Teachout PD Article

JOURNAL OF MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATION

This material is copyrighted by MENC: The National Association for Music Education. You can read or download a single print of an MENConline journal exactly as if you had purchased a subscription to a journal in print form. You do not have any other rights or license to thismaterial. This material cannot be reproduced, retransmitted, or reprinted without permission from MENC. This means multiple copies forhandout or library reserve cannot be made. Placing on Web sites or school broadcast systems is prohibited, and printing in full or part inother documents is not permitted. To make use of an article or a journal in any of the afore mentioned circumstances, please send a requestto our editorial department ([email protected]), fax a request to Caroline Arlington at 703-860-9443, or call for more information at 800-336-3768, x238.

J.M.T.E.Spring 2005 Volume 14, Number 2

Society for Music Teacher Education Executive CommitteeChairperson

David TeachoutUniversity of North Carolina–Greensboro

Eastern RepresentativeSusan Conkling

Eastman School of Music

Southwestern RepresentativeRobin Stein

Texas State University–San Marcos

North Central RepresentativeLinda Thompson

University of Minnesota

Southern RepresentativeJanet Robbins

West Virginia University

Northwest RepresentativeTina Bull

Oregon State University

Western RepresentativeJeffrey E. Bush

Arizona State University

Member-at-LargeSara Bidner

Southeastern Louisiana University

Chair-ElectDon Ester

Ball State University

Journal of Music Teacher Education Editorial CommitteeWilliam Fredrickson, Editor

University of Missouri–Kansas City

Barbara BrinsonState University of New York–Fredonia

Mitchell RobinsonMichigan State University

Alan GummCentral Michigan University

Kimberly WallsAuburn University

Alice HammelJames Madison University

Cecilia WangUniversity of Kentucky

Debra HeddenUniversity of Kansas

Molly WeaverWest Virginia University

MENC Staff

MENC Executive DirectorJohn J. Mahlmann

Deputy Executive DirectorMichael Blakeslee

Director, Music Educators Journal and PublicationsFrances Ponick

Associate EditorTeresa K. Preston

The Journal of Music Teacher Education (ISSN 1057-0837) is published twice yearly by MENC: The National Associationfor Music Education, 1806 Robert Fulton Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4348.

JOURNAL OF MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATION

J.M.T.E.Spring 2005 Volume 14, Number 2

CONTENTS

Special Issue: The Future of Music EducationIntroductionDavid Circle

3

From the ChairA Call for Action in Music Teacher Education

David Teachout5

What to Do about Music Teacher Education: Our Profession at a CrossroadsJeffrey Kimpton

8

What Partnerships Must We Create, Build, or Reenergize in K–12 Higher and Professional Education for MusicTeacher Education in the Future?

Janet Robbins and Robin Stein22

Where Will the Supply of New Teachers Come From, Where Shall We Recruit, and Who Will Teach TheseProspective Teachers?

William E. Fredrickson and J. Bryan Burton30

What Is the Role of MENC, NASM, or Other State or National Professional Organizations in Providing Leadershipand Support for New Research and Models?

Don P. Ester and David J. Brinkman37

Editor’s CommentaryAssumptions

William E. Fredrickson44

An Analysis of Certification Practices for Music Education in the Fifty StatesMichele L. Henry

47

The Effects of Field Experience on Music Education Majors’ Perceptions of Music Instruction for SecondaryStudents with Special Needs

Kimberly VanWeelden and Jennifer Whipple62

Announcements70

JMTE, Spring 2005, 3

Special Issue: The Future of Music Teacher EducationIntroduction

David CirclePresident, MENC: The National Association for Music Education

Music education can be discussed, dissected, and scrutinized from many differentperspectives. A person’s perspective is normally determined by the facet of music education inwhich that person is engaged. The challenge for all of us who profess to be music educators is toperceive the totality of music education. Our challenge, also, is to collaborate with other musiceducators, regardless of their perspective or point of view, and to work continually to improve allfacets of music education. Music teacher education at the university level is a major key in our collective efforts to bringabout this improvement. To use the standard chain analogy, music teacher education is one of thevital links in the quality of music education in our K–12 classrooms as well as in the quantity ofmusic educators being produced for those classrooms. There is interdependency in this musical life cycle as students progress from Pre-K throughcollege to become music educators. If there is a weak link at any stage of this cycle, the entiresystem suffers. It is incumbent upon every music educator to be cognizant of thisinterdependency and to be dedicated to working collaboratively with other music educators forthe improvement of the quality of instruction regardless of the music specialty or instructionallevel. An examination of the challenges faced in music teacher education and suggestions foraddressing those challenges are in this special issue of JMTE. From the perspective of a K–12school district music coordinator and MENC president, here are a few more. Rather than training band directors, choir directors, orchestra directors, and general musicteachers, make a paradigm shift and educate students to think of themselves as music educators.The tools to be successful band, choir, orchestra, and general music teachers must continue to betaught because those are the classes students will be teaching when they graduate. However, ifwe provide these tools from a broader philosophical base, these new teachers may be more likelyto teach musical skills, concepts, and knowledge to students through band, choir, orchestra, andgeneral music classes. Most students graduating from teacher education programs do not have all the skills andknowledge needed to be successful teachers for their entire careers. Staff-development programsand relevant in-services are needed. University music faculty should take the initiative and workcooperatively with school districts to provide these experiences. Attending state conventions andworkshops once or twice a year is not adequate. In order for university music education faculty to remain current and to keep their teaching


relevant, programs should be developed that allow these professors to periodically go back intoK–12 classrooms to actually teach for a semester. Collaborative programs similar to visitingprofessorships or teacher exchange programs could be developed with neighboring schooldistricts. Observing student teachers provides music education professors a glimpse of what ishappening in K–12 classrooms, but that exposure can be vicarious and not as realistic as being“the teacher” day in and day out. As MENC president, I applaud the work being done and the contributions being made by ouruniversity music education colleagues. We have always had challenges in music education andalways will. We can meet those challenges and turn them into accomplishments by joiningtogether and having a unified focus. In 2007 MENC will celebrate its centennial. Much has beenaccomplished in our first 100 years. Change is inevitable as we focus on the future of musiceducation. To quote a favorite maxim: “If not now, when? If not us, who?”


Special Issue: The Future of Music Teacher Education

From the ChairA Call for Action in Music Teacher Education

David TeachoutChair, Society of Music Teacher Education

In spring 2003, when it was announced that Jeff Kimpton (president of Interlochen Center forthe Arts and formerly the director of the University of Minnesota School of Music) wouldpresent a keynote speech at the SMTE preconference session of the 2004 MENC NationalBiennial Conference in Minneapolis, I contacted him to see what he had in mind for the session.Having worked with Jeff for a number of years, I knew two things: the presentation would belively, and he would want to ask his audience to do more than simply sit and listen. His idea wasto end the initial presentation with three provocative questions and ask the audience to formbreakout groups to discuss possible answers/solutions to each question before reassembling toshare ideas. His intention was to give “legs” to the ideas discussed, promoting continuedthinking and action well after the final applause died down and the hall cleared. This special issue is presented in an effort to sustain the work and broaden the audiencebeyond those who attended the SMTE preconference session on that Wednesday afternoon. Itcontains Jeff’s presentation and three articles, each a synopsis of the discussion work that wasaccomplished in the breakout groups. I thank my fellow executive board members, Robin Stein,Janet Robbins, Bryan Burton, Don Ester, and David Brinkman, and JMTE editor WilliamFredrickson, for monitoring the work accomplished in the breakout groups and for authoring thethree articles that encapsulate that work. I also thank those who participated in each of thebreakout groups for providing important contributions with their ideas and discussion. Finally, Ithank David Circle, president of MENC, for providing his perspective in an introduction to thisspecial issue. As I read through the content of these pieces and look around to notice the mercurial but ever-present forces exerting pressure on the music teacher education profession, I see a professionbeing asked to reinvent itself in order to maintain relevance. In his introduction, David Circlecalls for us as music teacher educators to facilitate a change in how future music teachers thinkof themselves, away from simply being band directors, choir directors, orchestra directors, andgeneral music teachers and toward being music educators. The implications of this worthy perspective change are enormous. Let us assume that allfuture music educators make such a role-identification shift. Rather than simply having had fondmemories of the choir trip or felt the sense of accomplish from successfully tackling the 2ndclarinet part to a Holst Suite, their students would finish a K–12 education with a level ofmusical expertise and sense of relevance connecting what was learned in music class to the manycultural opportunities that surround their lives. The potential impact is one in which their


students would learn about and incorporate mature musical understandings and creative activitiesto enhance the aesthetic quality of their daily lives to the same degree they presently incorporateunderstandings of math, reading, and science to function productively in society. And, perhaps,the value of music education might be more fully recognized and supported by the decisionmakers and policy makers. The challenges associated with such a worthy shift are also enormous. First of all, we wouldneed to reconsider how we approach music teacher development. If, as many have reiterated, thedefinition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results, then we cannotcontinue to train music teachers using methodologies of the past and expect new outcomes. Wewould need to examine every step of the current teacher-development process carefully andobjectively and be willing to consider new methodologies that better facilitate the professionalidentity of “music educator” among our undergraduates. Assuming that we can successfullyaccomplish such a complex undertaking, our newly minted teachers then face the daunting taskof surviving in a professional culture that currently provides few rewards to the successful“music educator,” but many to the successful “band director,” “choir director,” “orchestradirector,” or “general music teacher.” Yes, the challenges are enormous, but the opportunity tomove the profession forward in such a profoundly positive manner is exciting and keenlyenticing to more than just a few of us music teacher educators. We must be careful to recognize, however, that the profession as a whole is facing challengesthat are more ominous than the facilitation of a paradigm shift in teacher thinking. These aredefining challenges because how we meet them will determine the future of music teachereducation and, consequently, of K–12 music education. Most critical are the factors contributingto the music teacher shortage. In his address, Jeff Kimpton systematically identifies elements ofa “fractured ecosystem” that have contributed to the shortage and describes the consequences ofcontinuing to do business as usual. Jeff warns, “we’re always going to have music education, butprobably not in the way that we have defined it in the programs and standards book” (p. 10). Hefinishes by asking three questions: (a) What partnerships must we create, build, or reenergize inK–12, higher, and professional education for music teacher education in the future? (b) Wherewill the supply of new teachers come from? and (c) What is the role of MENC, NASM, or otherstate or national professional organizations in providing leadership and support for new researchand models? The careful work and thoughtful responses to these questions by members of thebreakout groups are provided in the three articles that follow and represent an important andlaudable start to a much-needed critical examination of the options before us. This work,however, must continue. In the effort to provide the “legs” that were intended, SMTE is holding its first Symposium onMusic Teacher Education, titled Music Teacher Education: Rethinking, Researching,Revitalizing. This event will be held on the campus of the University of North Carolina at


Greensboro (UNCG) on Septbember 15–17, 2005, and is cosponsored by MENC, The CollegeMusic Society, the UNCG School of Music, and the Music Research Institute at the UNCGSchool of Music. The purpose of this symposium is to explore current critical issues in musicteacher education and to construct plans of prospective action and research in the effort toadvance coordinated and sustained work on these issues. The first of several opportunities tocontinue further the needed work will be at the SMTE preconference session during the MENCbiennial conference in Salt Lake City in 2006. There is additional information about theSymposium at the back of this issue. It is my sincere hope that this special issue and the events planned for the future will providean ongoing forum to which all members of the music teacher education profession will becompelled to contribute ideas, research, and models of effective practice that might eventuallygive rise to successful solutions.



