Published in the September 2021 edition of the Wisconsin School Musician. (Link for WMEA members with login).

After years of teaching music in New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Michigan, I came to the University of Wisconsin-Superior after being asked one question. As I sat with a group of music majors at the school, having prepared myself for whatever interview questions or comments would come, I was touched by the first question that a student asked me: “How are you?” Rather than being compelled to articulate external sources of knowledge, this preservice music teacher’s question invited me to share internal thoughts, emotions, and experiences. The question was a powerful reminder that music teaching and learning is “not about content or terminology—it is about people.”^[1]

Prioritizing students over content can be a very liberating endeavor that encourages narrative driven music teaching and learning. When students’ ideas and experiences serve as the starting points for scaffolding, then teachers can begin to teach responsively, basing their work on the voices of students in their classrooms, rather than the distant objectives of a pre-determined curriculum document. This was especially salient to me when I taught elementary music in Memphis, when a question on the relevance of music in my students’ lives led to them writing and performing a musical on the 1968 sanitation workers strike that included protest signs from the past like “I am a man,” and protest signs from the present like, “Black Lives Matter.” In other words, students synthesized their present experiences with past events, deriving new meanings and insights that enriched the learning environment. The same can be said for higher education, and while contexts may vary, one idea remains consistent: The most meaningful music teaching and learning happens through sharing stories with one another.

In the aftermath of COVID-19, it is important for music teachers and learners to continue engaging in meta-cognitive discussions built upon solid foundations of knowledge, including the experiences that students bring in from outside of the classroom. “How” and “why” questions in music teaching and learning can be especially meaningful for facilitating experience-based conversations. Some examples may include:

• How can music be described?
• Why is music important?
• How does music connect to our lives?
• How can music be used to get to know one another?

The visual in this article provides some of the variations of musical inquiry that might take place within a process-based, student-centered curriculum that also considers the national/state standards for music education.^[2] Consider, for example, the Wisconsin music standard, “Connect,” which states, “Students will relate prior knowledge and personal experience with music to cultural and historical context.”^[3] When we consider the standard using a question-based curriculum, we can draw upon student experiences to scaffold into deeper levels of inquiry. In other words, if we start by asking how we can use music to get to know one another, we can consider deeper questions pertaining to this standard:

• How does music at school compare and contrast with music at home?
• How can narrative be used to influence musical concepts?
• How do individuals from alike and different backgrounds make music together?
• Why is music a cultural practice?
• How does community impact a music making experience?
• How has music been used to shape society?
• How have musicians expressed themselves in ways that have deviated from socialized norms?
• How have cultural norms shaped the ways that individuals and communities engage with music?
• How are beliefs concerning music used to convey and/or solicit emotions?

When we engage students in answering questions like the ones above, our students’ experiences outside of class become part of our curriculum inside the classroom. Moreover, if we can encourage students in higher education to speak about their experiences and ask new questions, we open opportunities for new voices in developing policies in music teacher education.

As music teacher education programs across the state (and indeed, across the United States) navigate new licensing policies and move away from external models of teaching and learning like the edTPA,^[4] it is important to remember that student voices are key to designing alternative assessments in higher education that are truly by music educators and for music educators. As Brophy explains, “Music is a complex, multidimensional human experience. The assessment of music learning must reflect those characteristics.”^[5] Thus, while I believe that developing new assessments of music teacher readiness will be challenging, I see no one better equipped to facilitate inquiry-based assessments than the local music teacher educators across the state within their respective communities of music teaching and learning. By doing so, we may begin to imagine a world of music education built on principles of empathy, compassion, and belonging instead of content, objectives, and high stakes. By doing so, we can reduce the amount of time that we spend on questions like, “How are you going to pass,” and instead, spend more time asking questions like, “How are you?”

 

References

^[1] Potter, D. (2020). Music teacher education and edTPA: A case study. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 28024538)

^[2] In 2019, I was asked to develop this document for Shelby County Schools in Tennessee.

^[3] Wisconsin Department of Education. (2017). Wisconsin standards for music: General music strand and performance music strand. Retrieved July 15, 2021.

^[4] Wisconsin Department of Education. (2020). Wisconsin edTPA. Retrieved July 15, 2021.

^[5] Brophy, T. (2019). Assessment in music education: The state of the art. In T. Brophy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evaluation policy and practice in music education, (Vol. 2, pp. 903–931). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Published in the Summer 2021 edition of the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education.

Abstract

States have revamped teacher evaluations over the last 10 years to include teacher performance ratings based on student achievement/growth, presenting a challenge in nontested subjects such as music. The most common approach has been to measure music teacher effectiveness based on teacher-designed student learning objectives (SLOs), but almost no evidence exists on SLO processes. The purpose of this study was to examine the assessments and parameters used in SLOs. Specific research questions were: (a) What assessments are used to measure student growth? (b) What is the overall design for demonstrating student growth? (c) What are the parameters for teacher goal setting in the SLO process? We analyzed 35 SLOs across six districts in Michigan and coded them for assessment content, growth design, and particulars of teacher-level goal setting. Results indicate that most SLOs were based on students’ musical performance assessed with a rating scale, or based on knowledge of musical notation with pencil-and-paper tests. Musical creativity and response were almost completely absent. Almost all SLOs used a pretest/posttest design, but particulars of growth and judging teacher success differed considerably. We offer implications for teachers, administrators, and policy makers concerned with music teacher evaluations.

 

Citation

Shaw, R. D., & Potter, D. (2021). A content analysis of music teacher student learning objectives in Michigan. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 229, 29–46.

Accepted August 27, 2020, for publication in Arts Education Policy Review.

