No Child Left Behind

The "No Child Left Behind" act is the latest revision of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act and was signed into law by the Bush administration at the beginning of 2002. According to the Illinois State Board of Education website, the law requires that:

-All students will reach high standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading and mathematics by 2013-2014.
-By 2013-2014, all students will be proficient in reading by the end of the third grade.
-All limited English proficient students will become proficient in English.
-By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers.
-All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug free and conducive to learning.
-All students will graduate from high school.

In order for school districts to meet these goals, they must fulfill certain requirements:

-Annual testing of all students against state standards in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 and in science at three times in a student’s school career (including once in high school).
-“Verification” of each state’s assessment system via required participation (every other year) by selected districts in the NAEP test.
-Aggregate and disaggregate analysis and reporting of student achievement results.
-A state definition and timeline for determining whether a school, district and the state are making “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) toward the goal of 100 percent of students meeting state standards by the 2013-2014 school year.
-Technical assistance and then sanctions for schools, districts and the state for failure to make AYP.
-Highly qualified teachers in core academic subjects by 2005-2006.
-Highly qualified aides or paraprofessionals.
-Support for students not meeting standards and/or for those who have special needs (e.g., homeless, limited-English-proficiency).
-The use of “scientifically-based” programs and strategies.

The growing use of standards-based reformed and test-driven accountability, culminating in NCLB, has had an obvious effect on general education. Jennings and Stark Rentner (2006) cite ten big effects of the NCLB act on public schools:

1. State and district officials report that student achievement on state tests is rising, which is a cause for optimism.
2. Schools are spending more time on reading and math, sometimes at the expense of subjects not tested.
3. Schools are paying much more attention to the alignment of curriculum and instruction and are analyzing test score data much more closely.
4. Low-performing schools are undergoing make overs rather than the most radical kinds of restructuring.
5. Schools and teachers have made considerable progress in demonstrating that teachers meet the law's academic qualifications — but many educators are skeptical this will really improve the quality of teaching.
6. Students are taking a lot more tests.
7. Schools are paying much more attention to achievement gaps and the learning needs of particular groups of students.
8. The percentage of schools on state "needs improvement" lists has been steady but is not growing.
9. The federal government is playing a bigger role in education.
10. NCLB requirements have meant that state governments and school districts also have expanded roles in school operations, but often without adequate federal funds to carry out their duties.

Of greatest concern to music educators is point number two. In Gerrity's 2007 study on the impact of No Child Left Behind on music education in the state of Ohio, "Significant differences between the attitudes [toward music education] of principals serving in 'excellent' or 'effective' schools and the principals of 'academic watch' or 'academic emergency' schools were revealed," and "When considering the expectation of principals that music teachers devote some of their instructional time to other subjects, 43% of Ohio's music programs record a weaker status since the passage of No Child Left Behind." Additionally, Heffner's 2007 study surveying district and arts supervisors indicated that "since 2001, high-stakes testing has negatively impacted the number and variety of music classes, funding for music programs, the amount or [sic] instructional time allotted for music programs, and the number of students participating in music classes." Further studies and anecdotal stories yield the same conclusions.

In counteracting the negative effects of NCLB on arts education, educators should be aware that NCLB mandates the arts and music as a core subject. The problem, then, seems to be with state and district misinterpretation of the law and possibly not the law itself. The designation of arts as a core subject means that the arts can qualify for federal funding just as much as other core subjects (Morrison 2006).

Currently, the National Association for Music Education (MENC) is circulating a Petition for Equal Access to Music Education. MENC's goal is to gather one million signatures on paper petitions to deliver to the new Secretary of Education on June 18, 2009. The petition states, "Be it therefore resolved that the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as No Child Left Behind, not only identify music as a core subject, but also recognize music education as a mandatory component of every public education curriculum in the United States of America." The petition may be accessed here.


Gerrity, K. W. (2007). No Child Left Behind: Determining the impact of policy on music education. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, United States -- Ohio. Abstract retrieved March 15, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 3262133).

Heffner, C. J. (2007). The impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum, funding, instructional time, and student participation in music programs. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, United States -- Florida. Abstract retrieved March 15, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 3281531).