What To Do About Music Teacher Education:Our Profession at a Crossroads

By Jeffrey Kimpton

Jeffrey Kimpton is president of the Interlochen Center for the Arts in Interlochen, Michigan,and the former director of the School of Music and professor of music education at theUniversity of Minnesota–Twin Cities. The following is the text of a presentation to a meeting ofthe Society for Music Teacher Education, Music Educators National Conference, Minneapolis,Minnesota, April 2004.

I am a product of the “golden age” of music education, the system that prepared so many ofus in the 1960s and 1970s. I have taught hundreds of students, been responsible for musiceducation programs that involved thousands more, and developed extensive curriculum andassessment tools to measure them. I led hundreds of teachers in rural, suburban, and urbandistricts; I have trained and provided professional development for thousands more. I have hiredprofessors and administrated a major research university school of music where nearly half ofour students were in music education. I have watched and chronicled the role and place of musicand the arts in hundreds of cities and towns across this country. My experiences in rural,suburban, and urban school systems, and nationally in nearly every state in the union, have givenme a very unique national vantage point from which to talk candidly and honestly with youabout the crossroads we stand before today in this profession. You’ll forgive me then if I seem somewhat impatient. I have been talking and presentingabout teacher education at Music Educators National Conference (MENC) gatherings since1984. Twenty years. Let me tell you why I am impatient. From 1984–1987, I sat on the TaskForce on Music Teacher Education, impaneled in 1984 by MENC president Paul Lehman to lookat the issues in music teacher preparation in the aftermath of the report A Nation at Risk. MENCsuggested one meeting together and phone conferences; we sought a more systemic andcomprehensive view of our profession. We obtained a grant of $50,000 from YamahaCorporation to take two years and travel across the country to look at the state of music teaching.We clearly heard the heartbeat of music educators of all types and kinds. We interviewededucation reformers and college deans, education commissioners, and state supervisors of music.We talked with future music educators deep into their college preparation and with those careereducators who were icons in the profession and had spent their entire life teaching and leading.We talked with those educators who had burned out and left the profession—some after just twoor three years, others after 15 and 20 years. Our report, Partnership and Process, published by MENC in 1987, indicated several things,but it first and foremost said that the way in which we were preparing music educators wasinconsistent with the challenges being presented to music educators in actual practice and was


clearly out of step with the deep issues found in K–12 education at that time. We forecastsignificant teacher shortages unless new partnerships were forged within and between the musicdisciplines that provided a new core of musical and academic experiences to better prepareteachers. We recommended a new design for teacher education programs, including significantchanges in how we recruit new teachers into the profession, changes in the way in whichteachers are prepared to be successful in teaching, and a major restructuring of the professionaldevelopment opportunities and partnerships that help retain music educators. And we predictedthat only if the profession was prepared to make significant new systemic changes in these areaswould we then find a core of exemplary teachers willing to become music teachereducators—the teachers of teachers—for the next century. After three years of talking and listening “in the trenches” we could see the future before us.On the one hand the prospect of a teacher shortage—in both numbers and quality—wasfrightening. But it was also exciting because so many that we talked with saw the opportunitiesto reshape music teacher education in ways that made sense and viewed MENC as theresponsible catalyst that could inspire a new generation of music teachers—and those who teachthem. When we submitted the draft to MENC, we were stunned by the reaction. The NationalExecutive Board of MENC was concerned that the report would “inflame” the NationalAssociation of Schools of Music (NASM) because of the bold suggestion that the 65/35 split ofacademic and musical course work was inappropriate for music education majors. MENC waseven more concerned that we might upset the theorists and musicologists and the appliedfaculties with our suggestions of new interdisciplinary programs of preparation that taughtimprovisation, arranging, composition, jazz history, and the study of musicology in asociopolitical context. Regrettably, we did not find advocates for our work. What has happened during the ensuing 16 years since this report was issued? Well, the factthat the Society for Music Teacher Education had to push for this session is indicative of the factthat we’re still waiting for leadership from, and standing in, this organization (MENC), as wellas recognition that there is a need for new models, sponsored research or networks of collegesand districts, teachers and professors and students doing innovative work. I find it ironic that, ata time when music teacher educators and their professional organization need to be united inpurpose and intent, there is a teacher mentoring session going on opposite this session. Our colleagues at NASM are also very concerned and have mounted a sustained effort tomake the issue of music education a continuing dialogue at their annual conventions. I thankthem for this well-intentioned but tardy action. Their motivation is real; with more than 50% ofthe students in the nation’s nearly 700 NASM-accredited music schools being music educationmajors, the decline in teachers and programs threatens the stability of schools of music too. Yetwhen one of the deans of this country’s most prestigious music schools suggested to the faculty


of that school that there needed to be an increase in the number of music education majors andthat curriculum and financial aid needed to reflect the need for more music teachers, that deanwas met with stiff opposition by the faculty. The answer at that school: increase the licensuretrack for alternative certification. If what I am going to say today isn’t the reality of how things are in your university orprogram, then let’s hear from you, because we all need to share new models. But from mynational perspective, that’s not what I am seeing. If you will be offended today by my candor, Iapologize. As a music educator, I am offended by the inability of our profession to tackle thisissue. I am not being disrespectful; I am being deeply respectful of this profession in which I wasraised, one that I have expended a lifetime working to change and improve. I hope that thequestions that I raise today and the solutions that we will discuss this afternoon will generatenew thinking, new models, new research, and a new boldness for our own actions as musiceducators and music teacher educators. Music education is at a crossroads, and the time we have to make the decision about whichroad to take is growing shorter with each year that we wait. The future viability of the musicalacademy and the vitality of music study in K–12 education is at stake in this country. Schools ofmusic in this country initially grew because they were the primary source of music teachers forthis country. I don’t believe that music in higher education will survive—at least in the numberand quality that exist today—if the responsibility for preparing future teachers is abdicated byschools and departments of music in the future. This issue has deep historical roots, and the patterns have been evident for quite some time.They include the shifting place of music in the American educational curriculum, the push ofAmerican popular culture, changes in the place and time in which we provide educationalexperiences, the relentless change in the role of technology and media in learning, the fortunes ofteacher employment, salaries, and student access at the mercy of decades of seesawing state andlocal budgets. And yet, American society—and American musical society—in 2004 is vibrant, alive,mercurial, reacting to huge pressures of economy, wealth, science, technology and media, race,class, culture, and ethnicity—an artistic and musical culture and educational system redefiningitself in constant reaction to this complex society in these very complex times. The challenge ofproviding the next generation of music educators has been made infinitely more complex by thechanging environment of education and society. Let’s understand something from the outset:we’re always going to have music education but probably not in the way that we have defined itin the programs and standards book. There will be more after-school programs, communityeducation programs, programs sponsored by symphonies and operas and in for-profit andnonprofit music academies and music businesses. Music education may not come in minutes perweek bites and with certified teachers in traditional school classrooms. Take a look at the


McPhail Center for the Arts here in Minneapolis, where 6,000 students—of all ages—comeevery week for lessons, ensembles, classes, and enrichment, taught by a talented and dedicatedcadre of teachers, many of whom have degrees in music education, and many more who do not,but who are very fine music educators! What these trends tell me is that the confluence ofpolicies and programs in music, K–12 education, higher education, and professionalorganizations that have contributed to this situation are being bypassed on a more frequent basis.This trend will continue. We can choose to be a part of it, or ignore it.

How Big Is the Problem? The numbers are staggering and should be of great concern. Even though American schoolsof music have experienced an increase of more than 12,000 music majors in the past decade, andmusic education enrollments are up, which is good news, performance enrollments haveskyrocketed. In 2000, we produced about 3,600 newly certified music education undergraduatesfor about 9,000 vacancies (Hickey, 2002). This is about a thousand more degreed graduates thanwere produced a decade ago. In 2001, we produced 3,897 new undergraduates in musiceducation for about 11,000 vacancies (Lindemann, 2002). We increased the number of graduatesby nearly 300, but the number of vacancies increased by 2,000. That disparity will increase asthe huge number of boomer teachers enter early retirement age. However, these numbers aremisleading, because they assume that every one of those new graduates wants to teach. What itdoesn’t tell us is the number of new teachers who choose not to teach after their student-teachingexperience. Recent figures from The American Association for Employment in Education(AAEE) report that only about 60% of those earning degrees in education actually take ateaching job—which means that 40% of new teachers never set foot in a classroom.Furthermore, of those who do choose to teach, 30 to 50% will remain in teaching for less thanfive years, even less in urban schools (AAEE, 2001). Even if the actual numbers for musicteachers are somewhat above these averages, the trends are of great concern. Any profession thatretains only three in ten new professionals cannot survive as we know it. What is the cause of this phenomenon of never actualizing your degree, or dropping out soearly in the experience? Some of this has to do with the program of preparation, which I willdiscuss later on in this presentation, but much of it has to do with location. Many students,especially those without urban experience, do not want to teach “other people’s children”—thosein urban areas or suburban areas with high levels of diversity. Vacancies are highest in urban andrural districts. Few want to teach in tough neighborhoods with students who didn’t come fromcommunities like theirs, and if they do, it is for a short time. And, no one wants to teach in adistrict that is more than an hour from a major metropolitan area. Everyone wants the same jobs,in affluent and stable medium-sized towns, small cities or affluent suburban districts withmotivated students and good budgets, close to their friends and Pottery Barn. I will wager that


this is where most of our music education students come from in the first place. When beginningteachers can’t get one of those jobs, they choose not to teach. Even if we doubled currentenrollments in music education in this country, something I do not think the current system iscapable of producing, and even if every music teacher chose to teach, we would still face ashortage of at least 30%. I think it is time to admit that the long-vaunted ecosystem of music teacher preparation—therelationship between K–12 schools, schools of music, and professional music organizations thathas historically nurtured the growth of music teaching in this country—is fractured. We are justnow beginning to realize the fragility of that ecosystem, a delicate balance and interrelationshipbetween recruiting, preparing, and retaining teachers that has been a key source of strength forthis profession. Without a new generation of music educators, professional musical preparationin this country is at risk. No private system will ever be able to produce the numbers of futuremusicians who want to become teachers or teacher educators or performers that we require inthis country. The dimensions of this problem defy our normal solutions. Advocating for moreteachers and tinkering with a system of music education designed for a different time, a differentsociety, and a different kind of education system is unrealistic. We cannot expect the samesystems that got us here in the first place to devise the solutions that will solve the problem. Thesheer size and diversity of this country, the change in the cultural context in which theseinstitutions exist, and the very carefully defined roles that each institution in the musicprofession now plays make it difficult for us to look systematically at—let alone act on—theissues causing this crisis. What has happened? The parts of the ecosystem on which we have traditionallydepended—K–12 music educators, state education agencies, schools of music, and professionalmusic and education organizations—have fragmented into independent organizations andinstitutions with very different and often incompatible agendas. The institutions themselves havebecome more important than the discipline they serve. Each of these parts of the ecosystemaddress the issue of finding, preparing, and retaining music educators as separate issues—or notat all—rather than as the sum of the parts of the ecosystem.