Abstract

While high-stakes testing has influenced music teacher evaluation, evidence of music teacher agency influencing the policy process has been scarce. One notable exception is the Tennessee Fine Arts Portfolio Model (TNFAPM), designed by music teachers in Tennessee as an alternative to music teacher evaluations that have been based, at least in part, on reading and math test scores. In place for nine years, the model is one of the few peer-reviewed teacher evaluation initiatives that has been in continuous use in public schools, enabling researchers to examine music teacher perceptions of evaluation in Tennessee, including perceptions of the portfolio. The purpose of this study was to examine two music teachers’ perceptions regarding the different means of teacher evaluation (student reading/math test scores and the TNFAPM) used within the state of Tennessee. After analyzing data collected during the study, I sought to answer the following question: How have teacher evaluation practices and policies impacted music teachers’ self-perceptions, classroom policies, and curriculum implementation in Tennessee? Findings suggest that administrative support, feedback delivery/reception, and value for music making shaped the participants perceptions, policies, and classroom practices.

Additionally, scores did not generate positive perceptions.

 

Citation

Potter, D. (in press). Music teacher perceptions of evaluation: A Case study of the Tennessee fine arts portfolio model. Arts Education Policy Review.

Published in 2021 in Issue 122, Volume 2 of Arts Education Policy Review.

Abstract

In less than a decade, Pearson’s distribution of the Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) has expanded to hundreds of teacher education preparation programs in the United States. Used in more than forty states, the edTPA has become one of the most prevalent forms of high-stakes evaluation for student teachers, with several states requiring candidates to pass edTPA to gain teacher certification. This article examines the history and policies associated with edTPA in arts education. To do this, I examined emerging literature concerning edTPA, with a particular focus on the policy documents released by the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity in conjunction with Pearson. Findings from the study include inconsistencies within the evaluation of fine arts teacher candidates, the absence of arts educators from the development of edTPA, and marginalization by means of forced compliance.

 

Citation

Potter, D. (2021). (In)visible power: A critical policy analysis of edTPA. Arts Education Policy Review, 122(2), 101–114.

Dissertation published in August 2020 through Michigan State University and ProQuest.

Abstract

In order to better understand how the edTPA has become accepted by music teacher education programs over the past decade, the purpose of this study was to investigate how one music teacher education program implemented the edTPA. Using a critical policy analysis framework, I examined the following research questions: (a) How did stakeholders understand the policy framing of edTPA? (b) How did stakeholders interact with, implement, describe, and make sense of their experiences with edTPA? (c) How did stakeholders frame their own sense of power and agency with respect to the development and implementation of edTPA? Research took place at Northeastern United States University (NUSU), a music teacher preparation program that has used edTPA since the initial pilot and has expressed support for the edTPA. The 15 participants included administrators, full-time faculty, part-time supervisors, and student teachers, as well as documents from each of these groups. Participants described edTPA as a high-stakes, standardized measurement that was used to define “good” members of NUSU. While acknowledged as stressful, the faculty rationalized edTPA as compatible with NUSU’s values and used it to pervade the curriculum. Tenured faculty and administration benefitted the most from edTPA while student teachers were the most negatively impacted. Recommendations include cutting costs for student teachers, localizing the rubrics, including narrative feedback, balancing the workload for student teachers, restoring decision-making to local stakeholders, encouraging critical and collaborative discussions, and ending the high-stakes mandate.

 

Citation

Potter, D. (2020). Music teacher education and edTPA: A case study (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 28024538).

Published in Arts Education Policy Review in December 2018.

Abstract

Arts Education Policy Review has served as a primary resource for understanding policy and a publication that invites readers to “contribute to this conversation as we continue to think about these important ideas and how they might influence policy and practice in all the fields of arts education” (Wiggins, 2015, p. 158). The invitation to participate in policy is a paradigm shift from educators being conditioned by leaders within our profession to differentiate “teachers” from “policymakers” (Barrett & Stauffer, 2009, p. 112). In the spirit of encouraging arts educators to see policy as accessible rather than “beyond our reach,” Schmidt and Colwell’s recent publication, Policy and the Political Life of Music Education (p. 6), provides a broad introduction to policy work in music education, while simultaneously narrowing its focus to problematize issues such as exclusion in higher education, the exclusion of non-performing musicians, and the exclusion of non-Western music. By examining past, present, and future music education policy work from a variety of international perspectives, Schmidt and Colwell seek to provide readers with an understanding of policy, why it matters, why it has been resisted, and why continued participation is essential. The book consists of 15 chapters broken up into three parts: Policy Foundations, International Perspectives on Policy, and Policy in Context. After providing an overview of the book, I found three emerging themes: power and agency, perform-centered policy, and comprehensive music education. After an overview of each chapter, I discuss considerations of the overarching themes, implications for music education, and areas of critical examination.

The purpose of the book is to express the importance of policy participation in music education through a collection of essays written by 17 authors. Consequently, Schmidt and Colwell acknowledge, “As the first book to focus solely on policy as an area of study in music education, it could not and does not offer an exhaustive exploration of policy issues” (p. 1). Instead, the book is a compendium of works by seventeen authors who provide a variety of perspectives pertaining to the political scope of music education. While Schmidt and Colwell describe the book as the first book to only focus on music education policy, it would be more appropriate to describe it as the first book to take a helicoptered view of music education policy without shifting away from the topic itself. For example, Lebler (2015) provided a much larger scope of assessment policy, and Bartleet and Higgins provided over 100 pages dedicated to the topic of politics in community music (Bartleet & Higgins, 2018). Furthermore, Samuel Hope (1985), in his edited book Policy Questions In Music Education, combined essays on policy in music education. What is different about this book is the sheer variety of topics covered under the umbrella of music education policy. Consequently, while the book is divided into three parts, I will examine the interactions between chapters within each part. I then will discuss emerging themes throughout the book and offer a critical analysis. I will conclude by echoing Schmidt and Colwell’s emphasis on teacher agency and offer suggestions on how this book might aid in demystifying the multifaceted phenomenon of policy.

