, .
.2... .
.9: w

1

 

. .1 2..
. 3. rr 1

van a}

2,

e z ‘ V
@143 .,...,...ui.n.....uo ‘ . , . . H .15;

2:5? .

.,.V:..q

 
 

.5.

 

 

T

H'I‘SV‘S

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL STANDARDS
FOR MUSIC EDUCATION WITHIN SECONDARY
INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC PROGRAMS
IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

presented by

JASON THOMAS SKUBE

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
‘ of the requirements for

MASTERS degree in MUSIC EDUCATION

& Major professor E 8

Date December 4; 2002

 

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

. LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

ME QUE 5 DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

MAR 2 0 2005

 

i . 27
WP} ”£006

 

“”1752009

 

1215OQ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuepGS-p. 15

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR MUSIC
EDUCATION WITHIN SECONDARY INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC PROGRAMS IN
THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
By

Jason Thomas Skube

A THESIS

Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements for the
degree of

MASTER OF MUSIC EDUCATION
Department of Music

2002

ABSTRACT
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR MUSIC EDUCATION
WITHIN SECONDARY INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC PROGRAMS IN THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN
By
Jason Thomas Skube
The purpose of this research was to gather information on the implementation of the National
Standards for Music Education within secondary instrumental music programs in Michigan.
A teacher survey was constructed and sent to a random sample of secondary public school
band directors throughout Michigan. The survey was designed to answer the following
research questions: 1. Are the National Standards being taught within secondary instrumental
music programs in Michigan, 2. Do secondary instrumental music teachers in Michigan feel
competent teaching all core areas included in the National Standards, 3. What factors hinder
or facilitate the implementation of the National Standards in secondary instrumental music
settings in Michigan, and 4. What types of activities do secondary instrumental music
teachers use to help them achieve the National Standards? Additionally, eleven band
programs deemed exemplary by college band conductors, graduate conducting students, and
music educators, curricula were obtained, if available, to determine if the Standards were
included in their band program; comparisons were also drawn from the exemplary band
directors surveys. Results suggest that Standards 2, 7, 8, and 9 are being fully included at
least occasionally in Michigan’s secondary band programs, Standards 5 and 6 are being
partially included at least occasionally in Michigan’s secondary band programs, and
Standards 3 and 4 are not being taught in Michigan’s secondary band programs. A large
percentage of band directors indicated that Standard 1 was also included in their band
programs. The majority of band directors indicated that they feel moderately to very

competent teaching the Standards.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the following persons for their guidance, assistance, inspiration,
patience, support, and prayers throughout this project.

Dr. Cynthia Taggart

Dr. Al LeBlanc

Mr. John Madden

Dr. Colleen Conway

Mr. John Whitwell

Those who participated in this study

My family, Thomas and Geraldine Skube, and Vikki, Lance, and Hannah Richey
Kristin Trpezanovich

Angela Psaros

Kristine Dowel]

Sue Palin

Special thanks to my family and friends who pushed me with love to accomplish this
project as well as my life goals. Thank you and I love you all. Special thanks also to Dr.
Cynthia Taggart, whose will and determination to inspire learning and facilitate personal
success is greater than any professional educator I have encountered in my educational

experience. Without you, this project would not be. Thank you, Cindy... a million times
over again!

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of tables ....................................................................................................................... iv
Chapter One ......................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 2
Chapter Two ......................................................................................................................... 9
Related Research .................................................................................................................. 9
Standards in Teacher Education ........................................................................................... 9
Standards in Elementary and Secondary Education .......................................................... 12
Chapter Three ..................................................................................................................... 20
Design and Procedures ....................................................................................................... 20
Criterion Measure .............................................................................................................. 21
Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 22
Chapter Four ...................................................................................................................... 24
Results ................................................................................................................................ 24
Exemplary Schools Survey and Cun'icula ......................................................................... 24
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 28
Surveys ............................................................................................................................... 30
Survey Results, Question “a” ............................................................................................ 30
Survey Results, Question “b” ........................................................................................... 32
Survey Results, Question “c” and Section 15 .................................................................... 34
Summary43

Survey Results, Sections 16 and 17 ................................................................................... 45
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 48
Chapter Five ....................................................................................................................... 49
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 49
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 51
Implications and Suggestions for Future Research ............................................................ 52
References .......................................................................................................................... 55

Appendix A: Content and Achievement Standards for Grades Nine Through

Twelve ................................................................................................................................ 58
Appendix B: UCRH-IS Approval ....................................................................................... 63
Appendix C: Consent Form: Exemplary Schools .............................................................. 64

iv

Appendix D: Secondary Instrumental Music Educator Survey ......................................... 65

Appendix E: Consent Form: Survey Participation ............................................................. 74
Appendix F: Survey Cover Letter ...................................................................................... 75
Appendix G: Follow Up Letter .......................................................................................... 76

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Exemplary Schools’ Band Directors’ Participation in Study .............................. 25

Table 2: Mean Scores for Survey Questions One Through Fourteen, Question "a:" How
Often Students Are Engaged in the Activities Delineated by the Standards ..................... 31

Table 3: Mean Scores for Survey Questions One Through Fourteen, Question "b:" How
Competent Band Directors Feel in Teaching the Activities Delineated by the
Standards ............................................................................................................................ 33

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
High school instrumental programs are often deﬁned as exemplary and/or
successful by the number of ﬁrst-division contest ratings and trophies they have received
at various competitions and festivals in the recent past. Some secondary instrumental
programs have had opportunities, such as performing at important musical conferences,
and consequently are deemed exemplary. A program may also be considered exemplary
Simply by having a reputation of delivering quality performances on a regular basis.
Undoubtedly, the students that make up these programs have received excellent
instruction on how to play their musical instruments; their performances speak for
themselves. Upon hearing a superb performance from an individual or ensemble, band
directors are credited appropriately with having outstanding musical skills and the ability
to use those skills to the beneﬁt of their students. However, other than delivering
outstanding performances, what else can the students that make up an exemplary program
communicate musically? Do these students have a historical knowledge base of the music
that they have performed or music in general? Do they feel competent in engaging in a
musical discussion about a piece that they are preparing for performance? Can they draw
comparisons between a piece that they have performed and world musics? Do they have
compositional skills? Do they have theoretical knowledge beyond the bare minimum that
is necessary for performing a piece of music?
Are students of exemplary secondary instrumental programs receiving a
comprehensive music education beyond acquiring performance-oriented skills? Bell

(1986) found that band directors view instructional tasks that are designed to prepare

students to make a positive contribution to the performance level of the ensemble to be of
primary importance in band class. Furthermore, Bell reports that directors place low
levels of importance on instructional tasks designed to impart general knowledge about
music, and that directors’ concerns are limited to knowledge about compositions under
rehearsal. Austin (1998) reported that most music teachers devote their time to attaining
traditional performance objectives rather than implementing teaching strategies that result
in their students receiving a comprehensive music education. Furthermore, he found that
many ensemble directors might not value long-term outcomes associated with
Comprehensive Musicianship, which overlap considerably with the objectives stated in
the National Standards. The National Standards for Music Education have been designed
so that students are given the opportunity to have a complete music education that
focuses on acquiring broad-based musical skills rather than only skills that will ensure a
good performance. The following Content Standards were developed for secondary
instrumental music education:

Singing, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music

Performing on instruments, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music
Irnprovising melodies, variations, and accompaniments

Composing and arranging music within speciﬁed guidelines

Reading and notating music

Listening to, analyzing, and describing music

Evaluating music and music performances

Understanding relationships between music, the other arts, and disciplines

outside the arts
Understanding music in relation to history and culture

.°°.“.°‘$":“‘!-”I"t"‘

9

Literature Review
Voluntary National Content and Achievement Standards for the arts were
developed by the Consortium of National Arts Education Associations and adopted by

the National Committee for Standards in the Arts in January 1994 (MENC, 1994a). The

Consortium comprised the following organizations: the American Alliance for Theater
and Education, the Music Educators National Conference, the National Art Education
Association, and the National Dance Association. The National Standards for Arts
Education received development support ﬁom the Department of Education, the National
Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities (MENC,
1994a). Adherence to the National Standards would result in an opportunity for every
student in America to receive a balanced, comprehensive, and sequential program of
instruction in school arts classes, including dance, music, theater, and visual arts, taught
by qualiﬁed teachers (MENC, 1994a; MENC, 1994b). The National Standards were
designed to deﬁne in clear terms what every student should know and be able to do in the
arts upon exiting grades four, eight, and twelve (MENC, 1994b). The Consortium
asserted that students should know and be able to do the following (MENC, 1994c):

0 Communicate at a basic level in the four arts disciplines of dance, music, theater,
and visual arts, which includes knowledge and skills in the use of basic
vocabularies, materials, tools, techniques, and intellectual methods of each arts
discipline.

0 Communicate proﬁciently in at least one art form, including the ability to deﬁne
and solve artistic problems with insight, reason, and technical proﬁciency.

0 Develop and present basic analyses of art from structural, historical, and cultural
perspectives, and from combinations of those perspectives, including the ability to
understand and evaluate work in various arts disciplines.

0 Have an informed acquaintance with exemplary works of art from a variety of
cultures and historical periods, and a basic understanding of historical
development in the arts disciplines, across the arts as a whole, and within cultures.

0 Relate various types of arts knowledge and skills within and across the arts
disciplines, including mixing and matching competencies and understandings in
art making, history and culture, and analysis in any arts related project.

The Consortium stated that students who develop these capabilities would possess the
knowledge, beliefs, and values for making personal and artistic decisions (MENC,
1994c).

The Consortium developed two types of Standards to guide student assessment
from kindergarten to twelfth grade: 1) Content Standards, which specify what students
should know and be able to do in the arts disciplines (competencies), and 2) Achievement
Standards, which specify the understandings and levels of achievement that students are
expected to attain in the competencies for all of the arts upon the completion of grades
four, eight, and twelve (MENC, 1994c). All Content Standards, for kindergarten through
twelfth grade, have associated Achievement Standards. In addition, grades nine through
twelve have two levels of Achievement Standards linked to the Content Standards:
Proﬁcient and Advanced. MENC (1994b) states that the proﬁcient level is designed to
apply to the student who has elected music courses involving relevant skills or
knowledge for one to two years beyond grade eight, and the advanced level is designed to
apply to the student who has elected music courses involving relevant skills or
knowledge for three to four years beyond grade eight. The Achievement Standards (as
they relate to the Content Standards) for grades nine through twelve can be found in
Appendix A.

The National Standards do not constitute a curriculum, although they provide the
basis for one (MENC, 1994b). The National Standards were designed to provide speciﬁc
guidance for curriculum development, allowing alternative interpretations for
implementation (MENC, 1994b). Wells (1997) stated that the Standards provide a

valuable resource to guide curriculum development. However, there is no speciﬁc

procedure for turning the Standards into a grade-by-grade curriculum. Wells presented a
plan on how to guide music educators in using the National Standards to design a
comprehensive music curriculum. Additionally, MENC has published documents that

' can assist arts educators in efﬁciently implementing the National Standards within their
classrooms (MENC 1994a, 1994b, and 1994c).

The reason for having standards and goals for education is to focus the efforts of
the country on improving schools (Jennings, 1998). Lockwood (1998) found, in a review
of literature, that overall student achievement in the United States school systems lags
behind that of other nations and expressed concern that American students fall far short
of the mark. This may hold serious consequences for future economic productivity
(Lockwood, 1998). The individuals and organizations that Lockwood reviewed for her
book view educational standards as a type of powerful organizer that will help
signiﬁcantly affect educational reform. They state that standards are a catalyst for change
that will align different educational components, such as curriculum materials,
assessments, textbooks, teacher professional development, teacher preservice, and the
actual content of what students learn (Lockwood, 1998). Lockwood believes that it is not
only possible, but also desirable, to reach a common core of valued knowledge that
teachers should teach and students should learn.