Teachers and Preparation An increasing number of K–12 music educators, particularly those who are new, view theirwork as a temporal profession, a job they hold for an indeterminate period of time among aseries of career opportunities. That view is supported by the number of new graduates in musiceducation who choose never to teach, the high dropout rates in the initial years of teaching, andthe numbers of music teachers electing early retirement options. Recent research (Bergee,Coffman, Demorest, Humphreys, & Thornton, 2001) indicates that music teachers themselvesare the greatest single reason why young music students in middle and high school choose to


enter the music education profession. That fact points to the interrelationship of the ecosystem,for without seasoned career professionals providing positive models, mentors, and motivators forfuture generations of music students, the pipeline for incoming new teachers (and I might add,applied majors too) will be a very thin one indeed. And without music educators staying in theprofession long enough to gain the expertise and desire to prepare another generation of musiceducators, we have no ready pool of future music education professors, another areaexperiencing a critical shortage. To be honest, we are facing the de-professionalization of musicteacher education in very short order as we race to find contract faculty who can quickly preparestudents or develop equivalency or licensure programs full of performance majors who couldn’tget jobs and think they want to teach—and probably can and should. Is preparing studentsquickly for minimal competency what we want as a profession? Is this the expertise on whichfuture schools of music and student music experience will depend?

Challenges within the Academy Schools of music have played a unique role in the preparation of a professional core of musiceducators in this country. Until the early 1990s most music education programs required145–150 (or more) credits for graduation, back in the days when tuition was cheap and youcould take 22–24 credits per semester. Those days no longer exist. But when they did exist,students took separate semesters on each supplemental instrument; multiple semesters ofconducting, methods, and lab ensemble experiences; arranging; and more field experience. Asthe cost of higher education began to burgeon and states (and parents) were seeking neat four-year solutions to increasing costs, limits were imposed where about 120 credits becameequivalent to a bachelors degree, regardless of the discipline. It was a simplistic solution withserious consequences. As degree programs were required to shrink toward that magic 120-creditlimit, the strict adherence of schools of music to the 75-year-old NASM policy of 65% musiccontent, 35% methods/other courses, and an increase in state-mandated courses and exitrequirements forced many music education programs to disproportionately reduce the number ofmusic education courses. There was no corresponding decrease in theory or musicology courses,and in fact many schools actually increased theory and musicology, raised applied requirementsto one hour for all majors, and added chamber music requirements to ensemble requirements.Today we graduate music education majors who are, as my friend Paul Haack says, “minimallycompetent and capable of doing no great damage.” In other words, our students are leaving ouruniversities less equipped to handle the increasing challenges of K–12 instruction andmanagement than they were 20 years ago. I am convinced that there is a direct correlationbetween the reduction in the number of music education courses and experiences and the dropoutrate of entry-level music teachers. Even if we wanted to increase the number of music education students in schools of music, I


doubt that our colleagues in applied and academic areas would endorse such an idea, and Iquestion whether there is the leadership in schools of music to raise the flag. The wellintentioned letter sent in 2002 from NASM leadership to NASM member institutions askingthem to support the growth of music education majors has not been warmly embraced by ouracademic and performance colleagues, particularly in the largest Tier I institutions. We mayneed to turn the microscope upon ourselves as music schools to understand the environment thathas partially produced this problem. There is a virtual class system in schools of music betweenmusic education and performance majors, particularly at some of our largest and most respectedinstitutions. Music education students are viewed as second-class citizens with “lesser” musicaland academic qualities. Many applied professors limit the number of music education students intheir studios; some schools even have standing quotas that prevent large numbers of musiceducation students from being accepted. If we were to tally the number and amount ofscholarships given to performance and education (which could be a really valuable question forthe Higher Education Arts Data Services report), I can almost predict that the largest number andsize of scholarships are overwhelmingly awarded to performance students. It would be a rareadministrator who would change that formula, but I do believe that it bears review if we areserious about solving this problem. What bothers me more than anything is the decline in anticipated longevity of those who dochoose to teach. A couple of years ago I participated in a leadership conference for young musiceducators in Minnesota, 15 teachers in their first three to seven years of their teaching careersbrought together in a leadership training institute. Before we started, however, I asked them todescribe their experience to date. Only 4 of the 15 had originally started out in music—the restcame to it because they loved music and were frustrated in their first majors of computers,business, and pre-med to general education. The majority of them mentioned that their highschool directors had been role models; almost everyone doubted they would make teaching alifelong profession. When I asked them why they didn’t think they would last beyond 15 years, they talked ofmany frustrations, wanting more options and choices in lifestyle (location), and wanting a bettereconomic future for themselves and their families (salaries). They talked of the terrible isolationthey experience each day in their schools, where music is marginally a part of the curriculum andthey have no one to share their teaching challenges with because they are often the only musicteacher. Most were afraid that their jobs were all too expendable in the next budget crisis, andthey all wished that they had more experience with the politics of education, a greaterunderstanding of the issues of school finance and the education reform and accountabilitymovement, and a better knowledge of their communities. Interestingly enough, most of them feltthat they left their undergraduate institution relatively well equipped to teach—until the firstweek of school in their first job. And then they spoke with great clarity about the lack of


experience in methods and techniques, improvisation and arranging, reflective practice andanalysis, conducting, materials selection—and the artificiality of the student-teaching experienceand its relationship to “real” teaching. They had strong feelings about how they would changetheir preparation. As one young woman told me, “if we trained doctors the way we wereprepared to be music teachers, we would all be dead.” This raises an interesting question. If students leave a school of music with minimal coursesand competencies, where do they gain a connection to professional development that is a part ofall professions? It would seem that the university would have some role in professionaldevelopment, but the reality of that is that universities aren’t really involved in professionaldevelopment. For the most part, higher education gives credits that lead to degrees that are notlinked to individual teacher skill and competence. You sign up for graduate courses on a degreeplan that may have no connection to what you need to be more successful as a teacher. I havelong said that new information on top of no previous learning does not prepare master teachers.Few if any institutions today have the time, faculty resources, and I daresay real faculty interestto stay connected with young music educators once they receive their diploma and enter thefield. There is no incentive in higher education to be involved in postgraduate professionaldevelopment; merit and salary review considerations would view that as service and notcreativity or scholarship. Statewide systems such as those in Virginia and Connecticut are notspecific to music education and have had problems. Higher education will quickly point tograduate programs as professional development, but those programs are not usually the kinds ofexperiences, courses, or skills that relate to the instructional process and teacher developmentalskills many novice teachers feel they need to be successful in the profession. We need newmodels, and they may not be able to come from higher education.

Professional Development and Professional Organizations Most of us think that professional development is the responsibility of state and nationalprofessional organizations in music education, but a careful look at these institutions will revealthat they are not really engaged in the professional development of teachers. These groups havechosen two clear directions: advocacy and holding conventions. The cost of advocacy hasdiverted resources from the issue of teacher capacity and professional development. I am deeplyconcerned that our national and state professional organizations are so firmly entrenched in theadvocacy movement that they have marginalized themselves in being part of the solution to theteacher education movement. Advocacy may have been something we had to do, and it mayhave prevented an even greater deterioration of music education in our nation’s schools, but after25 years of trying to convince this country that music is important, are we stronger and morevibrant in the quality and quantity of programs than we were 30 years ago? Advocacy is aperpetual job, rather like mowing the grass, and noble and valiant as those efforts have been, I


have to ask if anyone is really listening to the message? If, after nearly three decades ofadvocacy, in a country with more music education than any other industrialized country in theWestern world, we can’t find enough teachers to teach and we are still seeing music education ina perpetual crisis with every hiccup of the economy, then what role has advocacy played increating the climate for arts education that it has espoused? As I indicated in the forward toColleen Conway’s 2003 book on music teacher mentoring, if we had taken just half of the moneywe expended on the National Standards movement and spent it on creating models,collaborations, investments in new research for teacher education and mentoring, we mightreally have helped the supply of teachers be better equipped to teach well with the Standards. Our almost singular focus on advocacy has prevented us from seeing the systemic problemsin teacher education. We have become so concerned about the slick delivery, positive packaging,and celebrity endorsement of the advocacy message of curricular legitimacy that we have beencoopted by the very entertainment world that is the antithesis of the Standards-based, sequentialinstruction in music education we have espoused for years, an entertainment industry that isthreatening live classical musical culture in this country, and by association music education andmusic teacher education. Please show me the proof that Justin Timberlake, Shari Lewis, countrymusic stars, Bose stereo discounts, the ’N Sync/Herbalescence contests and lesson plans, and theOscar Meyer composition contest are really helping teachers, and especially young teachers,keep their jobs and solve vexing and perpetual issues in how to teach music—and teach musicwell. Good teaching and solving the instructional capacity of young teachers requires more thana Web site of experts, the World’s Largest Concert, or a 75-minute panel discussion with threeexperts and five minutes of question and answer.

Looking Outside the Box for New Models How do we begin to talk about change? We must begin by thinking about changing the modeland by thinking outside of the box. Of course, for us in higher education we know all too wellthat we live inside the box, and we are very afraid to move beyond its four walls. Part of the boxis why we are here. Presenting sessions at MENC is what helps us get tenure in the box. But themusic teacher preparation box is built by four walls of four very intimidating systems: statecertification requirements on one side, university requirements and the 120-credit diploma limiton the other, NASM requirements and recommendations on the third side, and on the fourth side,perhaps the most difficult side of all, conventional practice in higher education. For most collegefaculty and administration there is a deep-seated fear of challenging faculty consensus and thetime-honored traditions, experiences, and credit requirements that are rigidly in place in mostmusic schools in theory, musicology, performance, and many other disciplines both in the schooland the university. Those are formidable walls in higher education. But these walls must bechallenged, and in some cases, they must be bent or removed if we are to create a new cohort of


career music teachers. I do not believe that we can change the box ourselves by being in the box.Which means that we are going to have to move in different directions for the future, byourselves as music teacher educators, and as individuals in our own areas. I do not come to you today as someone who talks about change and hasn’t tried to make thatchange. While I was at the University of Minnesota we decided that we wanted to increase thequality of our music education majors. (Enrollment in music education accounted for 50% of our600 undergraduate and graduate majors.) We looked at their preparation as part of a completerethinking of our undergraduate curriculum. The four walls of the box were just as real for us asfor anyone else. We built four key strategic directions to help us look over the walls, and then welooked at how each discipline would approach them, together, and in collaborations. And therewas faculty consensus that the program of preparation for our performance students was just asimportant to change. This included changing the rigor and quality of the undergraduatecurriculum; raising the quality of our student body overall; integrating the musical, academic,and creative processes that our students would need for the coming decades; and developingsystemic partnerships and relationships that would expand content into context and experience.My music education colleagues who helped build this system—David Teachout, KeithaHamann, Akosua Addo, Paul Haack, Linda Thompson, and the late Clare McCoy—all deservecredit for engaging their faculty colleagues in a positive and holistic process of change. Like you, we were not satisfied with what we were doing; we were not going to be able toadd full-time faculty, we had credit limits to live with, and we wanted to attract a higher qualityof student, in all disciplines. We had two choices: tinker with the status quo, or start to move thewalls of the box, carefully, respectfully, deliberately, but move them nevertheless. In figuring out what we wanted to do at Minnesota we stepped back and asked ourselves whatit was about the current system and curriculum that we wanted to change, for there wasfrustration with many parts of the Berlin Wall model of governance and curriculum that is sotypical in the academy. In many ways the frustrations expressed by faculty were the same asthose of our students. All faculty spoke of how difficult it was to get enough content into a shortperiod of time and the lack of engagement in required courses in theory and history. Often musiceducation students question the validity of much of the content of their degree, such as in theoryand musicology, because they have not been helped to understand how to apply that content inthe context of teaching—and why that content is so very important. The diploma, which manyview as a terminal degree and is in fact only a pass card to a life of professional development, iscrammed with a smattering of so many different kinds of experiences, benchmarks, tests, andexpectations that students are bewildered when they have their own classroom and realize thatthey are in fact not going to be able to conduct Lincolnshire Posy with their middle school bandthe first year they teach. At Minnesota we decided to create at a comprehensive system of growing, preparing and