View the full paper and references

Presented at the SMTE Symposium on Music Teacher Education in September 2019 and received the David J. Teachout Graduate Student Scholarship. I have also published an article of the same name in Arts Education Policy Review.

Abstract

The 1990s marked significant changes in philosophy, practice, and policy for arts educators. This decade marked an increase in accountability models developed outside of the scope of arts education, including observation models like the Danielson Framework of Teaching (Bernard, 2015; Danielson, 1996; Smith, 2017), in-service portfolio models like the Beginning Educator Support and Training Program, or BEST (Conway, 2002; Robinson, 2005). Additionally, pre-service teacher portfolios like the Performance Assessment of California Teachers, or PACT (Dover & Schultz, 2016; Petchauer, Bowe, & Wilson, 2018; Shaw, 2016) emerged alongside the in-service systems.

The 2000s, underscored by No Child Left Behind, marked a shift from soft policies based in recommendations, to hard policies requiring states to increase accountability in their schools via standardized testing (Hallam, 2011; Jones, 2009). Meanwhile, policymakers in California likewise adopted legislation to increase accountability among pre-service teachers through the use of performance assessments, such as the Performance Assessment for California Teachers, or PACT. By the end of the decade, Stanford University’s Center for Learning and Equity (SCALE) and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (Parkes & Powell, 2015) had adapted PACT for national distribution. Upon hiring Pearson, a for-profit corporation, to facilitate test distribution, the test became known as the Teacher Performance Assessment, or edTPA (Kelley, 2014; Parkes & Powell, 2015).

Several studies have praised edTPA, contending that teacher education programs improve when they adjust to its teaching standards (Barron, 2015; Miller, Carroll, Jancic, & Markworth, 2015; Sloan, 2013). Still other studies have been critical of the evolution and implementation of edTPA, especially as a high-stakes determination of teacher preparation (Cochran-Smith, Piazza, & Power, 2013; Goldhaber, Cowan, & Theobald, 2017; Ledwell & Oyler, 2016; Lunsford, Warner, Park, & Morgan, 2016; Seymour, Burns, & Henry, 2018). However, only a few critical studies of edTPA have been published in arts education journals, with the exception of Parkes and Powell (2015), who stated, “Certainly the edTPA should not be implemented as standard policy” (p. 111). Even so, fewer studies in arts education have examined edTPA through the lens of critical policy analysis.

Using the method of critical policy analysis, or CPA, the purpose of this analysis was to examine the history and policies associated with edTPA in arts education. Specifically, I examined emerging literature concerning edTPA, with a particular focus on the policy documents released by Pearson, and considered the following questions: (a) How do those who created edTPA frame its function and importance?; (b) How have the standards and objectives of edTPA been justified as practice?; and (c) How has edTPA been used to privilege or marginalize individuals and groups? I will discuss emerging themes, including inconsistency, absence, and marginalization. I will also offer policy suggestions and implications, such as problematizing the separation of performing arts from visual art, opposing the exclusion of music educators from the development of the edTPA handbook, offering alternatives to high-stakes practices, and promoting music educator licensing decision at the university level.

 

References

Barron, L. (2015). Preparing preservice teachers for performance assessments. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 3(2), 68–75. Retrieved from ittc-web.astate.edu/ojs

Bernard, C. F. (2015). Ensemble educators, administrators, and evaluation: Support, survival, and navigating change in a high-stakes environment (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3704455)

Cochran-Smith, M., Piazza, P., & Power, C. (2013). The politics of accountability: Assessing teacher education in the United States. The Educational Forum, 77(1), 6–27. doi:10.1080/00131725.2013.739015

Conway, C. (2002). Beginning music teacher induction and mentor policies: A cross-state perspective. Arts Education Policy Review, 104(2), 9–17. doi:10.1080/10632910209605998

Danielson, C. (2016, April 1). Teacher development in the 21st century. Remarks presented at the Annual Teacher Performance Assessment Conference, Savannah, GA.

Dover, A. G., & Schultz, B. D. (2016). Troubling the edTPA: Illusions of objectivity and rigor. The Educational Forum, 80(1), 95–106. doi:10.1080/00131725.2015.1102368

Goldhaber, D., Cowan, J., & Theobald, R. (2017). Evaluating prospective teachers: Testing the predictive validity of the edTPA. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(4), 377–393. doi:10.1177/0022487117702582

Hallam, R. (2011). Effective partnership working in music education: Principles and practice. International Journal of Music Education, 29(2), 155–171. doi:10.1177/0255761410396963

Jones, P. M. (2009). Hard and soft policies in music education: Building the capacity of teachers to understand, study, and influence them. Arts Education Policy Review, 110(4), 27–32. doi:10.3200/AEPR.110.4.27-32

Kelley, K. M. (2014). Investigating the reading/language arts performance of sixth-grade, African American males: The association between Renaissance Learning Accelerated Reader, Discovery Education ThinkLink, and the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3690533)

Ledwell, K., & Oyler, C. (2016). Unstandardized responses to a “standardized” test: The edTPA as gatekeeper and curriculum change agent. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(2), 120–134. doi:10.1177/0022487115624739

Lunsford, A., Warner, W., Park, T., & Morgan, J. (2016). Agricultural education teacher candidates’ perceptions of the edTPA. Career and Technical Education Research, 41(3), 213–225. doi:10.5328/cter41.3.213

Miller, M., Carroll, D., Jancic, M., & Markworth, K. (2015). Developing a culture of learning around the edTPA: One university’s journey. The New Educator, 11(1), 58–59. doi:10.1080/1547688X.2014.966401

Parkes, K. A., & Powell, S. R. (2015). Is the edTPA the right choice for evaluating teacher readiness? Arts Education Policy Review, 116(2), 103–113. doi:10.1080/10632913.2014.944964

Petchauer, E., Bowe, A. G., & Wilson, J. (2018). Winter is coming: Forecasting the impact of edTPA on black teachers and teachers of color. The Urban Review, 50(2), 323–343. doi:10.1007/s11256-018-0453-1

Robinson, M. (2005). The impact of beginning music teacher evaluation on the evaluators: Notes from experienced teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 164, 49–60.