Standards must be established to make clear what students ought to know
(Jennings, 1998). However, it is unfair to expect students to achieve the National
Standards in schools if they lack access to the opportunities and resources to attain them
(Fehrs-Rompolla, 1994). If educators are going to be held accountable for student

attainment of the Standards, decision makers must provide the necessary resources

(Fehrs-Rompolla, 1994). Due to the lack of uniformity in education, students moving
from state to state or district to district in the midst of their education end up receiving
and participating in an education of different content and quality (Lockwood, 1998).
Teachers also experience the same problems when changing teaching locations
(Lockwood, 1998). The vision of reformers who believe in Standards-based education is
that curriculum will be arranged with a consensually agreed-upon core body of
knowledge that is determined by the states and local communities that will transpire into
the consistent preparation of students nationwide (Lockwood, 1998).

Implementing the National Standards can be a signiﬁcant challenge for music
educators. In 1995, Lehman wrote an article describing some of the challenges faced by
teachers implementing the National Standards. He categorized some of the more difﬁcult
challenges teachers encounter into three general areas: assessment, resources, and
professional development. Lehman (1995) stated that, although music teachers have used
performance-based assessment and other forms authentic assessments in the past, they
have never been comfortable in engaging formal assessment of the non-performance
aspects of music learning. The second set of challenges teachers face typically takes the
form of an inadequate curriculum, insufﬁcient time, poor scheduling practices,
inadequate staff, inadequate materials and equipment, and poor facilities (Lehman, 1995).
The third set of challenges concerns the need for in-service professional development
(Lehman, 1995). Lehman states that some teachers clearly are uncomfortable with the
thought of being asked to teach certain skills and knowledge that they have never before

taught and perhaps never learned. Despite these challenges, Lehman believes that music

educators should continue to push for adoption of the Standards at the state and local
levels or for the adoption of state and local standards based on the Standards.

Shuler (1995) also studied the impact of the National Standards on the
preparation, professional development, and assessment of music teachers. Shuler (1995)
stated that simply changing state and local curricular frameworks to incorporate the
Standards is not sufﬁcient to improve music education. Institutions that prepare, license,
and employ music teachers must use the Standards to focus their efforts (Shuler, 1995).
Like Lehman, Shuler (1995) asserted that reforms within these areas play a critical role in
preparing the arts education profession to produce high student achievement in the scope
of learning emphasized in the Standards.

Fallis (1999) proposed an approach to teaching large ensemble courses that can
lead to implementation of all the Standards without stretching the director, students,
instructional time, and resources. Fallis (1999) stated that his approach takes little time to
achieve and can improve the quality of ensembles performances by contributing to
students’ musicianship without taking away from rehearsal time. Fallis’ approach has
been successfully implemented in over 20 junior high and high school band programs in
Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, as well as in preparation for honors band performances and
performances at state music educators association conferences. Also, it has been
incorporated successfully into college method courses. Fallis recommended that, rather
than students learning their own individual parts and then putting them together in
performance, together they should learn the work’s melody, rhythm patterns, and
underlying chord progression. F allis continued by emphasizing that, under the

instructor’s guidance, students could arrange the piece as a class, producing a version of

the composition that is unique to them. F allis provided a sample lesson plan based on a
musical composition and indicated where each Standard was covered in the lesson. Fallis
stated that by the time each of the exercises was completed, all of the Standards would be
addressed.

The Standards are not perfect (Lehman, 1995). However, they present a
reasonable approach to making arts education, speciﬁcally music education, a
comprehensive music education rather than a basic “learn how to play your instrument
and perform concerts” education. Teachers face signiﬁcant challenges as they seek to
implement the Standards (Lehman, 1995). Although the task is not easy, it may be
necessary if music programs are to survive and ﬂourish (Lehman, 1995). The music
Standards provide an unprecedented opportunity to rebuild and expand music programs
(Lehman, 1995).

The purpose of this research is to gather information on the implementation of the
National Standards for Music Education within secondary instrumental music programs
in Michigan. Following are the speciﬁc research questions for this study:

1. Do curricula obtained from selected exemplary secondary instrumental music
programs in Michigan meet the National Standards?

2. Are the National Standards being taught within secondary instrumental music
programs in Michigan?

3. Do secondary instrumental music teachers in Michigan feel competent
teaching all core areas included in the National Standards?

4. What factors hinder or facilitate the implementation of the National Standards
in secondary instrumental music settings in Michigan?

5. What types of activities do secondary instrumental music teachers use to help
them achieve the National Standards?

CHAPTER TWO
Related Research

Many researchers have investigated the applications of the National Standards for
Music Education in a variety of settings. Studies focusing on the Standards have been
completed at all grade and educational levels, including college, to gain an understanding
of their implementation.

Standards in Teacher Education

The following studies on the National Standards for Music Education were
completed to assess the implementation of the Standards in collegiate music teacher
education programs.

The purpose of McCaskill’s (1998) study was to determine knowledge, attitudes,
and professional practices of general music methods professors in relation to the National
Standards for Music Education. McCaskill sent questionnaires to 435 schools that
awarded baccalaureate degrees in music teacher education during 1994 to 1995. The
questionnaire that was sent to general music methods professors requested information in
the following categories: demographics, personal knowledge regarding the National
Standards for Music Education, personal attitudes about the Standards, and professional
practices relating to the Standards; 273 questionnaires were completed and returned.
McCaskill found that an overwhelming majority (97%) of the respondents were aware of
the Standards and had read a portion of the document, as well as other Standards
publications. Many of the respondents agreed that the Standards could improve the
quality of the music education profession, that they could elevate the status of music in

education, that college music education students should be prepared to teach to the

Standards, and that the Standards should be addressed in all areas of the college music
curriculum (McCaskill, 1998).

McCaskill reported that nearly all professors indicated that they included the
Standards in their methods courses as a topic of class discussion, as a curricular
ﬁ'amework, and as a basis for lesson planning. McCaskill stated that 70% of professors
required Standards-related readings, 60% required students to reference the Standards in
their class projects and presentations, and approximately 40% included assessment
activities related to the Standards. Additionally, McCaskill found that nearly 70% of the
respondents had attended conferences, workshops, and syrnposia regarding the Standards.
However, fewer than half of the respondents (41.5%) indicated that the Standards had
been discussed in a music faculty meeting (McCaskill, 1998). Additionally, 17.6 %
indicated their college/university had sponsored a conference, workshop, or symposium
regarding the Standards, 8% reported that the Standards had been discussed in music
courses other than music education, 35% indicated that they had held Standards-related
leadership roles at their institution, 28.2% indicated that they held Standards-related
leadership roles within their state.

McCaskill drew the following conclusions from her study: general music methods
professors are aware of and knowledgeable about the National Standards for Music
Education; professors attitudes toward the Standards are clearly positive; the Standards
appear to be impacting teaching practices and professional behaviors of music methods
professors; relationships exist among professors’ knowledge, attitudes,
teaching/professional behaviors and institutional and/or individual demographic

variables.

10

Adderly (1999) sought to determine if instrumental music education faculty at
higher education institutions in South Carolina believed that relevant preparation for
implementing the Standards was being given to future band directors during their
undergraduate studies. He devised separate surveys to be completed by music educators
at each college/university concerning the education of undergraduate music students
preparing to teach in ﬁfth to eighth grade instrumental classes and preparing to teach
ninth to twelfth grade instrumental classes. Sixteen out of eighteen respondents returned
their surveys and rated the Content Standards and their respective subsets using a ﬁve-
point Likert scale (ﬁve being superior) to indicate the quality of education provided to
their undergraduate music education students for each Standard.

Adderly drew comparisons among the responses received from his survey for the
ﬁfth to eighth grade instrumental methods faculty. The mean response for all the
Standards, excluding Standard 1 (Adderly stated that Standard 1, which focuses on
singing, was non-applicable for instrumental music) was 3.87. Adderly conducted an
analysis of variance to determine if the differences in rankings were signiﬁcantly
different. He found that the quality of instruction for Standards that relate to history,
disciplines outside the arts, and improvisation was signiﬁcantly lower than for those
Standards that specify goals for reading music and performing on instruments.

Adderly also drew comparisons among the responses received ﬁ'om his survey
from the ninth to twelfth grade instrumental methods faculty. The average mean response
for all the Standards, excluding Standard 1, was 3.77. Adderly conducted an analysis of

variance to determine if the ranking of the Standards was signiﬁcantly different. Adderly

ll

reported that the Standard for performing on instruments was rated statistically higher
than the Standards for disciplines outside the arts, as well as for improvisation.

Adderly also used his survey to determine if students enrolled in these
instrumental methods classes were receiving instruction on the Achievement Standards,
which are subheadings of the Content Standards. Adderly reported that college/university
instrumental music faculty believe that they are adequately preparing ﬁrture band
directors to implement the various Content and/or Achievement Standards. However,
Adderly concluded that teacher preparation regarding the implementing of the Content
Standards needs serious consideration, speciﬁcally as it relates to Content Standard 3
(improvising melodies, variations, and accompaniments), Content Standard 4 (composing
and arranging music within speciﬁed guidelines), and Content Standard 8 (understanding
relationships between music, the other arts, and disciplines outside the arts) in both the
ﬁfth to eighth grade and the ninth to twelfth grade instrumental methods classes.
Preparation to teach Content Standard 9 (understanding music in relation to history and
culture) also needs additional consideration in the ﬁfth to eighth grade instrumental
methods classes. Finally, Adderly recommended that curricula of instrumental music
teachers be designed to provide future teachers with appropriate musical experiences to
enable them to successfully teach to these speciﬁc Content and/or Achievement
Standards.

Standards in Elementary and Secondary Education

The following studies on the National Standards for Music Education were

completed to assess the implementation of the Standards in elementary and secondary

music programs.

12

Byo (1999) examined seven professional resources that inﬂuenced effective
implementation of the Standards in the music classroom. These resources included
teacher training, interest, ability, sense of responsibility, resources, assistance, and
perception of available time. Furthermore, Byo made several curricular recommendations
for curriculum planners, teachers, and decision makers when they engage in designing
music curricula that adhere to the Standards.

Byo used a random sample of elementary music teachers, referred to as
specialists, (N = 122) and fourth-grade classroom teachers, referred to as generalists (N =
122). She designed a survey with a total of 63 questions that asked seven questions
regarding each of the nine National Standards for Music Education at the elementary
level. The seven questions were identical for each Standard and asked the participants to
evaluate their ability to address each Standard relative to the seven professional
resources. Byo used a ﬁve-point Likert scale, which included strongly agree, agree, no
opinion, disagree, and strongly disagree. Although Byo does not provide the survey
questions in her study, she does provide an example. For Standard 1, teachers were asked
if they agreed that they were trained, interested, and able to teach the Standard; if they
agreed that they felt professionally responsible to teach it; if they agreed that they had the
resources to teach it; if they agreed that they would feel more able to teach it well with
assistance of the other teacher; and if they agreed that they had the time to teach it.

Byo found that music teachers’ responses were Si gniﬁcantly more positive for all
of the Standards than were those of the generalists. Overall, improvising and composing
received the least favorable ratings, and understanding music in relation to history and

culture received the highest ratings. The generalists indicated that they were less

13

comfortable than the specialists in teaching all of the Standards. Specialists indicated the
most favorable ratings for Singing, listening and analyzing, and evaluating, and were
Slightly more comfortable teaching evaluating than listening and analyzing. The
generalists indicated the most favorable ratings for understanding relationships between
music and other subjects and understanding music in relation to history and culture.
Additionally, the specialists and generalists also rated the Standards in terms of their
interest in teaching the Standards, the level of responsibility for teaching the Standards,
their ability to teach the Standards, and their training for teaching the Standards.
Specialists rated the Singing and notating Standards the highest in relation to interest,
responsibility, ability, and training. Both specialists and generalists rated the composing
and improvising Standards as the most difﬁcult Standards to implement. Specialists
indicated that playing instruments and composing were potentially difﬁcult. Specialists
did not believe that they had time to teach effectively any of the Standards; the
generalists tended to concur with the Specialists, with their answers to that question
ranging from disagreement to strong disagreement. Specialists indicated that there were
few resources available for teaching improvisation and music as it relates to other
subjects; however they felt they were sufﬁciently equipped to implement the Standards
that include singing, reading and notating music, and evaluating music. Generalists rated
resources at the lowest level for the majority of the Standards. Finally, for six of the nine
Standards, specialists indicated that their educational training had not prepared them to
implement the Standards effectively in their classrooms. Generalists indicated that they
were able to implement the Standards in their classrooms beyond what their educational

training had prepared them to do.