nurturing music educators in a series of comprehensive relationships that would start before theyarrived as undergraduates and extend through and beyond the undergraduate degree. We startedfirst with our undergraduate program, where we spent almost two years reshaping theundergraduate experience and core curriculum, looking at the natural intersections betweentheory, technology, sight singing, ear training, keyboard skills, improvisation, and musiceducation methods, techniques courses, and practicum experiences. Rather than add newcourses, we looked at ways to integrate content, experiences, and competencies. We added a fifthsemester of theory that presented various options to students—counterpoint, 20th-century music,jazz theory—but reduced total credits in each of the five semesters to do so. Professors now teamteach across disciplines, with the jazz studies professor coming into the theory sequence to workon improvisation, and the theory professor working with music education professors on scorestudy and analysis. We were blessed with new positions and critical retirements that allowed usto bring great new faculty to campus with collaborative interests. Their cross-curricular attitudehas enriched the entire curriculum and helped establish a new validity among all students—andespecially those in music education—for the content of theory and musicology, keyboard skills,and the like, because it is being applied in contexts that prove the validity. We restructuredcredits in techniques classes so that we could add additional methods courses. We reshapedconducting courses in instrumental and choral areas to become comprehensive experienceswhere students would work with instructional pedagogies; create and teach their ownarrangements; prepare music history, listening, and improvisational activities; and analyze whatthey do on videotape and in small mentor groups with graduate students and faculty. To counter the faculty notion that music education students are not of the same caliber asapplied students, we toughened admissions requirements across the board, and particularly formusic education. Applications and auditions for the school and music education jumpeddramatically, and the resultant rise in quality reduced most (but not all) of our esteemed appliedfaculty concerns. We also equitably distributed scholarship aid across the board to the beststudents in both degree programs and raised $3.2 million in scholarship money specifically formusic education majors. Our music education faculty turned our CMENC chapter into an extension of the formalclassroom experience where subjects and issues are covered that students need to know but forwhich there is no time remaining for credit-bearing courses. These sessions range frominterviewing skills to the realities of politics and finance in Minnesota schools, understandingcommunity engagement, and using new graduates out in the field to bring the reality of theirclassrooms to our students. These experiences extended into field observations and service-learning projects. We began to use graduate students and TAs as mentors for undergraduatecourses, where they provided one-on-one instruction, coached videotape feedback sessions ofconducting, and worked with techniques and methods classes. Major ensembles regularly


provided time for student conductors at the end of the semester. The steps described are small incomparison to where we need to be, yet incremental steps are what bring real change over time. Since these changes were implemented, the retention rates at Minnesota have been high, theapplications to music education are growing, and the quality of students is rising sharply. Futuremusic teachers want to succeed. Build a new system, and they will come. I think we have little choice but to invest in new models in which we explore a new kind ofrelationship and interdependency between and among the parts of the profession, where ourtraditional institutions will become as interested in helping new models gain greater ground,succeed, and be sustained as they are in the quality of performance program. It isn’t either/or, itis both/and. We must create a new system of lighthouses, beacons of change that represent arebellion of sort, new models in teacher education that are connected with networks of models,where the sharing of methods and practices becomes a habit of mind. It will take time, courage,boldness, leadership, and yes, funding. We will have to ask deans and directors to make choices.In the 1980s Gordon Cawelti, executive director of the Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development (ASCD), brought the issue of systemic school reform to a new level ofprominence in the national debate by creating a remarkable group of networks focused onaspects of school-based change. His work, and those networks, created a climate for schoolchange that advanced research by a generation in less than a decade. What if this profession wereto do the same thing? Those models could represent an exciting and serious research investmentby institutions and professional organizations that could advance the agenda of change in musicteacher education by a generation. While there are clear roles to play for each part of ourprofession, everyone has to be prepared to give up old ways find new ways to think about thisissue. If no one is prepared to do that, then Houston, we do indeed have a problem. The three questions for this afternoon’s discussion groups speak to the kinds of questions wemust ask ourselves. These questions will help us grapple with the issues, think of some solutions,share existing models, or dream of new ideas and new models that could be implemented. First, what partnerships must we create, build, or reenergize in K–12, higher, andprofessional education for music teacher education in the future? In your region or area, whatpartnerships must you build to bring about a greater local/regional awareness for the need forquality teachers? How do you work with local districts in providing mentor opportunities to newteachers? What does you state music education organization do to connect entry-level teacherswith career master teachers? In what ways do you use your state or regional music educationmeetings to help and nurture the beginning music teacher? Where will the supply of new teachers come from? How must we recruit, where shall werecruit, and who will teach these prospective new teachers if there are indeed not enough musicteacher education professors? How do we find prospective teachers? Who encourages thesestudents to think about this profession? How are they connected with other young teachers who


have made that choice? Should state professional music organizations sponsor career days forhigh school music students interested in music education who are brought by their local musicteacher, perhaps to state conventions, all states or regional gatherings? What role will collegesand universities play in making these connections? Should colleges or universities seeknominations of prospective students from high school directors that can form a database thatcolleges and universities can use to recruit future teachers? Should we connect prospectiveteachers into online communities, create special campus days for prospective teachers, or createearly mentor relationships between incoming and existing music education majors? How will wegrapple with alternative certification and licensure? How might you help create localcollaboratives of districts and teachers to take a leadership role in ensuring that these kinds ofactivities are valuable, targeted, and productive? Must we look to clinical professorships ofseasoned practitioners, similar to those in schools of medicine and social work? What is the role of MENC, NASM, or other state or national professional organizations inproviding leadership and support for new research and models? If not them, then who? Whatrole will colleges, universities, and state professional organizations or other state agencies playin shaping meaningful postbaccalaureate professional development and licensure and alternativecertification programs? How will entry-level teachers be paired with career music educators forassistance or observations? Should state organizations provide regional meetings of noviceteachers to facilitate mentoring and reflective growth experiences? How might we rethink thecurriculum and experience of graduate programs to reflect the capacity and needs of individualnovice teachers in order to retain them in the profession longer than five years? Of course, there are far more questions than answers, but we are at a point in time where wemust at least start asking the questions. The result of the great institutionalization of our cultureis that we tend to wait until the system responds to meet our challenges. We want quick answersand ready solutions to complex issues from the institutions that we created to serve ourprofessional needs. We think that our dues give license to others to act on our behalf. But morequick fixes within the same institutional framework that caused the problems are not going tosolve these problems. Individuals must take action, finding others with shared concerns andhopes to work together and choose to make differences through dialogue, consensus, leadership,and a willingness to change the box. It is about establishing a culture of change so that the ideaof continual growth is built into the culture of teaching music. While our topic today is aboutmusic education, there might also be something to learn in this process for all music students,whether in performance or music education. This is very much about the culture of change inhow we teach all musicians—performers, scholars, teachers, creators—in the academy. I urge you to push the agenda, and the envelope, under your own initiative, within your ownbox. We can’t wait for the system to fix itself. That won’t happen in the near future. Solvingthese problems will require your personal, active engagement at your own level of involvement.


I believe that your actions, linked and served by strong leadership from SMTE, will help us tochallenge every part of our current ecosystem, reinvest resources, time, ideas and policies inhelping new models of research and experimentation in teacher education move forward. It istime, and I think that every one of us in this room knows that it is time. You are at a crossroads;choose wisely which direction you decide to go, because it will determine far more than wemight ever imagine.

ReferencesAmerican Association for Employment in Education (AAEE) (2001). Educator Supply and

Demand in the United States. Information available from AAEE, 3040 Riverside Drive,Suite 125, Columbus, OH 43221.

Bergee, M. J., Coffman, D. D., Demorest, S. M., Humphreys, J. T., & Thornton, L. P. (2001,Summer). Influences on collegiate students’ decision to become a music educator. Reportsponsored by MENC: The National Association for Music Education. Retrieved October,1, 2002, from http://www.menc.org/networks/rnc/Bergee-Report.html.

Conway, C. M. (Ed.). (2003). Great Beginnings for Music Teachers: Mentoring and SupportingNew Teachers. Reston, VA: MENC.

Hickey, M. (2002, May). Music teacher shortage! Time for crisis or for change? College MusicSociety Newsletter.

Lindemann, C. A. (2002, November). How can higher education address the K–12 musicteacher shortage? Speech presented at the National Association of Schools of MusicAnnual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.



What Partnerships Must We Create, Build, or Reenergize in K–12Higher and Professional Education for Music Teacher Education in

the Future?By Janet Robbins and Robin Stein

Janet Robbins is professor of music at West Virginia University in Morgantown. Robin Steinis coordinator of music education at Texas State University in San Marcos.

At the 2004 MENC preconference session sponsored by the Society of Music TeacherEducation, the question of “What partnerships must we create in our teacher educationprograms?” was addressed in one of three breakout sessions. We began the discussion bylooking at the types of partnerships that currently exist. Our thinking was that only when wehave taken stock of where we’ve been can we begin to think outside the box in response toJeffrey Kimpton’s call for change in music teacher education. Many of the participants reported on methods classes that apply a clinical model. These site-based methods courses vary in the degree of collaboration that exists. On one end of thespectrum is the lab school approach in which university professors and students provide musicinstruction in schools where music otherwise doesn’t exist. A more collaborative model is theProfessional Development School (PDS), in which the methods class relocates to a school and istaught by both university and school-based teacher. Other collaborative ventures that werediscussed included service learning that partnered university students with communityorganizations and after-school programs. The conversation then turned to examples of “internal”partnerships that involve the integration of music education courses with other disciplines, bothoutside music as well as within music departments. It is clear that there are many angles to consider when thinking about the kinds ofpartnerships we need to create or reenergize in music teacher education. The literature onpartnerships in music education reaches far beyond the scope of our discussion in the breakoutsession and includes partnerships between universities and professional artists and artsorganizations, as well as collaborative enterprises between universities and corporations. Thefollowing discussion draws upon selected sources as a way to frame the current conversation onpartnerships and to serve as a springboard for future planning.