Seymour, C. A., Burns, B. A., & Henry, J. J. (2018). Cooperating teachers stakeholders in the edTPA? Issues in Teacher Education, 27(1), 41–56. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P4-2049663082/cooperating-teachers-stakeholders-in-the-edtpa

Shaw, R. D. (2016). Music teacher stress in the era of accountability. Arts Education Policy Review, 117(2), 104–116. doi:10.1080/10632913.2015.1005325

Sloan, T. (2013). Distributed leadership and organizational change: Implementation of a teaching performance measure. The New Educator, 9(1), 29–53. doi:10.1080/1547688X.2013.751313

Smith, D. (2017). Music teacher evaluation: New Jersey music teacher attitudes and perceptions of evaluator types and evaluation model types and their interaction (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 10586279)

Published in the Spring 2019 Edition of the Michigan Music Educator.

Yesterday I sat in on our weekly student teacher seminar course at Michigan State University, when the name Charlotte Danielson entered the conversation. Danielson, a former economist, educator, and political consultant, is the author of the Framework for Teaching, one of the most commonly used models for defining quality teaching in the United States (The Danielson Group, 2017a).  I started to cringe, as it brought back memories of terms like “teacher evaluation,” “highly effective,” and, worst of all, “high-stakes.” I started to remember times during my teaching when, after an observation by my principal, I genuinely thought I would be fired because I failed to state an objective, or my students were perceived by an observer as too rambunctious. When I heard the name Charlotte Danielson, one word came to my mind: Fear.

I was therefore surprised when a veteran music teacher started to talk about the Danielson framework with the student teachers in a positive way. She talked about how, when she used the framework, her students began to use a common vocabulary, developed higher-order thinking skills, and focused on objectives without taking away from the musical flow of the lesson. In other words, her students were learning, and she was learning as a teacher. After listening to this veteran music teacher, a very different word came to my mind: Growth.

I started to wonder: Has my approach to music teacher evaluation and assessment been wrong this whole time? Come to think of it, what exactly are we talking about when we use the words evaluation and assessment? Can a tool be used for student/teacher growth and for evaluating teacher effectiveness?

Linda-Darling Hammond, education professor emeritus at Stanford University and former president of the American Educational Research Association, describes teacher evaluations as standards-based performances of teacher competency that function as part of broader accountability systems:

Like businesses that use a dashboard of measures to provide a comprehensive picture of performance, we need to allow and enable accountability systems that create dashboards of indicators for all key decisions (student placement, promotion, graduation; teacher evaluation, tenure, dismissal; school recognition, intervention). (2014, p. 105)

Darling-Hammond also asserts, “Teacher evaluation processes are connected to teacher growth and development rather than punitive accountability” (2017, p. 16). Yet as I read through her books, while I find many references to student assessments, references to teacher assessment are rare.

Danielson’s Framework for Teaching makes multiple references to the word “assessment” within the domains of planning, environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities. However, Danielson makes no references to the word “evaluation.” (The Danielson Group, 2017b). Ironically, the description of the framework on the Danielson Group website makes multiple references to the word evaluation, but no references to assessment. In other words, the framework was created with the intention to focus on assessment, but it is marketed as a tool for evaluation.

Federal legislation concerning assessment and evaluation match up with what I read in works by Darling-Hammond and Danielson. Upon reading over federal education legislation including the No Child Left Behind Act (2002), the Race to the Top competitive funding program (2009), and the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015), three things became apparent:

1. The word “evaluation” almost always refers to teachers and school leaders, not students.
2. The word “assessment” almost always refers to students and standardized tests.
3. When “assessment” refers to teachers, it is usually in the context of the word “teacher performance assessment.”

Why is the word “evaluation” used so often for teachers? The answer may lie in how we conceptualize teacher growth and development.

As a music teacher in Tennessee, the word “evaluation” meant whether or not I would still have a job. During my first year of teaching in Memphis, the state had changed their legislation to link teacher evaluation scores to tenure, salary, and termination (Tennessee Department of Education, 2017).^[1] As a “non-tested” teacher in 2011—meaning I did not teach in a grade/subject tested on the annual state exams—I learned that half of my evaluation would be based on the reading and math test scores of my students (Teacher Effectiveness Measure, 2015). In other words, if my students scored “below expectations” on their state tests in reading and math, then I would  score “below expectations” on half of my evaluation. The other half of my evaluation consisted mostly of observations by my principal. I remember looking at a teacher observation rubric, similar to the Danielson framework, that had over 100 indicators of things I needed to say, do, or facilitate to “meet expectations.” As a first year teacher having just moved from New York to Memphis, this was overwhelming.

When my first observation came back with scores “below expectations,” I asked my principal, “Am I going to be fired?” Tennessee legislation allows for (and in some cases, mandates) the removal of teachers who score below expectations. Even a tenured teacher can lose tenure if they consistently score below expectations (Tennessee Department of Education, 2014, 2015).