14

Byo drew the following conclusions from her data: 1) there is a shortage of
instructional time reported by music teachers and generalists, 2) the generalists expressed
higher levels of comfort with the Standards concerning understanding music in relation to
other subjects and understanding music in relation to history and culture, 3) overall,
music Specialists are comfortable with the Standards, and 4) music Specialists felt
qualiﬁed to teach all but the two integrated Standards (understanding music in relation to
other subjects, and understanding music in relation to history and culture) by themselves.
Byo stated that the results of her study delineate the limitations that the educational
system has regarding curricular organization, delivery, and teacher training in music
education.

Austin (1998) conducted a meta-analysis that focused on the implementation of
Comprehensive Musicianship in the music classroom. He investigated research
pertaining to: 1) students achievement and attitudes, 2) teaching practices, and 3)
teaching materials, teacher beliefs, and teacher training.

Austin stated that the Standards elevate the level of instrumental music teaching,
which is narrow in scope and emphasizes commonplace activities, and believes that the
National Standards for Music Education may be viewed as a “repackaging” of
Comprehensive Musicianship principles. He illustrated the close relationship between
the National Standards and Comprehensive Musicianship, noting considerable overlap in
objectives, with the exception of the Standards that address understanding relationships
among music, the other arts, and disciplines outside of the arts. Through the
implementation of Comprehensive Musicianship in the music classroom, students might

be able to “perform with understanding” (Austin, 1998).

15

Austin analyzed research on student achievement and attitudes and found that,
regardless of the manner in which Comprehensive Musicianship approaches were
implemented, results were positive. He stated that many researchers found that music
achievement scores were consistently higher or signiﬁcantly improved over time for
students who were taught using the comprehensive approach. Furthermore, Austin found
that researchers revealed that performances of students taught comprehensively were
equal or superior to those of students trained traditionally.

The research Austin (1998) analyzed for the teaching practices portion of his
study showed that instrumental and choral ensemble directors do not typically employ
strategies that result in a comprehensive music education for their students. Austin stated
that a majority of music teachers devote their time to traditional performance objectives
that may or may not be compatible with the development of a comprehensive music
education.

Austin also found that many ensemble directors might not value long-term
outcomes associated with Comprehensive Musicianship. It is possible that, due to the
manner in which society interprets and deﬁnes successful music teaching, directors prefer
to emphasize music instruction that immediately improves student performance (Austin,
1998). Additionally, Austin communicated that music teachers’ unfamiliarity with
published materials and effective teaching strategies can alter their beliefs, awareness of
materials, and instructional practices.

To conclude, Austin stated that many ensemble directors favor a more traditional,
performance-based methodology, which unfortunately does not comply with the National

Standards. However, Austin asserted that studies have demonstrated that ensemble

l6

instructor’s conﬁdence in the implementation of Comprehensive Musicianship can be
increased through professional development training. Education may alter teachers’
perceptions of the Music Standards, resulting in their being more widely implemented in
the music classroom. Austin made the following recommendations for implementing
National and State Music Standards in music classes: 1) establishing realistic
implementation goals and adopting a “phase in” process, 2) promoting research-based
decision making, and 3) supporting and empowering teachers. Austin emphasized that
efforts should be made to ensure that materials designated to help teachers implement
Standards-based instruction are accessible, affordable, and teacher ﬁiendly. Austin
believes that, by providing aspiring music teachers with knowledge regarding the
National Standards, the need for in-service training at a later date may be minimized.

Baraiolo (1997) conducted a study concerning the awareness and implementation
of the National Standards involving superintendents, principals, and music staff within
selected Massachusetts school systems. Baraiolo found that, while the results showed a
consistent awareness of the National Standards as well as strong philosophical support for
them, little has changed in Massachusetts regarding the implementation of the Standards
for music.

Kirkland (1996) evaluated kindergarten to twelfth grade choral, instrumental, and
general music programs in South Carolina to determine at what proﬁciency levels the
Standards were being met. She further examined what ratings South Carolina music
teachers gave the Standards as goals for student achievement for kindergarten to twelfth
grade students. Kirkland devised a questionnaire and sent it to the kindergarten to twelfth

grade music teacher membership of the South Carolina Music Educators Association,

17

which is afﬁliated with the Music Educators National Conference. Her response rate was
71%.

Kirkland found that students were meeting the performance-oriented Standards,
which included Standard 1 (singing, along and with others, a varied repertoire of music),
and Standard 2 (performing on instruments, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of
music). These two Standards were at the highest proﬁciency levels out of the nine
Standards. Kirkland stated that teachers also rated the content of Standards 1 and 2 as the
most important goals for student achievement. Students’ proﬁciency levels ranked
lowest in Standard 3 (improvising melodies, variations, and accompaniments) and
Standard 4 (composing and arranging music within speciﬁed guidelines). Kirkland stated
that teachers also rated Standards 3 and 4 as the least important goals for student
achievement.

Kirkland concluded that South Carolina students are not meeting all nine
Standards at high proﬁciency levels. She asserted that their adoption as goals for student
achievement in South Carolina could result in the state’s colleges and universities
providing additional Standards training for their students in music education programs.
Additionally, Kirkland emphasized that, through the adoption of the National Standards
for Music Education, South Carolina music teachers could have the opportunity to ensure
that music education is not only retained in school curriculurns but also expanded and
given equal status to other core subjects.

The purpose of Van Patten’s (1997) study was to develop a model curriculum for
implementation of the National Standards for Arts Education in high school instrumental

music programs. Van Patten developed two California high school music programs’

18

curricula that emphasized comprehensive and creative musicianship and supported the
intent of the National Standards. Van Patten stated that his results indicate that the
Standards can be successfully incorporated in performance and non-performance—based
instrumental music classes at the high school level with effective assessment of student
competence.

It is clear that music educators need further training concerning the National
Standards for Music Education. The studies discussed here present an indication that the
National Standards have not completely found their place within kindergarten through
twelfth grade music curriculum, nor ﬁrlly into the college music curriculum. Although
controversy might exist regarding the implementation of the National Standards, their
implementation would undisputedly expand the musical knowledge base of students, thus
assisting them in becoming more comprehensive musicians. The National Standards for
Music Education were designed to encourage better learning in music as well as provide
a foundation for music education, which would allow it to stand alongside other core

subjects.

19

CHAPTER THREE
Design and Procedures

This study is designed in the following manner to answer each of the Speciﬁc
problem questions. After receiving UCRIHS approval (see Appendix B), University-level
band conductors, graduate conducting students, and music educators were asked to
provide a list of outstanding secondary instrumental programs in Michigan. Speciﬁcally,
these professionals were asked to provide a list of approximately ﬁfteen secondary
instrumental music programs that they personally considered exemplary. From these lists,
the eleven speciﬁc instrumental programs listed most frequently were chosen for
participation in question one of this study. Band directors ﬁ'om each exemplary school
were contacted via telephone and asked to voluntarily participate in the study; a consent
letter was sent to those directors who agreed to participate in the study (see Appendix C).

Copies of music curriculum for each of the eleven exemplary programs were
requested, if available, in order to analyze their contents and compare them to the
National Standards for Music Education, grades nine to twelve. Comparisons were drawn
for each Content Standard to determine if the curricula were designed to meet the
National Standards for Music Education.

To investigate further what is being taught relative to the National Standards in
secondary instrumental programs in Michigan, and answer the four remaining questions,
a teacher survey was constructed (see Appendix D) and sent to secondary instrumental
music teachers throughout Michigan. There are approximately 800 high schools in
Michigan. A mailing list of 586 schools with instrumental music programs was purchased

from the Michigan State Band and Orchestra Association (of the 800 high schools in

20

Michigan, not all schools belong to the Michigan State Band and Orchestra Association
nor do all of the schools have instrumental music programs). From this list, 202 were
randomly selected and represented a sample of high school band programs in Michigan.
All private and religious based schools were eliminated as well as all schools that were
the elementary or junior high level. Surveys and self-addressed, stamped, return
envelopes were sent to the 202 randomly selected secondary schools band directors
throughout Michigan. If the band directors were willing to participate in the study, then
they were asked to Sign and return the included consent letter (see Appendix E) along
with their survey by the speciﬁed date communicated on the survey cover letter (See
Appendix F). A follow-up letter was sent to directors who had not returned the survey
within one week following the speciﬁed date (see Appendix G).
Criterion Measure

Survey questions were based on all Standards. The survey was designed to
determine if secondary music teachers are teaching the National Standards in their music
classrooms and if they feel competent teaching all core areas of the National Standards.
The survey also asked the teachers to respond regarding the factors that hinder or
facilitate the implementation of the National Standards in their classrooms. The survey
consists of seventeen sections of questions. Sections 1 through 14 each focus on an
individual Standard (Standards 2 — 9) and had three components (i.e., la, lb, and 1c). The
ﬁrst component asked teachers how often they asked their students to engage in the
activity or activities speciﬁed by the Standard. The second component asked teachers
how competent they felt in teaching their students the activity or activities speciﬁed by

the Standard. The third component allowed teachers to list the activity or activities they

21

implemented to allow their students to engage in the speciﬁed Standard. Responses for
the ﬁrst question (question a) of Sections 1 through 14 were indicated on a ﬁve-point
scale: not at all, seldom, occasionally, frequently, and every rehearsal. A four-point scale
was used for the responses to the second question (question b) of Sections 1 through 14:
not at all, somewhat, moderately so, and very much so. The third question of Sections 1
through 14 was open-ended. Sections 15, 16, and 17 were open-ended questions that had
a single component. Section 15 asked band directors to list activities that they use to
implement Standard 1. Although Adderly (1999) stated that Standard 1 was not
applicable for the instrumental setting due to its emphasis on singing, Section 15 does
reﬂect this Standard, given that the Standards were designed for music education as a
whole rather than exclusively for an instrumental or choral setting. Section 16 asked band
directors to list the factors that hinder the implementation of the Standards within their
music classrooms. Conversely, Section 17 asked band directors to list the factors that
facilitate the implementation of the Standards within their music classrooms.
Analysis

The results of the statewide teacher survey were analyzed by calculating the
means for questions a and b of Sections 1 through 14. Content analysis was used to
analyze the answers to open-ended teacher survey questions (question c in Sections 1
through 14 as well as Sections 15, 16, and 17). Additionally, the surveys ﬁom the ten
instrumental teachers from the exemplary schools were analyzed separately to determine
whether what appears in curricula actually is being taught in those schools. The curricula

obtained from the exemplary schools were analyzed by thoroughly reading the

22

document(s). As each Standard appeared, if at all, in the language within the band

program’s music curricula, the Standard was noted and deemed to be present.

23

CHAPTER FOUR
Results

Exemplary Schools Survey and Curricula

Band directors from each of the exemplary schools were contacted and asked to
voluntarily participate in the curricular portion of the study. Of the eleven schools
deemed exemplary by University-level band conductors, graduate conducting students,
and music educators, only two directors chose to participate in this portion of the study,
and each sent a Xerox copy of their schools’ music curriculum. Additionally, these two
band directors returned their completed survey. One of the eleven exemplary schools’
band directors communicated via telephone that his/her music faculty was in the process
of designing a new, Standards-based curriculum and therefore would be unable to send
any curricular information. Additionally, this band director did not return the survey.
Another of the eleven exemplary schools’ band directors communicated via telephone
that his/her program did not have a written curriculum. This band director did return the
survey. Two of the eleven exemplary schools’ band directors communicated via
telephone that their programs had no written music curriculum and therefore could not
participate in the curriculum portion of the study. Additionally, these two band directors
did not return their survey. Five of the eleven exemplary schools’ band directors chose
not to participate in the curriculum portion of the study. However, two of these band
directors returned their survey. Table 1 illustrates the exemplary schools band directors’

participation in both the curricular and survey portions of the study.