Professional Development School Partnerships:Collaborative Teaching and Research Since the mid-1980s, various initiatives to strengthen teacher education have called for morefield experiences that would better prepare undergraduates for the “real world” of music teachingand learning. Possibly the most popular form of school-university partnerships in teacher


education is the Professional Development School (Neirman, Zeichner, & Hobbel, 2002). Theestablishment of Professional Development Schools was a response to the Holmes Group, aconsortium of research universities involved in teacher education reform that called for improvedpartnerships between higher education and K–12 schools. Their report in 1990 spawned thedevelopment of a number of PDSs that were based on shared decision making and collaborativeresearch among university teachers, student teachers, and site-based teachers. Theory thatresided in the university classroom was merged with practice in K–12 classrooms in order toproduce practicing teachers who were both responsible and responsive (Darling-Hammond,1994, p. 204). At first glance, the differences between what we think of as the music education practicumand the PDS partnership model may not be entirely obvious. However, PDSs are founded on asignificantly different principle, namely, that everyone is a learner—university teacher, site-based master teacher, and student teacher. Planning, teaching, and reflecting occurcollaboratively, requiring a rethinking of roles and authority. In music education, however, onlya few have fully realized the PDS concept. The work of Conkling and Henry is well documented (1999, 2002) and provides a strongmodel for change, one that challenges the traditional music education practicum in which theoryresides exclusively in the university and reflection is an individual rather than collective act.Based on their work in general and choral music classrooms, they make the followingsuggestions for creating PDS partnerships (2000):• Make a long-term, philosophical commitment to the partnership project.• Identify a K–12 partner with whom you can spend many hours designing, implementing,

and maintaining the project.• Be prepared for some discomfort when confronting competing value systems.• Secure appropriate allocation of human and financial resources.• Determine how the university faculty’s work in the PDS will be viewed and rewarded by

the university in terms of teaching and research.• Place student learning at the heart of both theory and practice. Partnerships associated with Professional Development Schools also involve collaborativeresearch. “One of the most striking features of current PDSs is their emphasis on collaborativeresearch among teachers, student teachers and teacher educators” (Darling-Hammond, 1994, p.9). Preservice teachers, particularly those in five-year programs leading to a master’s degree,engage in action research projects during their final year. Action research, or teacher research,helps to cultivate habits of inquiry, and as a result of conducting research, both preservice andin-service teachers may become part of a professional culture that values research. The formationof teacher research groups, or cooperatives, provides necessary support for getting started andalso decreases feelings of isolation that so many music teachers experience (Robbins, 2000).


Most important, the research process is liberating and transformative for teachers. Researchingteachers who view themselves as producers of knowledge, as opposed to consumers ofknowledge, have a greater chance of becoming independent, curious, and innovative. According to Zeichner (1994), “reflection and teacher research signify a recognition that theprocess of learning to be a teacher continues throughout one’s entire career, and no matter whatteacher education programs do, and how well it is done, we can at best only prepare teachers tobegin practice” (p. 71). A beginning that includes teachers collaborating to study their ownteaching and their students’ learning may reduce the teacher burnout rate in the long run.

Partnership Networks for In-Service Teachers Teachers’ continued professional development can be the single most important factor thatcontributes to career success and fulfillment (Olsen, 1987). Socialization into the profession doesnot end with graduation. Universities need to establish networks that provide professionaldevelopment opportunities for both novice and expert teachers in the form of apprenticeprograms, professional development workshops, site-based methods classes, and collaborativeresearch. Unfortunately, teachers often become isolated and unaware of professional-development opportunities. Even when opportunities do exist, teachers are rarely included in theplanning, and as a result, the activities often do not engage teachers in thinking about how tosolve real classroom problems. Universities can help develop networks for in-service teachers that connect them with otherteachers, community musicians, and university experts with like interests who might nototherwise come together (Hookey, 2002). Such is the case in several initiatives taking place atthe Eastman School of Music in Rochester, New York (Robinson, 1998). The Rochester-Eastman String Project has a multifaceted design that connects university students, K–12students and teachers, and community members. University faculty and graduate studentsprovide the instruction for students in one of Rochester’s urban elementary schools where nostring program has existed for years. Undergraduate music education students volunteer asmentors to the young students. Participating K–12 students are paired with a beginning adultstring player from the community who agrees to learn and practice with the student. The adultmusician, in turn, receives an instrument from the schools along with free beginning instructionfrom Eastman. Another Eastman initiative uses an apprenticeship model in which middle school choralteachers work side-by-side with Eastman faculty. Many Voices, Many Songs involves severallayers of apprenticeship that function simultaneously, not only for the K–12 teachers, but also formusic education students who work as apprentices in the schools during short-term internships(Robinson, 1998). In addition to Eastman’s many initiatives, a number of arts organizations, such as the Lincoln


Center Institute and the Kennedy Center, have long traditions of offering professionaldevelopment workshops and institutes for teachers; however, university involvement is oftensuperficial or lacking. A future goal might include the establishment of stronger partnershipsbetween arts organizations and university music education programs for the purpose of providingprofessional development opportunities for new music teachers.

Community-Based Partnerships Music education partnerships often develop between universities, schools, and artsorganizations. Research supports the premise that such partnerships, if designed and executedwell, can strengthen music teaching and learning (Myers & Brooks, 2003). For more than thirtyyears we have seen varying types of artist-in-education programs (AIE) that feature artistsworking in schools. While Professional Development School models bring university faculty andstudents into K–12 schools, AIE programs bring artists into the schools for short-termresidencies to enrich the school environment and enhance student learning. Sometimesuniversities develop the project or are included in it, but often projects only involve aninteraction between artists and the resident school. A grant-funding agency or donor issometimes the catalyst in the mix. A number of orchestras have created outreach programs for area schools, moving beyond anemphasis on exposure-type goals in music to the creation of more meaningful connectionsthroughout the curriculum (Myers, 2003). Performance models of the sort that McCusker (1999)describes connect music teachers and students with university and community performances.The Gibbs Street Connection in Rochester was designed as a collaboration with the Rochesterarea schools to bring K–12 students to the performance environment of the Eastman School andthe Rochester Philharmonic. The Pennock Listening Project (Addo, 2002) is an interestingdeparture from the normal public school outreach. Home-schooled students were identified as anunderserved population and were for the first time included in this listening project with theMinnesota Orchestra, the University of Minnesota Division of Music Education/Music Therapy,and the local school district. Sound Learning is an Atlanta collaborative among faculty and students at Georgia StateUniversity, the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, three elementary schools, and freelanceperformers. Its primary goal is to “strengthen sequential music learning” and to ensure asustained presence in the schools, rather than short-term interaction (Myers, 2003). Performersand composers collaborate with music specialists and classroom teachers, each contributing theirown expertise. There has been criticism of some artists-in-schools models because of the concern that artistswill somehow replace arts specialists and that long-term sequential instruction will be reduced tomere exposure activities. Continuing issues for community-based partnerships relate to the


specific roles of teachers and artists, the preservice and in-service education of teachers andartists, and the development of high-quality classroom models (Myers & Brooks, 2001).

Internal Partnerships Unless we build partnerships within our own units and universities, efforts to create teachingand research partnerships with K–12 schools and community artists and organizations may notbe entirely appreciated and understood. Ours is a profession that has been socialized to teach andresearch in relative isolation. “Faculty have been initiated into a system in which, except for thesciences, team teaching and collaborative research are rare” (Hutchens, 1998, p. 36), and withthe growing demand for fewer hours in the undergraduate curriculum, issues of turf oftenescalate as faculty become protective of content. However, despite the competitive culture ofacademe, more and more faculty are working together to develop interdisciplinary courses anddesign experiences that cut across the curriculum. Although not well documented, stories ofcollaboration do exist. Entry-level Introduction to Music Education courses are often taught collaboratively bymusic education faculty who design experiences and assignments aimed at examining thediversity of music teaching and learning contexts. Music education and theory faculty at St.Cloud State University in Minnesota experimented with a team-taught freshman ear-trainingcourse, collaborating to apply music education methods to teach aural skills. Students andteachers began to recognize the value of collaborative teaching and realized that pedagogy andcontent used in theory and piano classes, for example, did indeed apply to music teaching andlearning. Postbaccalaureate students at the University of Northern Colorado take an integrated methodscourse for art, music, and physical education. The class is a collaboration among threeinstructors, one from each department. They work using a common theme, sharing segments ofclass time to teach within their own discipline, and then bringing everything together duringintegrated segments in several theme-related projects. Perhaps more dramatic is Kimpton’s account of the reshaping of the undergraduatecurriculum at the University of Minnesota that involved integrating content and competenciesand the restructuring of credits. The level of collaboration and the amount of time required mayseem daunting for some, but the “cross-curricular attitude” that now permeates the thinking offaculty and students is clearly attainable.

Future Possibilities Looking back on this preconference session and the experiences that were shared, it is clearthat more time and thought are needed to fully appreciate the concept of partnership, not only inits myriad applications, but also with respect to the implications for music teacher education. Our


scholarship on music teaching and learning must not be done in isolation and needs to includemore voices of K–12 teachers. Myers (2003) challenges us to continue to strengthenrelationships between schools of education and schools of music in order to broaden professionalunderstanding of the role of music in children’s lives and learning. We must also strengthenrelationships within our undergraduate music program, not only for music education majors, butalso for classroom teachers. Traditionally, we separate the course work for music majors andgeneral classroom teacher. How might more collaborative work in their undergraduate programsbuild communities of learners once they’re teaching? Could graduate seminars combine musiceducation students with administrators and teachers of other disciplines for learning-centeredpartnerships? Would these relationships lead to better understanding and collaboration in futurecommunity relationships outside the university environment? Bresler (2002) cautions that we must not mandate or prescribe collaborations; rather shesuggests that we consider conditions that would favor thoughtful and productive outcomes. Aswe think ahead to partnerships in the future, the following conditions, or principles, may beuseful to our work:1. Plan strategically. Work collaboratively with colleagues to integrate existing course

content and streamline curricula.2. Search for funding opportunities to “buy” the time needed to develop innovative courses

and collaborative programs. Strong partnerships take time to develop. Many universitiesalready offer incentives for faculty to develop new, interdisciplinary courses, and manystate departments and arts agencies are eager to collaborate to develop professionalprograms in the arts for teachers.

3. Expand faculty perspectives and consider whether collaborators are open to diverse waysof thinking. A greater understanding of other disciplines and will lead to an increasedunderstanding of our own.

4. Be open to multiple perspectives and values and learn to appreciate the ideas of others. Inthe case of the PDS partnerships, “two cultures” are coming together, each with its ownset of roles and rules.

5. Be aware of the issues of power and authority related to the question of “whoseknowledge” is the most valuable.

6. Establish clear goals that all understand and agree to. Compromise is necessary whendesigning courses and programs, making it important to develop shared outcomes that donot dilute content.

7. Search for overlapping content and concepts in curriculum. What skills and knowledgecut across the curriculum in music?

8. Resist isolation. Professional renewal of skill and knowledge can result from sharedexperiences. This is true for both faculty and K–12 teachers.


Strong partnerships are vital to the future of music teacher education. With appropriatepartnerships in place, students will be better prepared to sustain a lifelong commitment to musicteaching and learning. Working in a collaborative environment at all levels can lead to renewedengagement in music and strengthen our music teacher education programs in the future.

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the following participants in the MENC breakout session:David R. Montano University of DenverDiane Mack Central Missouri State UniversityLinda K. Damer Indiana State UniversityKaty Strand Indiana UniversityJoe Murphy Mansfield UniversityMary Kennedy Rutgers UniversityPatrick Freer Georgia State UniversityBrett Nolker University of North Carolina–GreensboroPam Stover Clarion UniversityAndrew Murphy Missouri Western State CollegeRachel Harrison Missouri Western State CollegeMary Schleff CSU NorthridgeBen Smar University of Massachusetts–AmherstEllen Abrahams Westminster Choir CollegeAlicia Mueller Towson UniversityJune Grice Colorado State UniversityDiane Persellin Trinity University

ReferencesAddo, A. (2002). University-community music partnerships. Paper presented at ISME

Community Music Activities Seminar. Retrieved October 25, 2004, fromhttp://www.worldmusiccentre.com/uploads/cma/addo.PDF.

Bresler, L. (2002). Out of the trenches: The joys (and risks) of cross-disciplinary collaborations.(XXV International Society for Music Education World Conference keynote address,Bergen, Norway, August, 2002). Bulletin of the Council for Research in MusicEducation, 152, 17–39.