According to the Michigan Department of Education, “Beginning in 2018-2019, the law requires that 40 percent of half of teacher and administrator evaluations be based on “student growth and assessment data,” up from 25 percent the previous school year (Michigan Department of Education, 2018b). As the emphasis on student growth increases, so does the accountability for music teachers to “measure student growth on the most essential standards and elements that define student success within the class” (Michigan Department of Education, 2018a).^[2] Specifically, the law has changed to prioritize student assessments and student growth. While I believe that teacher evaluation (accountability) is important, I believe that teacher assessment (growth) has been neglected in schools. Furthermore, while music teachers may be able to find ways to use the Danielson framework to their advantage, no music teacher was involved in the development of the framework itself.

How can teacher evaluation become more focused on teacher growth? I am a proponent of focusing on artistic processes like creating, performing, responding, and connecting in organizing goals for student growth. I have found resources categorized around these processes, such as the Michigan Arts Education Instruction and Assessment (MAEIA) project, to provide specific information designed to guide music teachers toward demonstrating student growth (MAEIA, 2018). As Robinson explains (2015), “many music teachers do not have the time or the measurement expertise to develop their own assessments” (p. 15). The MAEIA assessments, designed by Michigan arts educators, provide a head start in this sense. But just finding quality assessments is not enough to ensure a meaningful process for the teacher, as I found when turning in a portfolio as part of my annual evaluations. Over time, I found that portfolio scoring guides became more and more generic to the point that the purpose of the scoring guide became the ability to generate a score, not the ability to interpret what that score meant in terms of student growth.

While my school district had outstanding educators who helped to make a variety of rubrics, I struggled to find any resources focused on teacher growth instead of accountability. Even the National Association for Music Education (NAfME) has workbooks for building and evaluating effective music education designed to “offer teachers, peer evaluators, and administrators…examples of professional evaluations of music teachers” (NAfME, 2013). Where then, can music teachers go to find sources of professional growth that are not rooted in accountability measures?

For one example, I return to the MAEIA project. With a deeper look, one sees that the MAEIA project emphasizes its namesake: it promotes growth in both instruction and assessment practices. Terminology is important here, as MAEIA focuses on “assessment” and makes few mentions of the word “evaluation” on their website. Furthermore, MAEIA served as a grassroots effort: “Since 2012 over 1,000 Michigan arts educators have contributed to the MAEIA project” (MAEIA, 2018).

I believe that grassroots efforts in music education to reshape evaluation, like MAEIA, are important steps in reshaping the definition of accountability for music teachers. Likewise, I believe that such projects are important in reshaping the definition of growth in music. Therefore, while not definitive, I submit the following ideas for consideration:

1. Assessment and evaluation are not the same, and we must be intentional about developing a common discourse that separates the two. Assessment is about growth—for students and teachers—and evaluation too often means a score-based, punitive process.
2. Music teachers who are struggling with demonstrating student growth should consider exploring the assessments found in the MAEIA project.
3. Music teachers who are struggling with teacher accountability or are being unfairly evaluated by measures such as math or reading test scores should consider using MAEIA resources as a conversation starter. This could help to change the narrative with administrators from counterproductive accountability to relevant growth.

In a time of political uncertainty and instability in education, music educators may be in a unique position to speak to building administrators and state leaders about evaluation and assessment. Through the work of projects such as MAEIA, we have models of assessment. Furthermore, by knowing the difference, we as music educators can work together to push the pendulum away from accountability-driven education and back to growth-based education. I invite music educators across the state to consider participating in these collaborative efforts by exploring MAEIA resources and changing the way we talk about assessment and evaluation within our professional learning communities.

 

^[1] Tennessee Code § 49-1-302 (2016).

^[2] 2018 House Bill 5707 would return the percentage to 25. The bill passed in the State House on December 13, 2018, and it awaits approval from the State Senate.

 

References

Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Next generation assessment: Moving beyond the bubble test to support 21^st century learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Empowered educators: How high performing systems shape teaching quality around the world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016).

Michigan Arts Education Instruction and Assessment Project (MAEIA). (2018). Michigan Arts Education Instruction & Assessment. Retrieved from https://maeia-artsednetwork.org

Michigan Department of Education. (2018). Instructions for using the Michigan Department of Education SLO student growth measurement tool. Retrieved from https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Instructions_for_Using_the_MDE_SLO_Student_Growth_Measurement_Tool_558771_7.pdf

Michigan Department of Education. (2018). Student growth for educator evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-5683_75438_78528—,00.html

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319. (2002).

Robinson, M. (2015). The inchworm and the nightingale: On the (mis) use of data in music teacher evaluation. Arts Education Policy Review, 116(1), 9-21.

Teacher Effectiveness Measure. (2015). The teacher effectiveness manual. Retrieved from http://www.scsk12.org/uf/memo/files/files/15-16%20TEM%20Manual- final.pdf

Tennessee Department of Education. (2014) New tenure law. Retrieved from https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/legal/legal_tenure_faq.pdf

Tennessee Department of Education. (2015). Teacher and administrator evaluation in Tennessee. Retrieved from http://team-tn.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/08/rpt_teacher_evaluation_year_32.pdf

Tennessee Department of Education. (2017). Attachment 2: Shelby County salary schedule. Retrieved from https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/stateboardofeducation/documents/meetingfiles /8-25-17_IV_B_LEA_Alternative_Salary_Schedule_Attachment_2.pdf

The Danielson Group. (2017). The Framework. Retrieved from https://www.danielsongroup.org/framework/

United States Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top program executive summary. Retrieved from  https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

Presented at The Seventh International Symposium on Assessment in Music Education in March 2019.