24

Table l

Exemplary Schools’ Band Directors’ Participation in Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Director 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provided No Returned No Survey Did not participate
Curriculum Curriculum Survey Returned in curriculum
portion of study

Band X X
Director 1

Band X X
Director 2

Band X X X
Director 3 (developing)

Band X X X
Director 4

Band X X X
Director 5

Band X X X
Director 6

Band Not known X X
Director 7

Band Not known X X
Director 8

Band Not known X X
Director 9

Band Not known X X
Director 10

Band Not known X X

 

The survey returned from Band Director 1 indicated that all nine of the Standards

were being implemented throughout his/her band program. The band director’s response

for Standard 3, student improvisation, was particular to the Jazz Band. However, the band

director also indicated that he/she implements improvisational warm-up activities for the

entire band. The band director’s response for Standard 4, student composition, indicated

that composition was an extra credit option for students to improve their letter grade. All

other responses provided by the band director indicated activities towards the

25

 

implementation of the seven other Standards. In reference to Standard 8, the band
director indicated that the following arts and subjects were taught in his/her band
program: Visual Arts, Literature, and Science. The band director did not indicate which
historical periods were being taught in his/her band program, but speciﬁed that the
following cultures were being taught in his/her band program: African, South Asian,
Australian, European, Japanese, Native American, and any other cultures that may be
reﬂected by chosen band literature.

The curriculum provided by Band Director 1 consisted of four categories:
Production, Appreciation, Criticism, and Aesthetics. The ﬁrst category, Production,
integrated Standard 2, Standard 4, and Standard 5. The second category, Appreciation,
integrated Standard 2, Standard 8, and Standard 9. The third category, Criticism,
integrated Standard 6 and Standard 7. The fourth category, Aesthetics, integrated
Standard 6. Standard 1 and Standard 3 were not present in the language of the written
curriculum. However, the band director indicated on the survey that Standard 1 was
integrated in band class and Standard 3 was integrated in Jazz Band and possibly band
class.

The survey returned from Band Director 2 indicated that all Standards except
Standard 4 (composition) were being implemented throughout his/her band program.
However, Standard 3 was exclusive to the Jazz Band; the band director indicated that
little improvisation takes place outside of the Jazz Band program. Additionally, the
director indicated that he/she had few opportunities in his/her large performing classes to
allow students to engage in Standard 5 (notating music), and Standard 6 (analyzing

music). In reference to Standard 8, the band director did not indicate which arts and/or

26

disciplines outside the arts were being taught within his/her band program, if any.
Similarly, the band director did not indicate which historical periods or cultures were
being taught in his/her band program, if any.

The curriculum provided by the Band Director 2 was based on the 1995 National
Standards for Arts Instruction. This document contains seven Content Standards that are
identical to the Standards used for this study. However, two of the current Standards are
not present in the 1995 National Standards for Arts Instruction: Standard 3,
improvisation, and Standard 4, composition and arranging. The band director notated on
his/her curriculum that the school’s music faculty are currently revising the music
curriculum to adhere to all nine Standards. As indicated by the survey completed by Band
Director 2, all seven of the Content Standards ﬁ'om the 1995 National Standards for Arts
Instruction are being integrated on a regular basis within the band director’s band
program, with the exception of the subcategories in Standards 5 and 6 of notating and
analyzing music.

The survey returned from Band Director 4 indicated that the following Standards
were being implemented throughout his/her band program: Standard 1, Standard 2,
Standard 4, Standard 5, Standard 6, Standard 8, and Standard 9. No response was
indicated for Standard 3, improvisation or for Standard 7, evaluating music and music
performances. In reference to Standard 4, composition and arranging, the band director
indicated that he/ she offers a ﬁnal exam option in which a student(s) may write a
composition. Additionally, the band director did not specify which arts and disciplines,

historical periods, or cultures he/she incorporates within his/her classroom.

27

The survey returned from Band Director 7 indicated that the following Standards
were being implemented throughout his/her band program: Standard 1, Standard 2,
Standard 6 (describing music), Standard 7, Standard 8, and Standard 9 (understanding
music in relation to history). No responses were indicated for Standard 3, improvisation,
Standard 4, composition and arranging, Standard 5, reading and notating music, Standard
6, listening to and analyzing music, or Standard 9, understanding music in relation to
culture. In reference to Standard 8, the band director indicated that Drama and Visual
Arts were incorporated within his/her band program; however, no disciplines outside of
the Arts were speciﬁed.

The survey returned from Band Director 8 indicated that Standard 1 (singing) was
being implemented throughout his/her band pro gram. No response was indicated for
Standards 2 through 9. It is possible that Band Director 8 began his/her survey with
intention to complete it, but was unable to due to an interruption. Perhaps he/ she, after the
fact, thought he/she completed the survey and therefore sent it back. Conversely, Band
Director 8 might not have been invested in the topic or simply did not have the time to
complete the survey but chose to send it back anyway. Nevertheless, Band Director 8
must be implementing at least Standard 2 in addition to Standard 1.

Summary

Only two out of the eleven band directors from the exemplary programs chose to
participate in the curricular portion of the study. Six out of the eleven exemplary band
directors chose to return their survey. It is possible that the overall participation of these

directors was low due to a lack of time, a lack of interest and/or investment in the topic,

28

and perhaps sheer embarrassment about their lack of incorporating the Standards in their
music classrooms.

Results indicate that only one of the eleven band directors (9%) is incorporating
all speciﬁed areas of the Standards within his/her music curriculum. Despite the fact that
this band director’s music curriculum does not include Standards 1 and 3, he/she
indicated on the survey that these types of activities are included within his/her program.
Four of eleven band directors (36%), only one of which provided a curriculum but all of
which completed surveys, are incorporating various Standards into their band programs,
but not all Standards. Three of the eleven band directors (27%) did not have a music
curriculum.

The results clearly indicate that band programs deemed exemplary by University-
level band conductors, graduate conducting students, and music educators are not
thoroughly meeting the objectives detailed in the National Standards for Music
Education. Thus, students of Michigan’s exemplary band programs are not learning what
the Consortium of National Arts Education Associations states they should learn and be
able to do. It is possible that these programs are deﬁcient in meeting the Standards due to
performance obligations set by the director(s) and expected by the administration and
community. A great deal of class time is necessary to prepare an ensemble for
exceptional performances, which may relegate Standards-based classroom activities to a
status of less importance. Conversely, these same performances were the basis on which

these programs were identiﬁed as exemplary.

29

Surveys

Of the 202 randomly selected schools that received the survey, only 36 band directors
(including the exemplary schools band directors) chose to voluntarily complete and
return the survey, even after receiving a second request. The return rate was 17.82%,
which is extremely low. As with the band directors from the exemplary programs, it is
possible that band directors who received a survey chose not to participate in the study
due to a lack of time, a lack of interest and/or investment in the topic, or perhaps sheer
embarrassment about their failure to incorporate the Standards in their music classrooms.
Survey Results, Question “a ”

Sections 1 through 14 of the survey each focused on an individual Standard. Each
section had three questions. The ﬁrst question (indicated by the representative question
number and the letter “a”) of each section asked teachers how often they engaged
students in the activity or activities speciﬁed by the Standard. The ﬁrst question was a
multiple-choice question with the following response options: a: not at all, b: seldom, c:
occasionally, d: frequently, and e: every rehearsal (see Appendix B for survey questions
and scale). Table 2 contains the means for each ﬁrst question of Sections 1 through 14
derived from band director responses indicated on the survey. Each bold mean score

represents the highest mean score for that question.

30

Table 2

Mean Scores for Survey Questions One Through Fourteen, Question "a:" How Often
Students Are Engaged in the Activities Delineated by the Standards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Choice A, Choice B, Choice C, Choice D, Choice E,
not at all seldom occasionally frequently every
rehearsal
Question la 2.77 33.33 50.00 11.11 2.77
Solo Playing
Question 2a 2.77 11.11 16.66 16.66 52.77
Group Playing
Question 33 31.42 34.28 8.57 25.71 0.00
Improvisation
Question 4a 50.00 33.33 11.11 5.55 0.00
Composition
Question 5a 63.88 25.00 8.33 2.77 0.00
Arranging
Question 6a 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.22 77.77
Reading
Question 7a 33.33 33.33 22.22 8.33 2.77
Notating
Question 8:! 0.00 2.85 34.28 51.42 11.42
Listening
Question 9a 42.85 14.28 17.14 20.00 5.71
Analyzing
Question 10a 8.57 28.57 28.57 22.85 11.42
Describing
Question 11a 0.00 27.77 33.33 22.22 16.66
Evaluating
Question 12a 8.33 13.88 36.11 36.11 5.55
Other Arts
Question 13a 8.33 16.66 36.11 36.11 2.77
History
Question 14a 8.57 31.42 37.14 20.00 2.85
Culture

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note. Each bold numerical value signiﬁes the highest mean score for that question.

Table 2 illustrates that the more than half of the band directors indicated on their
survey that the following Standards were fully being implemented at least occasionally in
their programs: Standard 2 (performing in solo and with others), Standard 7 (evaluating

music and music performances), Standard .8 (understanding relationships between music,

31

the other arts, and disciplines outside the arts), and Standard 9 (understanding music in
relation to history and culture). More than half of the band directors indicated on their
survey that the following Standards were partially being implemented at least
occasionally in their programs: Standard 5 (readng music, but not notating music), and
Standard 6 (listening and describing music, but not analyzing music). Although Standard
6 (describing music, but not listening and analyzing music), Standard 7, and Standard 9
(understanding music in relation to culture, but not history) were being incorporated, they
were being implemented less often. These conclusions were derived by combining the
total mean scores for each band director who answered c (occasionally), d (frequently), or
e (every rehearsal) on their survey. More than half of the band directors indicated on their
survey that the following Standards were not being implemented in their programs:
Standard 3 (improvisation) and Standard 4 (composition and arranging). These
conclusions were derived by combining the total mean scores for each band director who
answered a (not at all) or b (seldom) on their survey.

Survey Results, Question “b"

The second question asked each band director how competent he/she felt teaching
his/her students the activity or activities speciﬁed by the Standard. The answers to the
second question (indicated by the representative question number and the letter “b”) were
indicated on a four-point scale: a: not at all, b: somewhat, c: moderately so, d: very much
so (see Appendix B for survey questions and scale). Table 3 contains the means for each
question “b” of Sections 1 through 14, according to band directors’ responses to the

survey. Each bold mean score represents the highest mean score for that question.

32

Table 3

Mean Scores for Survey Questions One Through Fourteen, Question "b:" How
Competent Band Directors Feel in Teaching the Activities Delineated by the Standards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Choice A, Choice B, Choice C, Choice D,
not at all somewhat moderately so very much so
Question la 0.00 2.77 25.00 72.22
Solo Playing
Question 2a 0.00 2.77 13.88 83.33
Group Playing
Question 3a 8.57 31.42 42.85 17.14
Improvisation
Question 4a 11.11 22.22 38.88 27 .77
Composition
Question 5a 8.33 19.44 30.55 41.66
Arranging
Question 6a 0.00 0.00 2.77 97.22
Reading
Question 7a 8.33 2.77 13.88 75.00
Notating
Question 8a 0.00 2.85 11.42 85.71
Listening
Question 9a 5.71 8.57 31.42 54.28
Analyzing
Question 10a 2.85 2.85 34.28 60.00
Describing
Question 11a 0.00 5.55 27.77 66.66
Evaluating
Question 12a 0.00 17.14 25.71 57.14
Other Arts
Question 13a 2.77 5.55 41.66 50.00
History
Question 14a 2.85 25.71 34.28 37.14
Culture

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note. Each bold numerical value signiﬁes the highest mean score for that question.
Table 3 illustrates that the majority of band directors indicated on their survey that
they feel at least moderately competent teaching all Standards outlined in the National
Standards for Music Education. This ﬁnding suggests that secondary band directors in
Michigan are capable of teaching the musical activities detailed by the Standards, but

there are factors that are preventing them from teaching the Standards in their classroom.