Conkling, S. W., & Henry, W. (2002). The impact of professional development partnership: Ourpart of the story. Journal of Music Teacher Education. 11(2), 7–13. Retrieved October11, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/journals.htm.

Conkling, S. W., & Henry, W. (2000). Professional development partnerships in musiceducation: We need you! Presentation at the American Orff-Schulwerk AssociationNational Conference, Rochester, NY.

Conkling, S. W., & Henry, W. (1999). Professional development partnerships: A new model for


music teacher preparation [Electronic version]. Arts Education Policy Review, 100(4),1–8. Retrieved June 21, 2000, from EBSCOhost.

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1994). Professional development schools: Schools for developinga profession. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hookey, M. (2002). Professional development. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The newhandbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 887–902). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Hutchins, J. (1998). Research and professional development collaborations among universityfaculty and education practitioners. Arts Education Policy Review, 99(5), 35–40.

McCusker, J. (1999). The Gibbs Street Connection [Electronic version]. Music EducatorsJournal, 86(3), 37–39, 54. Retrieved November 27, 2004, from EBSCOhost.

Myers, D. (2003). Quest for excellence: The transforming role of university-communitycollaboration in music teaching and learning. Arts Education Policy Review, 105(1),5–12.

Myers, D., & Brooks, A. (2002). Policy issues in connecting music education witharts education. In R. Colwell, & C. Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research onmusic teaching and learning (pp. 909–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Neirman, G., Zeichner, K., & Hobbel, N. (2002). Changing concepts of teacher education. In R.Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching andlearning (pp. 818–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Olsen, G.(Ed.). (1987). Music teacher education: Partnership and process. A report by the taskforce on music teacher education for the nineties. Reston, VA: MENC.

Robbins, J. (2000, Spring). Reflections on teacher research. The Orff Echo, 32(3), 33–36.Robinson, M. (1998). A collaboration model for school and community music education

[Electronicversion]. Arts Education Policy Review, 100(2), 32–39. Retrieved November,24, 2004, from EBSCOhost.

Zeichner, K. (1994). Personal and social change. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.),Teacher research and educational reform: Ninety-third yearbook of the National Societyfor the Study of Education (pp. 66–84). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.



Where Will the Supply of New Teachers Come From, Where ShallWe Recruit, and Who Will Teach These Prospective Teachers?

By William E. Fredrickson and J. Bryan Burton

William E. Fredrickson is associate professor of music education and associate dean ofacademic affairs at the Conservatory of Music at the University of Missouri–Kansas City. J.Bryan Burton is professor of music education and graduate coordinator for the School of Musicat West Chester University of Pennsylvania.

This question is central to the long-term viability of the music teaching profession. Thechanging landscape of public education, the prevalent values of American society, and countlessother variables have brought us to a point where these questions need concrete answers if musiceducation is to survive and thrive as a central part of our public education system. Participants in the 2004 MENC National Biennial In-Service Meeting Preconference SpecialFocus Session on Teacher Preparation considered this question in one of three breakout sessionsfollowing Jeffrey Kimpton’s keynote address. Current thought and practice, as represented bythe participants of the session, as well as extant research in this area, suggest some possiblesolutions for consideration. These solutions are a starting point for continued discussion andaction in this area.

Developing a Recruiting Pipeline It may be that the sources we traditionally gravitate toward to recruit undergraduate musiceducation students aren’t sufficient, or even most appropriate, for the many and varied needs ofthe music teaching profession. High school students in all-state performance groups and fromlarge suburban school districts with highly visible music programs naturally get a great deal ofattention from college recruiters. Not only are these students likely to possess refined musicalskills, but they are also in situations that appear attractive from a professional standpoint. Butaccording to the research it is likely that these students will think of the music educationprofession as being what they see in their schools and ensemble experiences and may expect thatthey will go into the work force in similar situations (Kelly, 2003). Reality of the marketplacedictates that entry-level jobs might not be in these settings and areas of highest need certainly arenot.1. With greater areas of need in urban and rural settings, we should increase efforts to

identify, mentor, and recruit high school music students in those settings to increase thelikelihood that students might be willing to work in these settings after graduation.

2. In preparation for the needs of the marketplace, we need to develop ways to portray themusic teaching profession’s diversity to high school students.

Current music teachers may be the best recruiters the profession has. They exert a great deal


of influence that could positively affect the recruiting of future music teachers (Bergee, Coffman,Demorest, Humphreys, & Thornton, 2001). From the time students make a choice to be involvedin music, music teachers are representing their profession and should consider the possibility thatany of their students might develop the interest and potential to become a colleague someday.Looking for opportunities to foster students’ early interest in music teaching might includefocusing efforts on Tri-M chapters and future teachers’ clubs. College/university musiceducation faculty could investigate partnerships between their institutions and these publicschool–based efforts as well as local MTNA (Music Teachers National Association) groups.While Bergee et al. (2001) did not find these types of experiences to be highly influential, if theirpurpose was focused on identifying and recruiting future teachers, that trend could change.Bergee et al. (2001) also found that previous teaching opportunities were influential, althoughrare, and these organizations might be used to facilitate the development of precollegeexperiences in classrooms and ensembles. While extensive “podium time” is unlikely in manyprograms, the development of regular “peer-tutoring” opportunities at various levels might befacilitated. Many college/university music education faculty members also regularly presentclinics and guest conduct in public school settings. It might be fruitful to think of these instancesas opportunities for professional recruitment. The profession has a “farm system,” but we need tobe better at sending out “scouts” and encouraging young prospects.1. Urge current music teachers to promote the positive aspects of their profession to their

students and community.2. Look for opportunities (through Tri-M chapters, future teachers clubs, and their own

clinics with school-aged children) to enfranchise students early by helping developteaching experiences (such as peer-tutoring) for students.

Once high school students get to college and begin a music education degree program, theybecome highly involved in a variety of music-related activities. Some naturally begin to questionwhether they really want to teach. Early opportunities to experience public school musicclassrooms are a chance to develop perspective and make decisions about educational goals.Teachout (2004) found that undergraduates in methods classes see these early experiences as animportant part of their education. If we are looking for more students to teach in urban and ruralschools and in elementary and middle school classrooms those early experiences should reflectthose needs of the profession. Balancing the needs of the profession with the students’ comfortlevel and expectations (where they came from and what they know) make this a delicate task(Benham, 2003). Informing students, and helping them develop their attitudes towards diversesituations without scaring or alienating them, is not easy (Emmanuel, 2003). Identifying theimportant characteristics of good teachers and formulating assessments to help identifypromising students has been a focus of research, and implementing findings from that researchcan help (Rohwer & Henry, 2004).


When first-year teachers were asked to give advice to students currently in music teachereducation programs, they put a great deal of focus on job-related skills not traditionallyassociated with music, pedagogy, or classroom discipline (Fredrickson & Hackworth, 2005).Administrative skills and people skills in general, the things all new professionals need in almostany environment, were very much on these new teachers’ minds. In preparing undergraduates, itmight also be wise to allow some flexibility for the development of other interests and talents.Facilitating and promoting the pursuit of a double major (performance and education, forexample) might help keep good students involved in teacher preparation programs.1. Help undergraduates begin to think and work as professionals early in their programs by

infusing field experiences in freshman and sophomore years.2. Find diverse placement environments that mirror the needs of the profession, but supply

support for students going into those placements to prepare them for success.3. For talented students with a variety of musical interests, encourage and facilitate dual

degrees or double majors rather than forcing choice too early. Musicians with a bachelors or masters degree in another area of music (performance, theory,history, etc.) sometimes reconsider music education as a professional choice (Bergee et al.,2001). Helping this population involves adjusting the existing curriculum, which was originallydesigned and scheduled as an integral part of a complete undergraduate degree experience, andmaking those experiences available for someone with subject-matter expertise looking for aquick path to teacher certification. Sometimes those obstacles are difficult for both theprospective student and the music unit to overcome. It could be advantageous to be proactiveabout identifying promising undergraduate or even graduate music majors while they are still inschool. Faculty could talk with them about the possibility of adding teacher certification and helpdeal with some of the misconceptions that might create negative bias. At the same timefacilitating the addition of new curriculum to existing degree programs might require someflexibility and creativity on the part of music education faculty. Approaching colleagues in othermusic areas about assisting us in identifying appropriate students and enlisting their help in theinevitable curricular compromises can make recruiting of the next generation of teachers everycollege music faculty member’s business (Thornton, Murphy, & Hamilton, 2004).1. Actively look for good students in music bachelor’s and master’s programs who might

consider adding teacher certification. Include international students who have come to theUnited States to further their musical education and may not know about the potentialpossibilities for employment in this field.

2. Develop flexible alternatives within teacher certification programs so current studentscan add on teacher certification without adding overwhelming time and credits to theirplanned programs while still covering material needed to meet state requirements andprofessional expectations.


3. Enlist music faculty colleagues in identifying students and facilitating long-term careerplanning.

The way we think about how one chooses a profession and how long one commits to a givenprofession may have changed. People are changing jobs, and even career areas, more often.Schools and departments of music are receiving inquiries from people who did not even receivea music degree as an undergraduate who are interested in coming back to school to become amusic teacher. College/university music education faculty might consider working to identifygood candidates who are actively involved in music-related activities in proximity to theirinstitutions. These nontraditional students bring their own set of logistical challenges andcurricular needs. Many colleges and universities are actively involved in developing viable pathsfor the growing demand for “alternative certification” (Asmus, 2003). People with existingdegrees in music as well as those with much less formal training are looking for programs thatallow them to make the transition they are considering without going back to the very beginning.In many cases these students want course work scheduled for nights, weekends, and summers toaccommodate their need for concurrent full-time employment. In many parts of the country,schools are partnering with universities to allow these populations to work full-time inclassrooms while completing the course work necessary to be fully certified to teach.Unfortunately the paradigm for alternative certification that has developed for the certification ofelementary classroom and secondary subject-matter teachers in areas other than music don’talways align comfortably with music education faculty expectations. Flexibility and creativityare needed on the part of school districts, nontraditional music teacher education students, andcollege/university teacher educators if viable alternatives are to be found.1. Develop partnerships with school districts to create viable alternative certification

programs that meet the needs identified by music education faculty.2. Work with college/university music departments and music education faculty to facilitate

the accommodation of nontraditional teacher education students’ needs.3. Be proactive in identifying viable candidates from nontraditional populations

(community bands, choirs, and orchestras, church choirs, and adults taking privatelessons).

Retaining Good Teachers in the Profession Ending the current shortage of good music teachers is not simply a matter of finding moreindividuals to train. Keeping good teachers that are already certified and teaching should also bea priority. Attrition is particularly high at the beginning of the career. A large group ofpotentially productive music educators leave teaching within the first three years for a variety ofreasons (South, 2004). For some it is due to a lack of adequate preparation. Others becomedisillusioned when the job isn’t what they were expecting. Some simply find out too late that


they are not suited to the demands of the teaching profession. Some research (Conway & Garlock, 2002; Fredrickson & Hackworth, 2004; Fredrickson &Neill, in press; Pembrook & Fredrickson, 2000/2001) suggests that both new teachers andexperienced teachers are preoccupied with the demands of teaching as an everyday job (not justproblems with subject-matter, teaching competency, or classroom discipline). Providing training,experiences, and perspective to deal with these many issues, which can range from lunch dutyand budget preparation to personal emotional strain and stability, would better prepare teachersto face the realities of their jobs. Often there isn’t time in an undergraduate program to dealeffectively with the myriad issues involved, and in-service workshops, continuing educationexperiences, and master’s programs could help (Bowles, 2003).1. Teacher preparation programs can continue to work toward training that provides

realistic preparation for all the daily tasks encountered by the music teacher. Movingfrom a model dominated by the use of student teaching as the capstone experience to onewith a true “internship” could also help.