Abstract

Music teacher assessment, evaluation, and effectiveness have been topics of concern for music educators, yet few studies have synthesized the complexities found within the collective experiences. Furthermore, while Bernard, Cote, Potter, and Sturdevant (2018) presented on separating the strands of assessment and evaluation, and the National Association for Music Education released position statements on assessment (n.d.) and evaluation (2012), perceptions of evaluation and assessment remain ambiguous.

Similar issues of ambiguity can be found in teacher perceptions of effectiveness. Biasutti and Concina (2018) examined the impact of assessment on in-service music teachers’ self-efficacy. Hennessy (2017) took a similar approach, but instead examined student teacher confidence in relation to assessment. Upon examination of 205 student teachers, Baumgartner and Councill (2017) found that in addition to student behavior, assessment and evaluation were the most frequently discussed topics in the student teacher seminars they examined. Additionally, several studies in music education have criticized the high-stakes assessment practices of edTPA in the past two years (Koziel, 2018; Olson & Rao, 2017; Petchauer, Bowe, & Wilson, 2018 Parker & Draves, 2017; Vaughan-Marra & Marra, 2017).

While in-service teachers have also expressed disdain for high-stakes assessment (Prichard, 2018; Robinson, 2017; Schmidt, 2017), the inconsistencies in how music teachers are assessed across the country have made it difficult to offer a unified response to evaluation and assessment practices. For example, while some states require measures of student growth for teacher evaluations, others do not (Education Commission of the States, 2018). Additionally, school districts around the country use a plethora of different evaluation tools (Fisher, Frey, & Hite, 2016).  Meanwhile, at the university level, some states require students to pass a standardized test such as the Praxis Core Academic Skills for Educators, some require students to pass a teacher performance assessment such as the edTPA, some require both, and some require neither (May, Willie, Worthen, & Pehrson, 2017).

Furthermore, the variability in assessment practices between pre-service teachers and in-service teachers has stifled opportunities for collaboration between these two groups. However, while Koziel (2018) reported many problems with edTPA, she found that some evaluation models in Tennessee like the Tennessee Fine Arts Portfolio Model may serve as a bridge of collaboration between pre-service and in-service teachers:

The overlap of the requirements for these two portfolio assessments was seen as an opportunity for the cooperating teachers to develop an understanding of the edTPA, giving them more confidence in assisting the teacher candidate assigned to them. (p. 100)

The Tennessee Fine Arts Portfolio may therefore serve as a connecting point for pre-service music teachers and in-service music teachers to collectively consider music teacher perceptions of assessment, evaluation, and effectiveness.

Over the last year, I examined music teacher perceptions of assessment practices in Tennessee. Beginning with a phenomenological study, I found themes pertaining to administration, feedback, music making, and scores. From there, I conducted an analysis of standards usage (N = 5628) among fine arts teachers in Tennessee and found significant differences between the fine arts subjects taught and the standards domain submissions (p < .001). I found that the “perform” standards were used twice as often as any other music standard. However, upon examination of the counties in Tennessee that submitted artifacts, I found a majority-Black rural county where perform was used less than the state average, and domains such as create and connect were used more. Therefore, using the lens of critical race theory, I conducted a narrative study with an award-winning Black female band director within that county. In her narrative, she spoke about consistent interactions between collaboration, knowledge, and racism within Tennessee, including examples of inequitable assessment practices.

While these studies examined music teacher evaluation in Tennessee from different methodological perspectives, I found several consistencies among the studies that helped to inform my most recent study of evaluation practices in Tennessee. The purpose of this study was to examine music teacher (K-12 public school) perceptions of evaluation from the perspective of those who have used portfolio-based evaluation in Tennessee. Research questions included: 1) What are the perceptions of evaluation for music teachers in Tennessee who have the used the Tennessee Fine Arts Portfolio Measures?  2) To what extent do differences in music teacher perceptions of the Tennessee Fine Arts Portfolio Measures exist among a range of backgrounds? Connections to previous research, results, and implications were discussed.

 

References

Baumgartner, C. M., & Councill, K. H. (2017). Music student teaching seminars: An examination of current practices across the United States. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 35(2), 62-69.

Bernard, C., Cote, H., Potter, D., & Sturdevant, R. (2018, March 23). Discourse & feedback in music teacher evaluation, part 2. Presented at the National Association for Music Education Music Research and Teacher Education Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Biasutti, M., & Concina, E. (2018). The effective music teacher: The influence of personal, social, and cognitive dimensions on music teacher self-efficacy. Musicae Scientiae, 22(2), 264-279.

Education Commission of the States. (2018). Policy Snapshot. Retrieved from https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/Teacher_Evaluations.pdf

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hite, S. A. (2016). Intentional and targeted teaching: A framework for teacher growth and leadership. ASCD.

Hennessy, S. (2017). Approaches to increasing the competence and confidence of student teachers to teach music in primary schools. Education 3-13, 45(6), 689-700.

Koziel, E. B. (2018). Are We Lovin’ It?: The edTPA and the McDonaldization of Music Teacher Training (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 10788085)

May, B. N., Willie, K., Worthen, C., & Pehrson, A. (2017). An analysis of state music education certification and licensure practices in the United States. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 27(1), 65-88.

National Association for Music Education. (2012). Teacher evaluation (position statement). National Association for Music Education. Retrieved August 29, 2018, from https://nafme.org/about/position-statements/teacher-evaluation-position-statement/

National Association for Music Education. (n.d.). Assessment in music education (position statement). National Association for Music Education. Retrieved August 29, 2018, from https://nafme.org/about/position-statements/assessment-in-music-education-position-statement/

Olson, J. D., & Rao, A. B. (2017). Adopting the edTPA as a high-stakes assessment: Resistance, advocacy, and reflection in Illinois. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 29(4), 377-402.

Parker, E. C., & Draves, T. J. (2017). A narrative of two preservice music teachers with visual impairment. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64(4), 385-404.