33

Additionally, the mean scores suggest that, out of all the Standards, band directors feel
least comfortable teaching Standard 3 (improvisation) and Standard 4 (composition, but
they are comfortable with teaching arranging).
Survey Results, Question “c " and Section 15

Sections 1 through 14, question three (indicated by the representative question
number and the letter “c”), and Section 15 of the survey were open-ended questions. Each
question in Sections 1 through 14 and Section 15 allowed band directors to list the
activity or activities they had implemented to allow their students to fulﬁll the activity or

activities outlined by the Standard. The following list is a compilation of each survey

6‘ ,9

question c and Section 15 as well as the responses ﬁom all band directors (Notes: 1.
The number of band directors who communicated each bulleted response is found in the
parenthetical reference immediately following the response. 2. Each response was taken
directly from the survey. 3. Many of the responses indicate a setting(s) or passive
method(s) rather than speciﬁc activity or activities that allow students to engage in a
Standards-based action).

1. What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to perform
on instruments in solo a varied repertoire of music, if any?

No response (2)
Solo & Ensemble Festival (28)
Solo in concert literature (9)
Recitals (5)
Soloing with Concert Band (5)
Community performances (4)
0 Senior groups, church’s, community groups, concerts
Playing tests (4)
After school solo literature rehearsals (3)
Jazz Band (3)
Church performance (3)
District Festival (3)
In class performance/participation (2)

34

Private lessons (2)

Multiple large ensembles (2)
Ensembles at concerts (2)
Solo/Ensemble day (2)

Solo & Ensemble class (1)
In class performances of personally chosen music (1)
Pre-concert music (1)
Cabarets (l)

Competitions (1)

College prep auditions (l)
Auditions (1)

School events ( l)
Masterclasses(l)

Concerto Competition (1)
Solo concert (1)

Solo exams (1)

Student demonstrations (1)

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to perform
on instruments with others a varied repertoire of music, if any?

No response (5)

Daily rehearsal (14)

Solo & Ensemble performance (1 1)

All bands, small and large ensembles (5)
Concerts (5)

0 Public, conferences, conventions
Church performances (4)
Sectionals (3)

Recitals (2)
Competitions (2)
Community functions (2)
Chamber groups (1)
Chamber recitals (1)
Festivals (1)
Special functions (1)
0 Area mass bands (1)
o All-star bands (1)
Guest conductors (1)
Solo & Ensemble class (1)
Small ensembles (1)
Student recitals (1)
In class performances (1)
Solo concert (1)

35

Honors band (1)
Secondary instrument concert (1)

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to improvise
melodies, variations, and accompaniments, if any?

No response (14)
Jazz Band improvisation (17)
o Warm-up exercises (2)
o 12 bar blues, 32 bar solos
0 Individual improvisation projects
Beginning Band (3)
Music Theory class (3)
Band Class (2)
Rhythmic, scalar improvisation within warm-up (l)
Dixieland Band (1)
Guest artists (1)
Small group work (1)
Books (1)
Students transcribe what they are listening to on CD or radio in class (1)
Secondary instrument class (1)
Honors band assignments (1)

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to-compose
music, if any?

No response (17)
Encourage students to compose (4)
o In class performance and holiday concert performance
Music Theory class (4)
Music technology/composition software (3)
Small group work (2)
Pep Band (1)
Jazz Band (1)
Honors band assignments (1)
Composition in advanced placement theory class (1)
General composition time allotted (1)
A composition assignment (1)
Extra credit composition assignment (1)
Final exam option (to write a composition) instead of general ﬁnal (1)
Music Theory assignments (1)
Secondary instrument class (1)

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to arrange
music, if any?

36

No response (20)

Music technology/computer software (4)

Encouraged to arrange (3)

Arranging parts for different instrumentation or ensembles (2)
Marching Band (2)

Music Theory class (2)

Pep Band (2)

Music Theory assignments ( 1)

Music writing day (l)

Honors Band assignments (1)

Secondary instrument class (1)

Arrange chorales (1)

Arrangements performed in class and at holiday concerts (1)

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to read and
notate music, if any?

No response (3)

Daily rehearsals and sectionals (13)
0 Music vocabulary study, written quizzes, sight reading activities
0 Daily review of major/minor keys, scales, & exercises
0 Daily review of rhythmic studies
0 Frequent reading of pre-selected literature

Sight reading (1 1)

Daily sight reading (4)

Concerts (2)

Rhythm reading drills (2)

Music Theory in rehearsal (1)

Flash cards (1)

Sight reading a couple of times/week (1)

Private lessons (1)

Sight singing (1)

Sight singing with solfege (1)

Chanting (1)

Counting rhythms (l)

Solos and ensembles (1)

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to notate
music if any?

No response (20)
Music Theory class or study (3)
Music Theory worksheets in band class (3)

37

Notate music in band class (2)

Writing parts out (2)

Scales (1)

Note names, ﬁngerings, position exercises (1)

Jazz transcribing (1)

Transposition exercises (l)

Homework (1)

Music technology/computer software (1)

Sectionals (1)

Arranging parts for instrumentation (1)

Rhythmic dictation ( 1)

Practice sheets when substitute teacher is present (1)
Music written by students and taught by students (1)

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to partake in
listening to music, if any?

No response (6)

Listen to other groups’ performances (l 1)

Listen to music being rehearsed or performed (10)

Listen to good soloists (4)

Field trip (3)

Guided listening (3)

Listening to pieces that may be played in band (3)

Listen to music similar to music being played in band (2)
0 Discussion of why or why not music should or should not be

selected

Listening to one another in rehearsal (2)

Music playing as class begins (2)

Special presentations (1)

Guest ensembles (1)

Distribution of band literature CD (1)

Listen to music from same period as music being played (1)

Listen to performances (1)

Listen to a variety of styles (1)

Listening assigmnents (l)

Rehearsal recordings (1)

Style study day (1)

Music Appreciation class (1)

Extra credit given to students who attend concerts (1)

Videos (1)

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to partake in
analyzing music, if any?

38

10.

No response (1 6)
Analysis of musical form (4)
General analysis and discussion of music being played (4)
Music Theory class (3)
Creating ﬂow charts (2)
Analysis of melody (1)
Analysis of style (1)
Sight reading discussions (1)
Honors Band assignments (1)
Style study day (1)
Written analysis/critiques of music (1)
Listening (1)
o Chord identiﬁcation and analysis (1)
o Progression identiﬁcation (1)
0 Form identiﬁcation (1)
o Phrase identiﬁcation (1)
Record rehearsal - listen and discuss the good and the bad that came
across recording (1)

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to partake in
describing music, if any?

No response (14)

Daily question and answer (5)

Verbal and or written commenting on speciﬁc aspects of music
performance following a listening or playing (4)

Discussion of performance (4)

Written assignments (3)

Written concert reviews/critiques (2)

Honors Band assignments (1)

Journals (1)

Discussion of ﬂow of a piece (1)

Discussion improvements to be made after playing (1)
Discussions of how the music makes them feel (1)

Discussion of expressive elements in music (1)

Discussion of how they feel the music should be played (1)
Discussion of listening, tone, style, chords, colors, and how music should
sound and attempt to emulate (l)

Rehearsal reﬂections (1)

Performance reﬂections (1)

Following a listening students write a “story” of what they heard (1)
Critique peers playing (1)

Quizzes (1)

39

11.

12.

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to evaluate
music and music performances, if any?

No response (6)
Concert reviews — live and recorded (1 1)
Rate pieces and identify reasons for rating (1)
Written analysis and critiques (l)
Aural concert review (1)
Rehearsal critique (1)
Rehearsal reﬂections (1)
Performance reﬂections (1)
Journals (1)
0 Performance elicits constant evaluation (1)
General discussion within rehearsal (5)
Self evaluations (3)
Observing performances and reviewing them (3)
Writing across the curriculum assignments (2)
Record rehearsals - identify good things and changes that need to be made
(1)
Evaluate individual stylistic interpretation and depict most appropriate (1)
Evaluate sections as they play for band (1)
Evaluate music to program within audience served in mind (1)
Field trips with written reviews (1)
0 Student use of adjudicator sheets (1)
Discussion of how the music makes them feel (1)
Style day (l)
Baldridge system with chart (1)

0000000

What types of activities do you implement to promote your students’
understanding of relationships between music, the other arts, and disciplines
outside the arts, if any? Which arts do you incorporate? What subjects do you
incorporate?

No response (13)

General discussion (5)

Incorporation of other disciplines through the music and listening of music
(5)

History (4)

Music History (3)

Math (2)

Physics of Music and Instruments (2)
Presentations (2)

Videos (2)

Fine Arts Festival incorporating visual arts (1)

4o

13.

14.

Visual Arts (1)
o Irnpressionistic Arts (1)
Dance (1)
Literature (1)
Drama (1)
Athletics (1)
Discussion of music period music is written in and other disciplines going
on at the same time music was written (1)
Research (1)
Guest speakers/teachers (1)
Field trips (1)
Reading music like language (1)
Writing across the curriculum (1)
English (1)
Artistic culture (1)

What types of activities do you implement to promote your students’
understanding of music in relation to history, if any? Which historical periods
have you incorporated?

No response (9)

Taught through the music (8)

Discussion of composer(s) of piece (5)

General discussion (5)

All music periods covered (4)

Discussion of history of piece (3)

History of pieces being played (3)

Concerts with historical themes (2)

Guest speakers (2)

Videos (2)

Use of props and visual aids (1)

Use of internet to gather composer information (1)

Information sheets distributed about music and composer being performed
(1)

Research project (1)

Research on a composer and a historical period (1)

Student presentations (1)

Videos (1)

Classical, Romantic, Contemporary, Renaissance, Baroque, 20th Century
covered (1)

What types of activities do you implement to promote your students’
understanding of music in relation to culture, if any?

41

15.

No response (16)
Diverse band music (5)
Taught through the music being played (4)
Video (2)
Guest speakers (2)
General discussion (2)
European, Aﬁican, American, Japanese (2)
Spanish, Jewish, African-American, Chinese, Asian, Latin American,
Native American, Indonesian, African, Australia (1)
As it relates to culture or history of piece being played ( 1)
Listening examples of similar music from culture being played in
rehearsal (l)
0 Indian, European, Jewish (1)
Presentations (1)
Research (1)
Text reading (1)

What types of singing activities, individual or ensemble, do you incorporate in
rehearsals, if any?