2. Provide in-service workshops, continuing education classes, and experiences in master’sprograms that help practitioners cope with the many challenges of their environments.

Mentoring for new teachers might further help with difficulties encountered in the initialyears of teaching. State music educators groups and college/university music educationdepartments could sponsor and facilitate programs matching experienced teachers with newteachers. Using available database resources and communication tools, these organizations mightbe able to construct programs that could potentially benefit a large majority of the new teachersfunctioning in the public schools of their state. Preparing college music education students tofind their own mentors could help in cases where a new teacher is in an isolated circumstance ordoes not have access to a formal program. Teaching these new professionals that good mentorscan include teachers outside their subject-matter specialty might be wise.

Acknowledgments On behalf of the Society for Music Teacher Education, the authors would like to thank thefollowing professionals for their contributions to the conference session and this article:Sheila Feay-Shaw University of Wisconsin–WhitewaterDarla Hanley Shenandoah UniversityLinda Hartley University of DaytonSteven Kelly Florida State UniversityWilliam Lee University of Tennessee–ChattanoogaRod Loeffler Northwestern CollegePeter McCoy State University of New York at PotsdamKen Phillips Palm Beach Atlantic University


Ann Porter University of CincinnatiDale Misenhelter University of ArkansasBarbara Resch University of Indiana–Purdue Fort WayneVictoria Smith Elizabethtown CollegeDavid Teachout University of MinnesotaSomchai Trakarurung University of Toronto (graduate student)

ReferencesAsmus, E. P. (2003). Commentary: Advantages and disadvantages of alternative certification.

Journal of Music Teacher Education, 13(1), 5–6. Retrieved May 17, 2004, fromhttp://www.menc.org/publication/articles/journals.html.

Benham, S. (2003). Being the other: Adapting to life in a culturally diverse classroom. Journalof Music Teacher Education, 13(1), 21–32. Retrieved May 17, 2004, fromhttp://www.menc.org/publication/articles/journals.html.

Bergee, M.J., Coffman, D. D., Demorest, S. M., Humphreys, J. T., & Thornton, L. P. (2001,Summer). Influences on collegiate students’ decision to become a music educator. Reportsponsored by MENC: The National Association for Music Education. Retrieved May, 17,2004, from http://www.menc.org/networks/rnc/Bergee-Report.html.

Bowles, C. (2003). The self-expressed professional development needs of music educators.Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 21(2). Retrieved May 17, 2004,from http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/journals.html.

Conway, C., & Garlock, M. (2002). The first year teaching K–3 general music: A case study ofMandi. Contributions to Music Education, 29(2), 9–28.

Emmanuel, D. T. (2003). An immersion field experience: An undergraduate music educationcourse in intercultural competence. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 13(1), 33–41.Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/journals.html.

Fredrickson, W. E., & Hackworth, R. S. (2005). Analysis of First-Year Teacher’s Advice toMusic Education Students. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 23(2).

Fredrickson, W. E., & Neill, S. (in press). Is it Friday yet? (Perceptions of first-year musicteachers). Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education.

Kelly, S. N. (2003). The influence of selected cultural factors on the environmental teachingpreference of undergraduate music education majors. Journal of Music TeacherEducation, 12(2), 40–50. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/journals.html.

Pembrook, R. G., & Fredrickson, W. E. (2000/2001). Prepared yet flexible: Insights from theDaily Logs of Music Teachers. Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education,147, 149–52.

Rohwer, D., & Henry, W. (2004). University teachers’ perceptions of requisite skills andcharacteristics of effective music teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 13(2),18–27. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/journals.html.

South, J. (2004, January). Factors related to music teacher retention in Oklahoma. Posterpresented at the Missouri Music Educators Association Annual In-Service Meeting,Osage Beach, MO.


Teachout, D. J. (2004). Preservice teachers’ opinions of music education methods coursecontent. Contributions to Music Education, 31(1), 71–88.

Thornton, L., Murphy, P., & Hamilton, S. (2004). A case of faculty collaboration for musiceducation curricular change. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 13(2), 34–40.Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/journals.html.



What Is the Role of MENC, NASM, or Other State or NationalProfessional Organizations in Providing Leadership and Support

for New Research and Models?By Don P. Ester and David J. Brinkman

Don P. Ester is associate professor and coordinator of music education at Ball StateUniversity in Muncie, Indiana. David J. Brinkman is area coordinator for music education at theUniversity of Wyoming in Laramie.

The question of leadership is perhaps the seminal issue related to the looming crisis in musicteacher education. Jeffrey Kimpton grants that MENC and NASM are aware of the situation andhave made at least some effort to address it over the past 20 years. He also suggests, however,that “we’re still waiting for leadership from, and standing in, this organization [MENC], as wellas recognition that there is a need for new models, sponsored research, or networks of collegesand districts, teachers and professors and students doing innovative work” (Kimpton, 2005, p. 9).This fundamental question of leadership served as the focal point of the third breakout sessionfollowing Kimpton’s keynote address at the 2004 Special Focus Session on Teacher Preparation.The group was charged with the following questions: “What is the role of MENC, NASM, orother state or national professional organizations in providing leadership and support for newresearch and models? If not them, then who?” The open forum included music teacher educators from throughout the nation, resulting in alively and valuable brainstorming session. Suggestions covered the gamut from removingMENC from the process and having SMTE assume sole leadership to pushing for a permanentposition in the MENC national office focused on teacher education issues and activities. Allparticipants recognized the importance of facilitating the development of a more effectivenetwork that can share information related to innovative and effective curricular models,alternative licensing, and other current issues affecting music teacher education. Other significant discussion points focused on the importance of involving not only MENCbut also the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) and The College Music Society(CMS). It is these three national organizations, in fact, that seem to be the primary players in theprofession of music education. While a considerable number of content-specific and method-specific organizations exist (e.g., ACDA, NBA, ASTA with NSOA, OAKE, AOSA), these threeorganizations are involved with the concerns of all music educators. As a result, they, along withSMTE, have the visibility, credibility, and potential authority to provide leadership and facilitatechange in the area of music teacher education. Given this, it is perhaps wise to examine the self-proclaimed missions of each of these organizations before considering the roles each might playin addressing the critical issues at this crossroads of our profession.


Background and Mission of MENC, SMTE, NASM, and CMS MENC: The National Association for Music Education. MENC was founded in 1907 as theMusic Supervisors National Conference. The organization now boasts a membership of nearly120,000 music educators throughout the United States and the European Union. Its statedmission is as follows:

The mission of MENC: The National Association for Music Education is toadvance music education by encouraging the study and making of music by all.(MENC, n.d.,a)

As this mission statement indicates, the leadership of MENC views advocacy as a fundamentalcharge. MENC holds a biennial national conference in even-numbered years while each of thesix regions hosts a conference in odd-numbered years. State organizations typically hold annualmeetings as well. Further information about MENC can be found at http://www.menc.org SMTE: The Society for Music Teacher Education. SMTE functions under the auspices ofMENC. Membership in SMTE is automatic for those members of MENC who are collegiatemusic teacher educators. At present there is no formal articulation between MENC and SMTE asindicated on the official MENC Organizational Chart (MENC, n.d.,b). Rather, the three societiesassociated with MENC are connected with each other but unconnected to the MENC leadership.This is interesting given the formal connections indicated for a variety of other affiliatedorganizations, including instrument-specific associations and a professional fraternity.Nevertheless, SMTE is clearly part of the MENC organization. The present mission statementfor SMTE is as follows:

The Society for Music Teacher Education’s (SMTE) primary function is toimprove the quality of teaching and research in music teacher education. Equallyimportant are its efforts to provide leadership in the establishment of standards forcertification of music teachers and to serve as an arm of MENC to influencedevelopments in music teacher education and certification. (Van Rysselberghe,1998, p. 3)

NASM: The National Association for Schools of Music. NASM, founded in 1924, is anassociation of approximately 600 schools of music, primarily at the collegiate level but alsoincluding precollegiate and community schools of music. It is the national accrediting agency formusic and music-related disciplines (NASM, n.d.,a). The present purpose statement for NASM isas follows:

The National Association of Schools of Music was founded in 1924 for the


purpose of securing a better understanding among institutions of higher educationengaged in work in music; of establishing a more uniform method of grantingcredit; and of developing and maintaining basic, threshold standards for thegranting of degrees and other credentials.(NASM, n.d.,b)

As a result of NASM’s accreditation function, it has tremendous power and authority over musiccurricula in higher education. NASM’s Web site is at http://nasm.arts-accredit.org/index.jsp. CMS: The College Music Society. “The College Music Society is a consortium of college,conservatory, university, and independent musicians and scholars interested in all disciplines ofmusic. Its mission is to promote music teaching and learning, musical creativity and expression,research and dialogue, and diversity and interdisciplinary interaction” (College Music Society,n.d.). CMS holds an annual national meeting and the 10 regional chapters host annualassemblies, as well. One of the unique aspects of CMS conferences is the breadth ofpresentations and performances, facilitating discussion across disciplinary lines within the fieldof music. The society maintains several different databases that include listings of internationalmusic organizations, organizations that offer support to the music field, companies within themusic business and industry, and current festivals, competitions, events, and scholarships withinthe field of music. Clearly, CMS considers networking an important part of its mission. CMS canbe found on the Web at http://www.music.org.

Recommended Roles for Facilitating Change Each of these four organizations plays an important role in the music education profession,and each seems presently dedicated to rather unique tasks within the profession. Stated from abusiness management point of view, they each have a niche. It is worth noting that the uniqueroles represented by each organization are necessary functions if we are to accomplishsignificant change in the field of music teacher education. Consider that for any transformationto occur each of the following roles must be filled: leadership/vision, communication/networking, public relations/advocacy, and implementation/assessment. A careful examinationof the missions and current strengths of the four organizations appears to indicate that, for thepurposes of facilitating positive change with respect to the recruitment, preparation, andretention of music educators, the roles might be designated as follows. Leadership/Vision: The Society for Music Teacher Education. SMTE members are on thefront lines of music teacher education issues: they are the teacher educators who are involved inthe recruiting and preparation of the nation’s music teachers; they are primary presenters of in-service sessions to practicing teachers at national, state, and local teacher conferences; they arethe primary producers of current research on music teaching and learning. Simply stated, they,more than the members of any other group, understand the challenges and have the aggregateknowledge and experience to develop the solutions. As a result, SMTE must eagerly accept the


responsibility of developing the all-important vision and facilitating the cooperation and actionof the other professional organizations to transform the vision into real change. Communication/Networking: The College Music Society. CMS includes members from allcollegiate-level music disciplines and, as such, offers a vital forum for presentation anddiscussion of music teacher education issues that relate to recruitment and preparation of futuremusic teachers. Studio and ensemble faculty play important and frequently primary roles in therecruitment of all music majors, including future teachers. Further, they guide the performance-skill development of aspiring educators. Music theorists and historians are intimately involved inthe development of foundational musical knowledge and skills and have significant interest inand influence on college music curricula. These faculty members and others must come torecognize the reality and the corollary impacts of the music teacher shortage. Their support iscrucial to the implementation of any significant changes in the academy. Public Relations/Advocacy: MENC: The National Association for Music Education. MENC isthe most visible and “connected” organization of the four. Over the years, it has establishedrelationships with a spectrum of professional musicians from classical to pop, politiciansrepresenting a variety of perspectives, and a broad range of businesses. Further, MENC serves asthe de facto umbrella organization for the music education profession. Therefore, it is MENCthat has the clout to spread the word once a coherent message has been developed. Implementation/Assessment: The National Association of Schools of Music. NASMaccreditation standards are the most recognized and honored in the profession. Because NASMis involved in the assessment and accreditation of over 600 schools and departments of music, itmust be involved if significant policy or curriculum changes are to be implemented in anymeaningful way. If NASM determines that changes in the accreditation standards are worthy, ithas the “troops on the ground” to ensure the implementation of and compliance with these newstandards.