Petchauer, E., Bowe, A. G., & Wilson, J. (2018). Winter is coming: Forecasting the impact of edTPA on black teachers and teachers of color. The Urban Review, 50(2), 323-343.

Prichard, S. (2018). A profile of high-stakes assessment practices in music teacher education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 27(3), 198-209.

Robinson, M. (2017). Music teachers’ perceptions of high stakes teacher evaluation. Arts Education Policy Review, 1-12. doi:10.1080/10632913.2017.1373380

Schmidt, P. (2017). Why policy matters. In P. Schmidt & R. Colwell (Eds.), Policy and the political life of music education (pp. 11-36). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Svec, C. L. (2018). The effects of instruction on the singing ability of children ages 5 to 11: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Music, 46(3), 326-339.

Vaughan-Marra, J. C., & Marra, C. M. (2017). Teaching music in the flat world: Reflections on the work of Darling-Hammond and Rothman. Arts Education Policy Review, 118(2), 123-132.

Presented at The 6th International Conference on Narrative Inquiry in Music Education in May 2018.

Abstract

For many years, schools have used data to separate “good” students from “bad” students, “good” teachers from “bad” teachers, and “good” music programs from “bad” music programs.  Furthermore, many of these practices have been racially discriminatory (Fuligni, 2007). White students are disproportionately placed in higher tracked classes than Black students (Fuligni, 2007; Warikoo & Carter, 2009, Hargrove & Seay, 2011) and are often placed with more experienced teachers than Black students (Mickelson, 2003). Consequently, African American students disproportionately have less access to high quality music education programs, and instead are subjected to more time in the classroom focusing almost exclusively on reading and math (Kelley, 2014). The emphasis placed on standardized test scores affects music teachers too. At best, they have to test students on musical skills, and at worst they are being required to assist students in reading and math in lieu of teaching due to having to take the reading and math scores of their school to measure their own effectiveness (West, 2012). Yet, even if the best-case scenario is that students are in a music program being tested by the music teacher, what music standards are being tested, and how?

Scholars of critical race theory (CRT) posit that our society is fundamentally racist, and that the only way to combat racism is to acknowledge racist constructs that have been established in society, and seek to disrupt them. Ladson-Billings argues that individuals from both sides of politics have perpetuated racism, both through “color-blindness,” and the notion that the United States is “post-racial” since the election of president Obama (Ladson-Billings, 2015).  She explains that the terms “color-blindness” and “postracial” often become euphemisms for “sameness,” or as Delgado & Stefancic (2001) put it, the second theme of CRT, “white over color ascendancy” (p. 7). “Sameness” becomes an excuse to not discuss race. Nakkula and Toshalis (2006) explain Blacks are stuck until race is discussed, and Whites are stuck if race is discussed (p. 125). The easiest way for White supremacy to continue is to silence both the issues of race and those who would speak out about race.

Delgado (2001) describes the final tenet of CRT as the importance of the voice-of-color, as such voices have the power to bring perspectives unknown and challenging to those in power. Gay (2000) asserts that culturally responsive teaching is the key to releasing these voices and power into the classroom (p. 20). Gay describes culturally responsive teaching as a context where, “Culture counts…conventional reform is inadequate…intention without action is insufficient…(encourages) strength and vitality of cultural diversity…(and) test scores and grades are symptoms, not causes of achievement problems” (pp. 8-16).

While there are many resources that focus on CRT and culturally responsive teaching, management, and curriculum (Awokoya, 2012; Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Fuligni, 2007; Gay, 2015; Fordham, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 2015; Love, 2017; Nakkula, 2008; Tindongan, 2011; Warikoo & Carter, 2009), there is less discussion pertaining to advocacy for culturally responsive/critical standards. With so much change in standards and standardization in the new millennium, it is important for the education community to examine the standards in each subject with vigilance.

Music education, like the education community as a whole, has largely been silent on the issue of race (Hess, 2017, p. 17). As a result, Black schools continue to be marginalized (Ladson-Billings, 2015). With respect to music assessment, Ruggles (2017) found that students in schools with a lower socio-economic status spent more time test preparation, and ESL students were reported to struggle with the language (pp. 20-21). Elliott (1995) found that when videotaped and scored by university professors, Black students performing on the trumpet and flute scored significantly lower than White students (p. 53). In the context of festival ensemble scoring, Platt (2003) recommended training against racial bias or even scoring the group aurally and not visually (p. 351). Furthermore, in light of the 2016 NAEP music scores which showed Black students performing significantly lower than White students on average (Grise, 2016), NAfME is seeking research to better understand these results and advocate for high-quality music education programs for all students (NAfME, 2017).

Student and teacher assessment in music are continually changing at the national, state, and local level. One recent example is the Tennessee Fine Arts Portfolio (TNFAP), designed to measure student growth based on teacher-selected standards (Parkes, Rohwer, & Davison, 2015). The TNFAP has been in use since 2011, and few studies have looked at TNFAP in relation to standards usage, and critical race theory. Some researchers have praised the Tennessee models, like the TNFAP, as an effective model to demonstrate student growth (Foust, 2017; Sterling & Carter, 2014; TN, 2017), while others have found Tennessee models that are connected to TNFAP, such as the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS), to expose inequities such as Black students being disproportionately placed with ineffective teachers (Sanders & Horn, 254). No studies have examined music standards usage in the TNFAP, and the implications with respect to CRT.

TNFAP is based on the National Core Arts Standards (NCAS). Fine arts teachers are asked to submit a minimum of four artifacts to demonstrate student growth from two points in time. In addition, teachers are required to submit artifacts that align with at least three of the four domains. Those domains are perform, create, respond, and connect. Therefore, a teacher can choose all four domains, or can choose three domains electing to choose one domain twice, and omit one of the other domains.