No response (5)

Instrumental music part singing (10)
Sing tuning notes (8)

Sight sing rhythms (5)

Sing before sight reading or playing (5)
Sing melodies (5)

Sing chorales (5)

Instrumental music that calls for voices (4)
Singing scales/arpeggios (3) with solfege (2)
Sing scales (2)

Sing rhythms (2)

Sing intervals (2)

Sing phrases (2)

Sight sing music (2)

Sing chords (2)

Sing entire piece (1)

Rhythmic clapping (I)

Sing harmonies (I)

Sing in warm up and in rehearsal (1)
Sing solfege daily (I)

Sing rounds (I)

Modeling/imitation (1)

Sing articulations (I)

Sing individual pitches (1)

42

o Sight sing pitches (1)
o Sing dynamics (1)
0 Matching pitches vocally (1)
Summary
Sections 1 through 14, question c, and Section 15 were designed to gather
numerous band directors’ responses so that band directors who are not implementing
speciﬁc Standards-based activities, can review them and conceivably modify their
activities and/or settings so that they may implement the Standards in their music
classrooms. Although some directors chose not to respond to some of the survey
questions outlined in Section 1 through 14, question c, and Section 15, there are still
various activities and/or settings listed that propose different ways to implement all of the
Standards in instrumental music education. The following list delineates the common
themes derived from band directors’ responses from each Section 1 through 15 by
Standard; some of the multifaceted Standards were separated on the survey to gain a
better understanding of how band directors implement activities outlined by the Standard.
Standard 1, singing, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music:
Instrumental part singing
Singing tuning notes

Singing before sight reading or playing
Singing melodies, chorales, and rhythms

Standard 2, performing on instruments alone a varied repertoire of music:
Solo and ensemble contest

Students soloing in concert repertoire

Students soloing with the concert band

Solo recitals

Standard 2, performing on instruments with others a varied repertoire of music:
Daily rehearsal

Solo and ensemble contest

Participation in small and large ensembles

Concerts

43

Standard 3, improvising melodies, variations, and accompaniments:
0 Jazz band
0 Music theory class
0 Beginning band class

Standard 4, composing music within speciﬁed guidelines:
0 Music theory class
- Encouragement
0 Use of music technology/computer software

Standard 4, arranging music within speciﬁed guidelines:
0 Use of music technology/computer software

Encouragement

Marching band and pep band

Music theory class

Arrange for diverse instrumentation

Standard 5, reading music:
0 Daily rehearsals and sectionals
0 Sight reading
0 Daily sight reading

Standard 5, notating music:
0 Music theory class
0 Music theory worksheets
0 Writing parts out
0 Band class

Standard 6, listening to music:
, 0 Listening to other groups performances
0 Listening to music being rehearsed and performed
0 Listening to good soloists

Standard 6, analyzing music:
0 General analysis and discussion of music being rehearsed
0 Analysis of musical form
0 Music theory class

Standard 6, describing music:
0 Daily question and answer
0 Verbal or written comments following a listening or playing of a musical
performance
0 Discussion of performance

Standard 7, evaluating music or music performances:

44

Generate concert reviews

Discussion in rehearsal

Self evaluations

Observing and reviewing performances

Standard 8, understanding music relationships between music, other arts, and
disciplines outside the arts:
0 Incorporation of other disciplines through the music and listening of music
0 General discussion
0 History

Standard 9, understanding music in relation to history:
0 History is taught through the music
0 Discussion of composer(s) of music
0 General discussion

Standard 9, understanding music in relation to culture
a Diverse band music
0 Culture is taught through music
0 Video, guest speakers, and general discussion

Survey Results, Sections 16 and 1 7

Sections 16 and 17 of the survey were open-ended questions. Section 16 allowed
band directors to list the factors that facilitate the implementation of the Standards within
their music classrooms. Section 17 allowed band directors to list the factors that hinder
the implementation of the Standards within their music classrooms. The following list is a
compilation of responses from Section 16 and Section 17 of the survey as well as the
responses ﬁom all band directors. The number of band directors who communicated each
bulleted response is found in the parenthetical reference immediately following the
response, and each response was taken directly ﬁom the wording of the directors on the

survey.

45

16.

What factors facilitate your teaching of the above curricular goals?

Time (5)

The National Standards (5)
Administration support (3)

Personal desire (3)

Stereo equipment (2)

Established program/teacher (2)
Performance based philosophy (2)
Knowledge of subject matter (2)
Resources (2)

Great students (2)

Community support (1)

Benchmarks (1)

Goals (1)

Personal initiative although the district does not mandate teaching based
on Standards (1)

Worksheets (1)

Scheduling (1)

Budget, funding (1)

Location (1)

Cooperative faculty (1)

Music scores with information on of piece and composer (1)
Solo & Ensemble Festival (1)
Previous experience/past successes (1)
Knowledge of band literature (1)
Knowledge of various subjects related to music (1)
Assistance from other music teachers (1)
Daily rehearsal (1)

The music program itself (1)

K-12 curriculum (1)

Student interest (1)

Strong work ethic (1)

Teacher interest (1)

Eager students (1)

Student retention ( l) .

Booster group, parental support (1)
Music recordings (1)

Visual aids (1)

Videos (1)

Books (1)

Technology (1)

Extensive music library (1)

Quality repertoire (1)

46

17.

Quality instruments and inventory (1)

What factors hinder your teaching of the above curricular goals?

Time (16)

Performances (6)

Performance pressure to be good/expectations (5)
Budget (5)

Class size (3)

Community expectations (2)

Lack of K-12 music teacher communication/collaboration (2)
Lack of prep time for advanced/complex activities (2)
Marching band time commitment (2)

Lack of music staff (2)

Lack of music technology (2)

Small music library (2)

Student resistance (2)

Facilities (2)

Newer repertoire lacking depth (1)

Shared classroom (1)

Lack of knowledge (1)

District expectations (1)

K-12 assigned position consumes time (1)

Teaching of general music in addition to band duties (1)
Tradition (1)

Unsupportive administration and faculty (1)

Block schedule (1)

Parade commitment (l)

Pep Band commitment (1)

Goals (1)

Student retention (1)

Relevance of National Standards (1)

Lack of materials that guide how to incorporate standards which coincide
with instructional framework of district (1)

Classroom facilities (1)

Instrumentation (l)

Performance-based class (1)

Classroom integration (1) ,

Lack of previous (student) instruction prior to entering pro gram (1)
Inexperienced students (1)

Special Education students (1)

Student attentiveness (1)

47

Summary

The responses indicated on the survey by band directors for Sections 16 provide
insight as to what factors facilitate the implementation of the Standards in music
classrooms. Time, the inﬂuence of the National Standards, administration support, and
personal desire were the top factors that allowed and/or motivated band directors to
implement the Standards in their music classrooms. The remainder of the responses also
facilitates implementing the Standards in instrumental music classrooms.

The responses indicated on the survey by band directors for Sections 17 provide
insight as to what factors hinder the implementation of the Standards in music
classrooms. The lack of time was a prorrrinent hindrance for nearly half of the band
directors. Additionally, performances, performance pressures and high expectations, and
budget were factors that prevented band directors from implementing the Standards in
their music classrooms. The remainder of the responses also serves as reasons why band

directors are not able to fully implement the Standards in their music classrooms.

48

CHAPTER FIVE
Summary
The purpose of this research was to gather information on the implementation of
the National Standards for Music Education in secondary instrumental music programs in
Michigan. The research questions for this study follow:
1. Do curricula obtained from selected exemplary secondary instrumental music
programs in Michigan meet the National Standards?

2. Are the National Standards being taught within secondary instrumental music
programs in Michigan?

3. Do secondary instrumental music teachers in Michigan feel competent teaching
all core areas included in the National Standards?

4. What factors hinder or facilitate the implementation of the National Standards in
secondary instrumental music settings in Michigan?

5. What types of activities do secondary instrumental music teachers use to help
them achieve the National Standards?

Two out of eleven requested band curricula ﬁom exemplary schools were
obtained and analyzed for this study. The results indicate that neither of the two band
director’s music curricula fully integrate the National Standards for Music Education,
although one of the eleven exemplary schools band director’s survey responses indicated
that all nine of the Standards were being implemented in his/her program. The common
Standards that are integrated in the two band directors’ curricula are Standards 2, 5, 6, 7,
8, and 9. Out of the two band directors, one indicated that his/her music faculty was
currently designing a new music curriculum that fully integrates the Standards. Likewise,
one of the nine band directors who did not submit a curriculum for analysis

communicated that his/her district was in the process of curricular development based on

49

the Standards. Potentially, two out of the eleven exemplary schools’ band directors may,
in the near future, have a music curriculum that ﬁrlly integrates the National Standards.

Since only 17.82% of the surveys were returned, and the survey population made up
less than half of the secondary band programs in Michigan, one cannot generalize from
the data whether the National Standards are being taught in secondary instrumental
programs in Michigan. However, according to the survey mean scores, patterns suggest
that the following Standards are being fully included at least occasionally in secondary
band programs in Michigan: Standard 2 (performing in solo and with others), Standard 7
(evaluating music and music performances), Standard 8 (understanding relationships
between music, the other arts, and disciplines outside the arts), and Standard 9
(understanding music in relation to history and culture). Additionally, the following
Standards are being partially implemented at least occasionally in secondary band
programs in Michigan: Standard 5 (reading music, but not notating music), and Standard
6 (listening and describing music, but not analyzing music). Also, 86% of band directors
indicated that they are implementing Singing activities (Standard 1) in their music
classrooms. Patterns from survey mean scores may suggest that the following Standards
are not being taught in Michigan’s secondary band programs: Standard 3 (improvisation)
and Standard 4 (composition and arranging).

The band directors who returned the survey all feel competent teaching the Standards.
The majority of band directors indicated that they feel moderately to very competent in
teaching all core areas included in the Standards. Few band directors indicated not at all
or somewhat competent in teaching all core areas included in the Standards. Band

directors felt least competent teaching improvisation and composition, although the mean

50

scores for both imply that the majority of band directors feel moderately competent
teaching these activities.
Conclusions

The single most important conclusion from this study is that most Michigan band
directors feel competent teaching the Standards, yet the Standards are not being taught
thoroughly throughout Michigan band programs. The fact that band directors indicated
that they felt at least moderately competent in teaching all of the activities outlined by the
Standards is evidence that the Standards are being taught in collegiate music education
programs. However, there are factors that are preventing these music educators ﬁ'orn
implementing the Standards in their classrooms. Nearly half of the band directors
indicated that time was the factor that most hindered the implementation of the Standards
in their classrooms. Additionally, over a quarter of the band directors listed performance
factors as considerable hindrances. The Standards were developed to foster the complete
musical development and competence of music students in all music education settings.
This research suggests that the Standards are not being taught thoroughly in secondary
band programs in Michigan. Speciﬁcally Standards 3 (improvisation) and Standard 4
(composition, but not arranging) are being neglected. Kirkland (1996), Adderly (1999),
and Byo (1999) had Similar ﬁndings relative to these two Standards. Overall, these
ﬁndings suggest that students are not learning what the Consortium of National Arts
Education deems to be the components of a comprehensive music education. These
reasons why music teachers are not teaching the Standards need to be addressed by the
entire educational community so that students can develop the means through which they

can reach their full musical potential.

51

Implications and Suggestions for Future Research

If the Standards are to become a unifying force in the Music Education
profession, then it is imperative that the results of this and similar but more extensive
research on this topic be communicated to inﬂuential persons in the music education
community that have the expertise to positively inﬂuence what music teachers are
including in their classrooms. Music educators need to know what is being done to
successfully implement the Standards, how the Standards are being achieved, and what
factors promote the realization of the Standards in the music classroom. Likewise,
educators need to know why the Standards are not being implemented and the factors that
prevent them ﬁ'om being realized in the music classroom. Without the input of music
teachers, it will be impossible for the prominent persons in the education ﬁeld to offer
meaningful recommendations on how music teachers should implement the Standards
and potentially overcome or modify the constraints placed upon them by external
inﬂuences, such as the lack of time and performance obligations and expectations.
Additionally, research would beneﬁt those persons involved in curricular planning and
modiﬁcation by helping them to be cognizant of the factors that teachers face on a regular
basis, which unequivocally deter Standards-based teaching.

Further research needs to be conducted on the implementation of the National
Standards in Music Education to detail any advancement and changes music educators
have made in their instruction related to the development of the Standards. Research,
performed by music educators currently teaching in the classroom pertaining to the
Standards would bring administrators, professors of music education, and future music

educators up to date on the role of the Standards in music programs. Additionally, it

52

would be beneﬁcial to the music education community to uncover to a greater degree the
factors that hinder music educators’ teaching of curricular goals that relate to the
Standards.

T o attain more meaningful results, this study should be duplicated with a larger
sample. Seeking information from a band director at each high school throughout
Michigan may produce more data, and therefore allow the researcher to generalize
plausible conclusions that will more accurately reﬂect the entire band population in
Michigan. Additionally, telephoning band directors prior to their receiving the survey and
asking them to participate in the study, or providing incentives for them, such as ﬁnancial
compensation, may generate a higher return rate. Furthermore, conducting an interview
rather than a survey study with band directors might facilitate the gathering of additional
information. This study should also be replicated using band directors outside of
Michigan.