Illinois State Board of Education. No Child Left Behind (NCLB): Overview and Highlights. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.isbe.net/nclb/htmls/highlights.htm

Jennings, J. & Stark Rentner, D. (2006). Ten Big Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on the Public Schools. Center on Education Policy: Washington DC. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/12843

MENC: The National Association for Music Education (2008). 3 Ways to Change Music Education: Petition Drive. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.menc.org/resources/view/3-ways-to-change-music-education-petition-drive

Morrison, B. (2006). A Music Parents Guide to "No Child Left Behind." Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.oldmedia.com/ELMSbands/Newsletters/ParentTips.html

Soundscapes

Seriously hoping Google Docs beta is ready to move up to the next phase. Any other good document sharing sites anyone can recommend?

Creativity

Creativity is largely defined by what it is not: it is “not a deliberate imitation of something that already exists” (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, p. 172). Several factors define what creativity is, however, which can be connected to musical creativity. Once the traits related to creativity are clear, music educators must then decide the best structure and procedures in which to encourage creativity in all students.

Creativity can be divided into three traits: fluency, flexibility and originality. According to Abeles et al. (1995), who summarize J. P. Guilford’s ideas, “Fluency is the ease with which people can make associations of words or ideas. Flexibility involves changing procedures to solve a problem…. Originality is a trait involving the ability to think in unusual ways, to see relationships that others have not seen, and to think of new and different uses for ideas and objects” (pp. 172-173). Originality is often referred to as divergent thinking, and many psychologists and educators focus more on this factor of creativity than on the other traits. John Gardner describes creativity differently by citing the four traits of openness, independence, flexibility, and “the capacity to find order in experience” (p. 174). Many other psychologists offer overlapping views of the creative process and creative behaviors. Abeles et al. suggest that hard work, an artist’s place in history, and technological or cultural developments are factors that also contribute to perceived creativity.

There are two contrasting views on the best way to foster creativity in schools, and there is evidence to support each view: either imposing strict structures, or not imposing any structure. Proponents of structure/restrictions cite how overwhelming it could be for children to compose with no guidelines and that beginning with limited pitches and rhythms is an effective way to gradually become more creative. Similarly, it is important for improvisers of any genre to stay within a rhythmic and tonal structure that is appropriate for the style of music. However, some studies have shown that encouragement and freedom are the best approach to creativity, as further evidenced by creative “flowerings” within certain societies at specific periods in history in various artistic disciplines (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 179). Looking to the histories of different famous composers doesn’t offer much help in determining the best approach to creativity: some composers were discouraged and restricted by their family members, while others were highly encouraged.

Regardless of the approach music educators take, it is important for all students to make attempts at creative efforts. There are three reasons for this: one, students trying out musical ideas are learning ways of expressing themselves. Two, students are much more motivated by personal creative efforts. And three, students will learn music better through active engagement in the creative process (Abeles et al., 1995, pp. 177-178). Although it is difficult to pinpoint specific procedures that music educators can use to encourage creativity in the classroom, a general rule of thumb is to foster a positive atmosphere through student praise of creative efforts.


Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.

Pop Music

Social psychologists have repeatedly shown that adolescents need to feel self-confident and competent in their ability to operate in the adult world in order to develop a positive self-image. The implication of teenagers wanting their own music separate from adults can have an impact on the inclusion of “pop” music in music education.

Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1995) offer three guidelines for the treatment of pop music in the music classroom. First, the authors recommend that teachers do not tread on teenagers’ “turf” by using pop music as the main basis for performing or general music classes. Second, the teacher needs to keep his or her role in perspective and understand that he/she probably wouldn’t be able to teach pop music to the students’ standards, not to mention that authentic performances in the school setting seem unlikely. And third, teachers shouldn’t “trash talk” popular music to students: even though it wasn’t created for an aesthetic purpose, students appreciate teacher tolerance to pop as much as teachers appreciate student tolerance to art music (pp. 168-169).