In terms of assessment, the arts in Tennessee (especially music and visual art) are clearly performance driven. Of the 5696 artifacts submitted by fine arts teachers across the state, 44.7% of all artifacts submitted for review fall into the perform domain. While the rate of perform submissions by counties were as high as 66%, at least one county’s rate of create, respond, and connect submissions were 0%. In addition, only 9.7% of artifacts submitted statewide in music were connect, a domain praised by Hess (2017) for its potential to connect music to social justice.

When cross-referencing the portfolio data with the U.S. Census Bureau (2016), I found that large counties in Tennessee submitted perform artifacts less than the state average in every arts discipline. On the other hand, small counties submitted perform artifacts greater than the state average in one or more fine arts disciplines, except for one county, which we will call, “County A.” This county is also the only majority-Black county on this list of smaller counties.

County A has the highest poverty rate of any county that participated in the portfolio. However, the school website is a juxtaposition to the poverty statistics as it features a rich culture of mostly Black students in professional concert attire, playing traditional instruments, and singing on risers. There were also images of these students performing coordinated dances during the concert, and descriptions of repertoire by Black and White composers. The site described the students performing locally at board of education meetings, and across the country in California in what are called, “heritage festivals” (Worldstrides, 2017).  Considering County A is both an outlier in the perform submission data and the racial data, it would be interesting to learn more about the district, the schools, and the music programs.

In order to further the tenants of critical race theory in music education assessment, the purpose of this narrative study is to examine a teacher’s account of the role of race in music teacher assessment (test scores, teacher observations and TNFAP) at a majority-Black school district in Tennessee. Research questions include: (1) How would you describe the music education community in County A? (2) How have assessment standards impacted the music education community in County A?  The participant in the study was selected purposefully based on their experience with the county school and their participation in TNFAP. The participant will be interviewed using questions related to the research questions. Evidence will be triangulated by peer review and member checks of the transcripts of their interviews. I will code the data and analyze for emergent themes.

View the full video of the presentation

 

References

Awokoya, J. T. (2012). Identity constructions and negotiations among 1.5 and second-generation Nigerians: The impact of family, school, and peer contexts. Harvard Educational Review, 82(2), 255-281.

Castagno, A. E., & Brayboy, B. M. J. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for Indigenous youth: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 941-993.

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: an introduction. New York: New York University Press.

Elliott, C. A. (1995). Race and Gender as Factors in Judgments of Musical Performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, (127), 50–56.

Fordham, S. (2010). Passin’ for black: Race, identity, and bone memory in postracial America. Harvard Educational Review, 80(1), 4-29.

Foust, B. (2017). Measuring arts integration teacher effectiveness in non-arts classrooms through student growth (dissertation). Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts.

Fuligni, A. J. (2007). Contesting stereotypes and creating identities: social categories, social identities, and educational participation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.

Gay, G. (2015). Dr. Geneva Gay at the Ohio State University. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5jV_1vuhc8&t=491s

Grise, A. (2016). NAEP Music Result Analysis. Retrieved from http://nafme.org/wp-content/files/2017/09/2016NAEPMusicResultAnalysisAdamGrise-062317.pdf

Hargrove, B. H., & Seay, S. E. (2011). School Teacher Perceptions of Barriers That Limit the Participation of African American Males in Public School Gifted Programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(3), 434–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321103400304

Hess, J. (2017). Equity and Music Education: Euphemisms, Terminal Naivety, and Whiteness. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 16(3), 15-47.

Kelley, K. M. (2014). Investigating the Reading/Language Arts Performance of Sixth-Grade, African American Males: The Association between Renaissance Learning Accelerated Reader, Discovery Education ThinkLink, and the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2015). Critical Race Theory and Education. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=katwPTn-nhE

Love, B. L. (2017). Get Free: Creativity, Hip Hop Civics Ed, Intersectionality & Joy. Michigan State University.

Mickelson, R. A. (2003). When are racial disparities in education the result of racial discrimination? A social science perspective. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 1052-1086.

NAfME. (2017). Inclusivity and diversity in music education. National Association for Music Education. Retrieved November 17, 2017, from https://nafme.org/about/position-statements/inclusivity-diversity/

Nakkula, M. (2008). Identity and possibility: Adolescent development and the potential of schools. In. M. Sadowski (Ed.), Adolescents at school: Perspectives on youth, identity, and education (pp. 11-21). Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

Nakkula, M. J., & Toshalis, E. (2006). Understanding youth: Adolescent development for educators. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

Parkes, K. A., Rohwer, D., & Davison, D. (2015). Measuring Student Music Growth With Blind-Reviewed Portfolios: A Pilot Study. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, (203), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.203.0023

Platt, M. C. (2003). Influence of Selected Variables on Solo and Small-Ensemble Festival Ratings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(4), 342–353. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345660

Ruggles, C. (2017). Standardized Testing in Elementary General Music: Perceptions of Elementary Music Teachers. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research Findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) Database: Implications for Educational Evaluation and Research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008067210518

Tindongan, C. W. (2011). Negotiating Muslim youth identity in a post-9/11 world. The High School Journal, 72-87.

U.S. Census Bureau (2016). Quickfacts: Tennessee. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/TN

Warikoo, N., & Carter, P. (2009). Cultural explanations for racial and ethnic stratification in academic achievement: A call for a new and improved theory. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 366-394.

West, C. (2012). Teaching Music in an Era of High-Stakes Testing and Budget Reductions. Arts Education Policy Review, 113(2), 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2012.656503

Worldstrides (2017). Heritage Festivals. Retrieved from https://worldstrides.com/collections/heritage-festivals/