The National Standards have been a driving force in music education as a whole
for nearly a decade, and the patterns from this study suggest that the Standards have not
yet found their place in the secondary instrumental classroom. Why is that? Are
secondary band directors simply choosing not to implement all the Standards, or are there
other external forces and pressures that prevent them from including the topics delineated
by the Standards? Where are priorities in instrumental music education? Is the primary
focus only on the creation of performers? What do administrators feel about the National
Standards for Music Education? How does how administrators feel about the National
Standards for Music Education compare to how they feel about the Standards for other

discipline areas? Does the music education community respect the Standards? How can

53

the music education community facilitate the implementation of the Standards for Music
Education? What steps have administrators and educators taken to facilitate the
implementation of Standards within their curricula? These questions, as well as similar
questions, should be studied and resolved so that teachers can successﬁrlly implement the
National Standards for Music Education and so that music students have the opportunity

to develop more fully as thinking, performing, literate musicians.

54

REFERENCES

Adderly, C. L., 111. (1999). Preparation of future band directors relative to the National
Standards-Goals 2000. Journal of Band Research, 35 (1), 63-73.

Austin, J. R. (1998). Comprehensive musicianship research: Implications for addressing
the National Standards in music ensemble classes. Update, 1 7(1), 25-32.

Baraiolo, E. D., Jr. (1997). Status report on the awareness and implementation of the
National Standards for Music within selected Massachusetts communities. Masters
Abstracts International, 36(2), 0297.

Bell, J. R. (1986). The high school band: Instructional tasks, administrative tasks, and
terminal outcomes. Doctoral Abstracts International, 47 (9a), 3348.

Byo, S. J. (1999). Classroom teachers’ and music specialists perceived ability to
implement the National Standards for Music Education. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 47 (2), 111-123.

Fallis, T. L. (1999, January). Standards-based instruction in rehearsal. Music Educators
Journal, 85 (4), 18-23, 50.

FehrS-Rampolla, B. (1994). Opportunities in the classroom. In B. 0. Boston (Ed.),
Perspectives on implementation (pp. 3 1-3 7). Reston, VA: Music Educators National
Conference.

Jennings, J. F. (1998). Why National Standards and tests? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

55

Kirkland, N. J. (1996). South Carolina schools and Goals 2000: National Standards in
Music (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1996). Doctoral Abstracts
International, 57 (3), 1069.

Lehman, P. R. (1995). The National Standards for Music Education: Meeting the
challenges. The Quarterly Music Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 6 (2), 5-
13.

Lockwood, A. T. (1998). Standards: From policy to practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

McCaskill, L. L. (1998). The National Standards for Music Education: A survey of
general music methods professors’ knowledge, attitudes, and professional practices
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1998). Doctoral Abstracts
International, 59 (3a), 0765.

Music Educators National Conference. (1994a). Opportunity-to-learn standards for
music instruction: Grades pre-K-IZ. Reston, VA: Music Educators National
Conference.

Music Educators National Conference. (1994b). Teaching examples: Ideas for music
educators. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.

Music Educators National Conference. (1994c). What every young American should
know and be able to do in the arts: National Standards for Arts Education. Reston,
VA: Music Educators National Conference.

Shuler, S. C. (1995). The impact of National Standards on the preparation, in-service
professional development, and assessment of music teachers. Arts Education Policy

Review, 96(3), 2-14

56

Van Patten, B. W. (1997). A model curriculum for high school instrumental music
program implementing the “National Standards for Arts Education.” Masters
Abstracts International, 36 (2), 0326.

Wells, R. (1997, July). Designing curricula based on the standards. Music Educators

Journal, 84 (1), 34-39.

57

APPENDIX A

Content and Achievement Standards for Grades Nine Through Twelve

Content Standard 1: Singing, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music

Achievement Standard, Proficient:
Students
a. Sing with expression and technical accuracy a large and varied
repertoire of vocal literature with a level of difﬁculty of 4, on a scale
of l to 6, including some songs performed from memory
b. Sing music written in four parts, with and without accompaniment
c. Demonstrate well-developed ensemble Skills

Achievement Standard, Advanced:
Students
(1. Sing with expression and technical accuracy a large and varied
repertoire of vocal literature with a level of difﬁculty of 5, on a scale
of l to 6
e. Sing music written in more than four parts
f. Sing in small ensembles with one student on a part

Content Standard 2: Performing on instruments, alone and with others, a varied
repertoire of music

Achievement Standard, Proficient:
Students
a. Perform with expression and technical accuracy a large and varied
repertoire of instrumental literature with a level of difﬁculty of 4, on a
scale of 1 to 6
b. Perform an appropriate part in an ensemble, demonstrating well-
developed ensemble skills
c. Perform in small ensembles with one student on a part

Achievement Standard, Advanced:
Students
(1. Perform with expression and technical accuracy a large and varied
repertoire of instrumental literature with a level of difﬁculty of 5, on a
scale of l to 6

58

Content Standard 3: hnprovising melodies, variations, and accompaniments

Achievement Standard, Proﬁcient:
Students
a. Improvise stylistically appropriate harmonizing parts
b. Improvise rhythmic and melodic variations on given pentatonic
melodies and melodies in major and minor keys
c. Improvise original melodies over given chord progressions, each in a
consistent style, meter, and tonality

Achievement Standard, Advanced:
Students
(1. Improvise stylistically appropriate harmonizing parts in a variety of
styles
6. Improvise original melodies in a variety of styles, over given chord
progressions, each in a consistent style, meter, and tonality

Content Standard 4: Composing and arranging music within speciﬁed guidelines

Achievement Standard, Proﬁcient:
Students
a. Compose music in several distinct styles, demonstrating creativity in
using the elements of music for expressive effect
b. Arrange pieces for voices or instruments other than those for which the
pieces were written in ways that preserve or enhance the expressive
effect of the music
c. Compose and arrange music for voices and various acoustic and
electronic instruments, demonstrating knowledge of the ranges and
traditional usages of the sound sources

Achievement Standard, Advanced:
Students
d. Compose music, demonstrating imagination and technical Skill and
applying the principles of composition

Content Standard 5: Reading and notating music

Achievement Standard, Proficient:
Students
a. Demonstrate the ability to read an instrumental or vocal score of up to
four staves by describing how the elements of music are used
Students who participate in a choral or instrumental ensemble or class
b. Sightread, accurately and expressively, music with a level of difﬁculty
of3,onascaleofl to6

59

Achievement Standard, Advanced:
Students
c. Demonstrate the ability to read a full instrumental or vocal score by
describing how the elements of music are used and explaining all
transpositions and clefs
d. Interpret nonstandard notation symbols used by 20th-century
composers
Students who participate in a choral or instrumental ensemble or class
e. Sightread, accurately and expressively, music with a level of difﬁculty
of4,onascaleof1to6

Content Standard 6: Listening to, analyzing, and describing music

Achievement Standard, Proﬁcient:
Students
a. Analyze aural examples of a varied repertoire of music, representing
diverse genres and cultures, by describing the uses of elements of
music and expressive devices
b. Demonstrate extensive knowledge of the technical vocabulary of
musrc
c. Identify and explain compositional devices and techniques used to
provide unity and variety and tension and release in a musical work
and give examples of other works that make similar uses of these
devices and techniques

Achievement Standard, Advanced:
Students
d. Demonstrate the ability to perceive and remember music events by
describing in detail signiﬁcant events1 occurring in a given aural
example
6. Compare ways in which musical materials are used in a given example
relative to ways in which they are used in other works of the same
genre or style
f. Analyze and describe uses of the elements of music in a given work
that make it unique, interesting, and expressive

Content Standard 7: Evaluating music and music performances

Achievement Standard, Proficient:
Students
a. Evolve speciﬁc criteria for making informed, critical evaluations of the
quality and effectiveness of performances, compositions,
arrangements, and improvisations and apply the criteria in their
personal participation in music

 

' E.g., fugal enhances, chromatic modulations, developmental devices

60

b. Evaluate a performance, composition, arrangement, or improvisation
by comparing it to similar or exemplary models

Achievement Standard, Advanced:
Students
c. Evaluate a given musical work in terms of its aesthetic qualities and
explain the musical means it uses to evoke feelings and emotions

Content Standard 8: Understanding relationships between music, the other arts, and
disciplines outside the arts

Achievement Standard, Proficient:
Students
a. Explain how elements, artistic processes (such as imagination or
craftsmanship), and organizational principles (such as unity and
variety or repetition and contrast) are used in similar and distinctive
ways in the various arts and cite examples
b. Compare characteristics of two or more arts within a particular
historical period or style and cite examples ﬁom various cultures
0. Explain ways in which the principles and subject matter of various
disciplines outside the arts are interrelated with those of music2

Achievement Standard, Advanced:
Students
(1. Compare the uses of characteristic elements, artistic processes, and
organizational principles among the arts in different historical periods
and different cultures
e. Explain how the roles of creators, performers, and others involved in
the production and presentation of the arts are Similar to and different
from one another in the various arts3

Content Standard 9: Understanding music in relation to history and culture

Achievement Standard, Proficient:
Students
a. Classify by genre or style and by historical period or culture unfamiliar
but representative aural examples of music and explain the reasoning
behind their classiﬁcations
b. Identify sources of American music genres", trace the evolution of the
genres, and cite well-known musicians associated with them

 

2 E. g., language arts: compare the ability of music and literature to convey images, feelings, and meanings;
physics: describe the physical basis of tone production in string, wind, percussion, and electronic
instruments and the human voice and of the transmission and perception of sound

3 E.g., creators: painters, composers, choreographers, playwrights; performers: instrumentalists, singers,
dancers, actors; others: conductors, costumers, directors, lighting designers

’ E.g., swing, Broadway musical, blues

61

0. Identify various roles5 that musicians perform, cite representative
individuals who have functioned in each role, and describe their
activities and achievements

Achievement Standard, Advanced:
Students
(1. Identify and explain the stylistic features of a given musical work that
serve to deﬁne its aesthetic tradition and its historical or cultural
context
e. Identify and describe music genres or styles that show the inﬂuence of
two or more cultural traditions, identify the cultural source in each
inﬂuence, and trace the historical conditions that produced the
synthesis of inﬂuences

 

5 E.g., entertainer, teacher, transmitter of cultural tradition

62

APPENDIX B

MICHIGAN STATE

 

UNIVERSITY

 

517/5621”

PM 51 rim-45m

It. WNW/lute
E-Mi: W

UCRIHS Approval
April 29, 2002
T0: Cynthia TAGGART
209 Music Practice Bldg.

RE: IRB# 02-244 CATEGORY: EXEMPT 1-1, 1-2
APPROVAL DATE: April 24, 2002

TITLE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR MUSIC
EDUCATION WITHIN SECONDARY INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC PROGRAMS
IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this
projectiscompleteandiampleasedtoadvlsethattherlghtsandwelfareofthehmnan
subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal
form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a
project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures Involving human subjects, prior
to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal
form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written
mquest to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's iRB#
and title. Include In your request a description of the change and any revised instruments.
consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work,
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints. etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes In the research environment or new information indicating
greaterrisktothehuman subjectsthanerdstedwhenlheprotocolwasprevlouslyrevlewedand

approved.

‘ If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at (517) 355-2180 or via email:

UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
http’JIwwwmsuedu/userlucnhs

Sincerely.

/L

Ashir Kumar, MD.
UCRIHS Chair

Aszj

0°: Jason Skube

238 W. Saginaw St. #107
East Lansing, MI 48823

63

APPENDIX C

Consent Form: Exemplary Schools

 

Dear Secondary Instrumental Music Educator,
This letter is to obtain written consent from you regarding participation in my Masters thesis study.

