorization of ESEA does not have a negative impact on arts education, or even better, has a positive outcome? The discussions that took place at the DOE on Wednesday may serve as a starting point, but action will be needed to influence both the development of the new policy and its implementation. Your ideas are welcome!

Dissertation Suggests Music Theory Training for Teachers Does Not Comply With State Laws

Congratulations to Vicky V. Johnson, who recently defended her dissertation entitled Competencies, Curricula, and Compliance: An Analysis of Music Theory in Music Education Programs in Texas. The project was supervised by BU's Patrick Jones. Her dissertation is the first to be completed since the launch of the Music Education Policy Project. Here is the abstract:

Music theory faculty members in all four-year institutions of higher education in Texas that are accredited by the National Association of Schools of Music and offer degrees in music education were invited to take an online survey. The content of the survey consisted of competencies taken directly from standards outlined by the National Association of Schools of Music, requirements by the Texas State Board for Educator Certification to be certified to teach music in primary and secondary schools, and the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills which outline the knowledge and skills students in primary and secondary schools are to obtain at specific grade levels.

The data from the survey were analyzed to ascertain relationships between the competencies specified by music theory faculty members as necessary for incoming freshman music majors, the music theory curricula required for music education majors offered by the participating institutions, and the music theory competencies necessary for music education majors as outlined by the National Association of Schools of Music, the Texas State Board for Educator Certification, and as contained in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills

Results of the study indicate that the music theory curricula at these institutions are not in compliance with the standards and mandates of the National Association of Schools of Music, the Texas State Board for Educator Certification, and the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills standards. Therefore, music education majors in these institutions are not being adequately prepared to teach the music requirements in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. Recommendations are made regarding educational policy and music theory curricula for undergraduate music education majors.

Research, Advocacy, and Policy

As I am writing this, I am listening to a panel discussion at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). The topic is Educational Research, Advocacy, and Policy, and the panelists are addressing the question of what counts as research to inform policy, and what is research for advocacy? I was wondering to myself, “Why can’t research for advocacy inform policy?” Isn’t getting research to inform policy a type of advocacy? The panelists are, to some extent, making that exact point. Is that what we do in music education, though?

One of the panelists was an attorney in a previous life. As an attorney, he used this definition of advocacy: Pushing as much as you can on behalf your client up to a (loosely) defined ethical boundary. He compared that definition to how he defines advocacy in education: Using strong communication to put our research in the hands of the public in an effective way. I believe that in music education, advocacy efforts have been more along the lines of what lawyers do, pushing the ethical boundary to build support for music education. What we need is to use research in an effective (and honest) way to advocate for policy at the local, state, and national level.