Some teachers have tried to meet halfway with students by analyzing pop music in the classroom in the same way art music would be analyzed. However, Abeles et al. (1995) point out that some students fear this would “ruin” the piece for them. Instead, the authors suggest finding a balance by pointing out features of pop music that compare to elements of art music, thereby making art music more familiar and accessible to students and increasing the chances of preference. Or, teachers can play the role of social psychologist by showing students how pop music has a role in the larger scheme of society.


Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.

Socio-Economic Status

In American culture, individuals and groups are stratified into social statuses generally based upon wealth, occupation and education. This socio-economic status (SES) is relevant to music educators because it affects the kinds of music people know and like.

Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1995) describe three reasons for differences in musical preferences based upon SES. First, people with higher SES display a “deferred gratification pattern” in their music tastes, whereas peoples with lower social status do not (p. 128). This suggests that upper-SES people would be more interested in art music and that lower-SES people would want music that is “simple and direct.” A second reason cited is cultural reinforcement within the SES group. Regular exposure to certain types of music is positively correlated to musical preference; children grow up hearing music that their parents and friends usually from the same SES prefer, thus perpetuating a preference cycle within a social stratus. Thirdly, the authors point out the “comfort factor,” in which people not only like what they’re familiar with but also feel “more comfortable and confident with it” (pp. 129-130). Folkways associated with musical performances often play a large role in this third factor.

The implications of social stratification affecting musical preferences are immense for music educators. Abeles et al. (1995) cite four considerations. One, music educators should be understanding of differences in SES when schools are made up almost entirely of one SES group. Two, music educators should understand their obligation to include art music in the curriculum since school is the only place many children will ever experience it. Three, music educators can make students comfortable with art music, hopefully negating the SES “comfort factor” musical taste predictor (p. 129). Fourth, music educators should try to teach students to value music that doesn’t supply instant gratification, therefore eliminating another SES factor in influencing musical preferences.


Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.

Social Functions of Music

Although musicians and music educators are often aware of the aesthetic functions of music, attention should also be paid to social functions. The social functions of music span a wide variety of activities and contexts but are still clearly separated from artistic functions.

Sociologists offer many explanations for the social purposes of music. The anthropologist Allan Merriam lists ten: emotional expression, aesthetic enjoyment, entertainment, communication, symbolic representations, physical response, enforcing conformity to social norms, validation of social institutions and religious rituals, contribution to the continuity and stability of culture, and contribution to the integration of society (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, pp. 123-124). Max Kaplan, a writer on music education and sociology, cites eight social functions: as a form of knowledge, collective possession, personal experience, therapy, moral and symbolic force, incidental commodity, symbolic indicators of change, and as a link with the past (p. 124). Music sociologist Paul Honigsheim names ceremonial, entertainment, accompaniment for work, use in the home, concerts, and oratorios as social functions of music (p. 124). And finally, psychologist E. Thayer Gaston identifies the need for aesthetic experience, the enhancement of religion, communication, emotional response, gratification, and the potency of music in the group situation (p. 124). Abeles et al. (1995) point out that in American society, music is often a “sonic background” for non-musical activities; this trend seems to have grown exponentially since the authors’ 1995 publication with the advent and extreme popularity of personal mp3 players in the early 21st century (p. 124). Although each of these theories presents itself differently, there is much overlap, allowing musicians and music educators to have a general grasp of the social functions of music.

The artistic, aesthetic functions of music differ from the social functions, despite mention by each theorist of the aesthetic purpose. According to Abeles et al. (1995), the aesthetic view of musical purpose is that “art music functions to meet a desire that human beings have to represent certain ideas in sound, or to symbolize states of feeling, or to transcend everyday life…. Any effects on the listener in terms of promoting actions or beliefs are largely incidental and irrelevant to the main purpose of the music” (p. 125). Clearly, this is a much more lofty and philosophical but much more narrow view of musical function, as sociologists, psychologists and social psychologists would be quick to point out.

It is important for music educators to bear in mind these social functions for several reasons. One, the social function of a piece of music should affect the way it is presented to students because of necessarily different pedagogical approaches. Two, students should recognize different social functions of music in order to adjust their listening approaches. Finally, nonmusical associations in music are relevant to understanding the musical context and therefore should be taught to students as well (Abeles et al., 1995).


Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.