The purpose of my study is to gather information on the implementation of the National Standards for
Music Education within secondary instrumental programs in the state of Michigan. To achieve this, I
have designed a survey, which has been sent to you, that reﬂects each of the nine Content Standards
determined for secondary music education. Additionally, I will analyze the music curricula from ten
pro-selected high school band programs (deemed exemplary by collegiate wind conductors) to
determine if the Content Standards are present within the document. Your school has been deemed an
exemplary school.

The degree to which the Content Standards are present within your music curriculum is not a pre-
requisite to participate in this portion of the study. I am asking that you voluntarily send me a copy of
your secondary instrumental music curriculum, speciﬁcally band, regardless of the level the Content
Standards may or may be present in the document. All curricular information will be in the sole
possession of the secondary investigator (myself) and the primary investigator for this study, Dr.
Cynthia Taggart, associate professor of music education, Michigan State University, and remain
conﬁdential at all times. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

By signing this letter, you indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this study. Your
participation is extremely appreciated. If any changes to the study are made you will be notiﬁed. If
you have any questions about this study, please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Taggart or myself. If you
have questions or concerns regarding your rights in this study, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any
aspect of this research, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish — Ashir Kumar, Chair of the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects.

 

 

Dr. Cynthia Taggart Ashir Kumar
School of Music Chair of the University Committee on
102 Music Building Research Involving Human Subjects
East Lansing, MI 48824 202 Olds Hall
517-432-9678, fax: 517-432-2880 East Lansing, MI 48824
ctaggart@msu.edu 517-355-2180, fax: 517-353-2976
ucrihs@msu.edu
I, , voluntarily
Signature
agree to participate in this study.
Date
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Jason T. Skube Home: 517-827-0827
721 N. Capitol, Suite #3 Work: 517-367-2225, fax: 517-367-2228

Lansing, MI 48906

64

APPENDIX D

Secondary Instrumental Music Educator Survey

 

General Information

Which best describes your school setting?

a) rural b) urban c) suburban
Are you a tenured teacher?
a) yes b) no

How many years have you been teaching?

What is your age?

If the investigators have a question concerning a response, may they contact you?
a) yes b) no

If yes, please indicate how we may contact you by providing either of the following:

Email:

 

Phone:

 

At the conclusion of this study, would you like a copy of the results via email?
a) yes b) no

If yes, please provide your email address:

 

SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS:
Please circle one answer per question. Written responses may be continued on the
back of the corresponding page or you may include a separate page. Please note the
key below before beginning.

 

 

Key: Seldom = once or twice per month
Occasionally = more than once or twice per month, but less than once per week
Frequently = at least once per week

 

PLEASE RETURN SURVEY BY WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002

65

 

1a.

lb.

lc.

2a.

2b.

2c.

3a.

How oﬁen do your students perform on instruments in solo a varied repertoire of music
within a two month period?

a) not at all b) seldom c) occasionally d) frequently e) every rehearsal

How competent do you feel in teaching your students to perform on instruments in solo a
varied repertoire of music?

a) not at all b) somewhat c) moderately so d) very much so

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to perform on
instruments in solo a varied repertoire of music, if any?

 

 

 

 

 

How often do your students perform on instruments with others a varied repertoire of
music within a two month period?

a) not at all b) seldom c) occasionally d) frequently e) every rehearsal

How competent do you feel in teaching your students to perform on instruments with
others a varied repertoire of music?

a) not at all b) somewhat c) moderately so d) very much so

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to perform on
instruments with others a varied repertoire of music, if any?

 

 

 

 

 

How often do your students improvise melodies, variations, and accompaniments within
a two month period?

a) not at all b) seldom c) occasionally (1) frequently e) every rehearsal

66

3b.

3c.

4a.

4b.

4c.

5a.

5b.

How competent do you feel in teaching your students to improvise melodies, variations,
and accompaniments?

a) not at all b) somewhat c) moderately so d) very much so

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to improvise melodies,
variations, and accompaniments, if any?

 

 

 

 

 

How often do your students compose music within speciﬁed guidelines in a two month
period?

a) not at all b) seldom c) occasionally (I) frequently e) every rehearsal
How competent do you feel in teaching your students to compose music?
a) not at all b) somewhat c) moderately so (I) very much so

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to compose music, if
any?

 

 

 

 

 

How often do your students arrange music within speciﬁed guidelines in a two month
period?

a) not at all b) seldom c) occasionally d) frequently e) every rehearsal
How competent do you feel in teaching your students to arrange music?

a) not at all h) somewhat c) moderately so (1) very much so

67

5c.

6a.

6b.

6c.

7a.

7b.

70.

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to arrange music, if
any?

 

 

 

 

 

How oﬁen do your students read music within a two month period?

a) not at all h) seldom c) occasionally d) frequently e) every rehearsal
How competent do you feel in teaching your students to read music?

a) not at all b) somewhat c) moderately so (1) very much so

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to read and notate
music, if any?

 

 

 

 

 

How often do your students notate music within a two month period?

a) not at all b) seldom c) occasionally (1) frequently e) every rehearsal
How competent do you feel in teaching your students to notate music?

a) not at all b) somewhat c) moderately so d) very much so

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to notate music, if any?

 

 

 

 

68

83.

8b.

80.

9a.

9b.

9c.

10a.

10b.

How often do your students listen to music within a two month period?

a) not at all b) seldom c) occasionally (1) frequently e) every rehearsal

How competent do you feel in teaching your students to partake in listening to music?
a) not at all b) somewhat c) moderately so (I) very much so

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to partake in listening
to music, if any?

 

 

 

 

 

How often do your students analyze music within a two month period?

a) not at all h) seldom c) occasionally (I) frequently e) every rehearsal

How competent do you feel in teaching your students to partake in analyzing music?
a) not at all b) somewhat c) moderately so (1) very much so

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to partake in analyzing
music, if any?

 

 

 

 

 

How oﬁen do your students describe music within a two month period?
a) not at all h) seldom c) occasionally d) frequently e) every rehearsal
How competent do you feel in teaching your students to partake in describing music?

a) not at all b) somewhat c) moderately so d) very much so

69

10c.

11a.

11b.

11c.

123.

12b.

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to partake in describing
music, if any?

 

 

 

 

 

How oﬁen do your students evaluate music and music performances within a two month
period?

a) not at all b) seldom c) occasionally d) ﬁ'equently e) every rehearsal

How competent do you feel in teaching your students to evaluate music and music
performances?

a) not at all h) somewhat c) moderately so (I) very much so

What types of activities do you implement to allow your students to evaluate music and
music performances, if any?

 

 

 

 

 

How often do you teach your students to understand relationships between music, the
other arts, and disciplines outside the arts within a two month period?

a) not at all b) seldom c) occasionally (I) frequently e) every rehearsal

How competent do you feel in teaching your students to understand relationships between
music, the other arts, and disciplines outside the arts?

a) not at all h) somewhat c) moderately so (1) very much so

70

12c.

13a.

13b.

13c.

14a.

14b.

What types of activities do you implement to promote your students’ understanding of
relationships between music, the other arts, and disciplines outside the arts, if any? Which
arts do you incorporate? Which subjects do you incorporate?

 

 

 

 

 

How often do you teach your students to understand music in relation to history within a
two month period?

a) not at all b) seldom c) occasionally d) frequently e) every rehearsal

How competent do you feel in teaching your students to understand music in relation to
history?

a) not at all b) somewhat c) moderately so d) very much so

What types of activities do you implement to promote your students’ understanding of
music in relation to history, if any? Which historical periods have you incorporated?

 

 

 

 

 

How often do you teach your students to understand music in relation to culture within a
two month period?

a) not at all b) seldom c) occasionally d) frequently e) every rehearsal

How competent do you feel in teaching your students to understand music in relation to
culture?

a) not at all b) somewhat c) moderately so (1) very much so

71

14c.

15.

16.

What types of activities do you implement to promote your students’ understanding of
music in relation to culture, if any? Which cultures have you incorporated?

 

 

 

 

 

What types of singing activities, individual or ensemble, do you incorporate in rehearsals,
if any?

 

 

 

 

 

What factors facilitate your teaching of the above curricular goals?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72

17. What factors hinder your teaching of the above curricular goals?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THANK YOU FOR YOU TIME!

73

APPENDIX E

Consent Form: Survey Participation

 

Dear Secondary Instrumental Music Educator,
This letter is to obtain written consent from you regarding participation in my Master’s thesis study.

The purpose of my study is to gather information on the implementation of the National Standards for
Music Education within secondary programs in the state of Michigan. To achieve this, I have designed
a survey that reﬂects each of the nine Content Standards determined for secondary music education.
Additionally, preselected high schools instrumental music curricula will be analyzed to determine if
the Content Standards are present within the document.

The degree to which the Content Standards are or are not taught within your program is not a pre-
requisite to participate in this study. I am asking that you voluntarily complete the survey regardless of
your level of familiarity of the Content Standards. Your responses will be in the sole possession of the
secondary investigator (myself) and the primary investigator for this study, Dr. Cynthia Taggart,
Associate Professor of Music Education, Michigan State University, and remain conﬁdential at all
times. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

By signing this letter, you indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and
returning this questionnaire to the secondary investigator. Your participation is extremely appreciated
and should take approximately 40 minutes of your time. If any changes to the study are made you will
be notiﬁed. If you have any questions about this study, please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Taggart or
myself. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights in this study, or are dissatisﬁed at any
time with any aspect of this research, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish — Ashir Kumar,
Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects.

 

 

Dr. Cynthia Taggart Ashir Kumar
School of Music Chair of the University Committee on
102 Music Building Research Involving Human Subjects
East Lansing, MI 48824 202 Olds Hall
517-432-9678, fax: 517-432-2880 East Lansing, MI 48824
ctaggart@msu.edu 517-355-2180, fax: 517-353-2976
ucrihs@msu.edu
I, , voluntarily
Signature
agree to participate in this study.
Date
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Jason Skube Home: 517-827-0827
721 N. Capitol, Suite #3 Work: 517-367-2225, fax: 517-367-2225

Lansing, MI 48906

74

APPENDIX F

Survey Cover Letter
May 9, 2002
Dear Music Educator,

Hello! My name is Jason Skube and I am a graduate music education student at
Michigan State University.

I am writing to ask for your assistance with my Master’s Thesis, which pertains to
the National Standards for Music Education. I have enclosed a survey that I have
designed to reﬂect the National Standards. Upon your consent, I am asking if you
will take your valuable time to complete the survey and send it back to me in the
provided self-addressed and stamped envelope by Wednesday, May 29, 2002.
Your input is extremely important and will assist in the production of meaningful
results that will shed light on how the National Standards have or have not
inﬂuenced our profession.

The survey is primarily multiple choice. You will also encounter some open-
ended questions. Your responses may be as concise as you desire (from one word
responses to sentences).

Please see the consent form attached to the survey for additional details
concerning this project. If you choose to participate, please sign and date the
consent form and include it with the completed survey upon return. Again, please
return the survey by Wednesday, May 29, 2002.

Thank you so much for your assistance and time!

Sincerely,

Jason T. Skube

Enclosures

Return address:

Jason Skube

C/O MCS

721 N. Capitol Ave, Suite 3
Lansing, MI 48906

75

APPENDIX G

Follow Up Letter
June 7, 2002

To: High School Band Directors
From: Jason Skube
RE: Thesis Survey

Dear High School Band Director:

Greetings! Recently, I sent you a survey that I designed for my Master’s Thesis. The
purpose of my thesis is to gather information on the implementation of the National
Standards for Music Education in the secondary instrumental (band) setting. By
completing the survey, you are providing me with the necessary feedback to compile
meaningful results.

Your input is extremely important. If you are willing to participate, please return the
completed survey in the self-addressed, stamped envelope I provided you.

Thank you for your understanding and time. Have a terriﬁc summer!

Respectfully,

Jason Skube

Home: 517-827-0827
Work: 517-367-2225
Fax: 517-367-2228

If you have misplaced your envelope, the sending address is:

Jason Skube

C/O MCS

721 N. Capitol Ave, Suite 3
Lansing, MI 48906

76

ll