Conclusion It seems that MENC, SMTE, CMS, and NASM might work extremely well together toaccomplish a worthy goal if that goal can be clearly articulated and specific objectives can beidentified and agreed upon. It is reasonable to conclude that each of these organizations is awareof the problem but waiting for clearer guidance, perhaps feeling unsure of which direction to goand what changes to make. Given that the pertinent issues are most observably music teachereducation issues (although their roots may run deep and wide), it follows that SMTE is mostappropriately positioned to provide informed leadership. In fact, SMTE must take the lead beforeit is too late. Where might we start (or, perhaps more accurately stated, start again)? That, ofcourse, was the purpose of the Preconference Session at the 2004 MENC Convention and is thepurpose of this issue of the Journal of Music Teacher Education. The other articles in the special


focus section of this issue provide a variety of important recommendations; some are new, whileothers are familiar and draw on previous research and publication. The crisis is not one oflimited ideas but rather of collective action. SMTE must provide the leadership to initiate thiscollective action. Here are a few basic objectives that might serve as starting points. Few arenew, and some are already in progress.• Clarify the relationship between MENC and SMTE, formally recognizing SMTE as the

arm of MENC responsible for issues in music teacher education and establishing clearlinks in the official organizational structure. The flow of any and all information to andfrom MENC related to music teacher education should be channeled through SMTE.

• Be more proactive and assertive, working to inform and recommend action plans toMENC, NASM, CMS, and other organizations as appropriate. Create formal connectionswith NASM and CMS, establishing a liaison on each national board to facilitatecommunication.

• Collect and effectively disseminate current research on topics related to music teacherrecruitment, preparation, retention, and professional development. The disseminationmust be much more visible than simply professional research and trade journals; the wordmust be spread in ways that reach professionals and the general public alike in anunderstandable manner with specific suggestions for action. This should include anSMTE Web site that is linked from the MENC site but managed independently, allowingfor more appropriate and timely content and much more efficient updates.

• Encourage new research focused on evaluating the effectiveness of various music teachereducation models as measured by the percentage of qualified graduates entering theprofession, longevity in the field, etc. This should be done in cooperation with theSociety for Research in Music Education and as a potential expansion of the presentsponsored research project.

• Facilitate the sharing of innovative and effective music teacher education models,including traditional licensure and alternative licensure approaches.

• Sponsor state, regional, and national symposia that focus on developing andcommunicating recommended action plans to practicing music teacher educators andother appropriate constituents. This might include regular teleconference meetings ofrepresentatives from each of the four organization’s boards.

• Develop and recommend to NASM revised policies and/or curriculum modifications thatwill positively impact the recruitment, preparation, and retention of music educators.

While SMTE can and should take the lead, it cannot make profound changes alone. SMTE canpush the agenda, however, helping MENC, NASM, and CMS to not only understand thesignificance of the problem but also work together to implement recommended solutions. SMTEcan no longer wait for other organizations to lead; it must be proactive and assertive, convincing


others that action is required and enlisting each organization to take advantage of its uniqueniche to bring about the necessary change.

AcknowledgmentsThe following professionals contributed to the conference session and thus to this article.Bill Bauer Case Western Reserve UniversityJohn Zschunke Rosemont Middle School (Minnesota)Maribeth Yoder-White Appalachian State UniversityDick Disharoon Pikesville High School (Maryland)Fran Page Meredith CollegeJohn Taylor Friends UniversityEd Asmus University of Miami–Coral GablesDale Bazan University of Northern IowaJenn Mishra University of Northern IowaKim Walls Auburn UniversityRandi L’Hommedieu Central Michigan UniversityCecilia Wang University of KentuckyNancy Barry University of OklahomaRoger Rideout University of Massachusetts–AmherstDarlene Fett University of South DakotaDon Crowe South Dakota State UniversityConnie McKoy University of North Carolina at GreensboroPaul K. Garrison Southwest Missouri State UniversityGeorge DeGraffenreid California State University at FresnoNorma McClellan Southwest Missouri State UniversityVictor Fung Bowling Green State UniversityMargaret Schmidt Arizona State UniversityMark Campbell Crane School of MusicLinda Thompson University of MinnesotaGlenn Nierman University of Nebraska–LincolnEd Duling University of ToledoLiz Wing CCM, University of CincinnatiDavid Brinkman University of Wyoming, Session facilitatorDon Ester Ball State University, Session facilitator

ReferencesCollege Music Society. (2004). About The College Music Society. Retrieved October 18, 2004,

from http://www.music.org


Kimpton, J. (2005). What to do about music teacher education: Our profession at a crossroads.Journal of Music Teacher Education, 14(2), 8–21.

MENC: The National Association for Music Education. (n.d.a). Mission statement. RetrievedOctober 18, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/information/mission.htm

MENC: The National Association for Music Education. (n.d.b). Organizational chart. RetrievedOctober 18, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/guides/menctour/orgchart.pdf

National Association of Schools of Music. (n.d.a). About NASM. Retrieved October 18, 2004,from http://nasm.arts-accredit.org/index.jsp?page=About+NASM

National Association of Schools of Music. (n.d.b). Purposes. Retrieved October 18, 2004, fromhttp://nasm.arts-accredit.org/index.jsp?page=Purposes

Van Rysselberghe, M. (1998). Generating excellence. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 7(2),3.


Editor’s CommentaryAssumptions

William E. FredricksonEditor, Journal of Music Teacher Education

Sometimes I worry about the assumptions we make. I don’t necessarily mean the formalassumptions that we put in research articles, theses, and dissertations, although sometimes I doworry about whether or not some of those stretch our credibility as researchers. I worry moreabout some of the assumptions we make as a profession, or a subgroup of a profession, aboutwho we are and what we do. The buzzwords in business (and sometimes higher education), like“silo mentality,” that are popular today seem to be the latest manifestation of something that hasbeen with us for a long time. I see it as the natural tendency of human beings to want to neatlycompartmentalize things. One might think that in society today the opposite is true—especially when we see so manyopportunities springing up in daily life or touted through popular culture focused on helping usbecome better organized. There are television shows about how to be better at putting our stuffaway into closets, cupboards, and oversized armoires (and buying lots of gadgets to help us doit). There are entire retail store chains built upon the premise that we need more help organizingour lives (and buying lots of gadgets to help us do it). Finally there are folks who arerecommending that we get various portions of our lives, from our daily schedule to our financialfuture, organized in a more productive way (and offering to sell us their services to help us do it).The impression is that the fast pace of daily life is such that the fabric of society is unraveling atthe edges and there is great need to restore order. I tend to think that the hectic nature of our daily lives actually pushes us to seek out thefamiliarity of order and structure. Whether or not we need structure has to do with our individualtolerance for ambiguity and probably varies by situation. For example, ambiguity in ourprofessional lives may prompt us to feel the need for more structure at home. Those things out ofour control can swirl so violently as to make us yearn for stability in some way. The downside ofthis might be that the ebb and flow of uncontrollable events may push us to eschew changing theway we look at something so that we can maintain that delicate balance of our lives. In spite ofthat, and probably against my own better judgment, I have what appears to be a popularassumption that I am working to try to get some of my colleagues at home and around thecountry to reconsider. I believe that for the majority of musicians, “music education” means teaching music tostudents in K–12 settings, primarily in fairly large groups, or the training of musicians who arefocused on those activities. I think the same is true of the phrases “music teacher preparation,”“teaching music,” and “music teacher.” Then by extension research related to “music education,”


“music teacher preparation,” “teaching music,” and “music teachers” often tends to be the samething. The good news is that I do not think this is universally true. I just completed a review ofliterature for a paper related to college music performance majors’ preparation for teachingmusic in one-on-one settings. In the United States the popular terms for this activity include“studio teaching” and “applied music.” (I felt the need to qualify that statement with a country oforigin, since I discovered that in the United Kingdom the same thing is routinely referred to as“vocal or instrumental tuition,” which serves to exclude material in online searches when yourkeywords are exclusively American.) But while I found many interesting journal articles, itseems to me that the extant research related to systematic inquiry and discovery in this area is amuch smaller body or work than the research dedicated to the traditional definitions thatcombine the words “music” and “education.” I’ve been thinking about our assumptions related to this topic for some time. When I was anundergraduate music education major, I studied my primary performance instrument with awonderful teacher. I qualified for and played my senior recital early enough in the whole processthat I had an extra semester of lessons coming to me before graduation. My teacher offered to doa “weekly topic” approach in which he and I would decide on a series of topics and then spendthe semester working through the issues, many of which involved teaching the instrument. It wasa great way to spend a semester of lessons. But one day I happened to mention that we had notspent any time in my memory talking about vibrato. His response was that it hadn’t come upbecause my vibrato was fine. To which I replied that I wanted to know more about how he taughtvibrato to a student who had difficulty with the concept. He proceeded to give me a very detailedlesson in teaching vibrato. Since that time, I have been interested in how we teach musicians to teach in the privatestudio. Sandwiched between my bachelor’s and doctoral degrees in music education I did amaster’s degree in performance. My teacher for that degree was also a wonderful teacher. Healways had a “topic of the week” for the studio, such as embouchure or tonguing, and everyonein the studio worked on that topic for some portion of the lesson and in studio class. For some itwas about simply having a good embouchure or being able to tongue well, for me as a graduatestudent the lessons were also about teaching the concepts to others. Some would suggest, and I would not necessarily argue, that the apprenticeship model we usefor becoming applied teachers works just fine. It might be too big an assumption to say wecouldn’t do better and that research need not play a role. I also think it might be an inappropriateassumption when we say that the research in this area is not related to “music education,” “musicteacher preparation,” “teaching music,” and becoming a “music teacher.” In his role as chair of music education for the College Music Society, Victor Fung recentlywrote in the society’s newsletter about “Music Teaching as a Component of Musicianship.”


Victor suggested that we in higher education consider skills in music teaching “be included inthe training of musicians early on, just like the orthodox musicianship skills.” He goes on to saythat “all musicians should view music teaching as a requisite proficiency, just like analyzing,composing, playing, and critiquing music.” I think this is an important step toward overcomingsome of the assumptions that are still a part of the way we confine ourselves to the many littleboxes that so comfortably make up most music departments and schools of music. For my part I am doing two things. The first was to devise a graduate course. Our graduatestudents have always had access to pedagogy classes, but they were primarily focused on thevery specific pedagogy of a particular instrument. I developed a class that looks at teaching inmore general terms. The course description reads, “An overview of basic pedagogical practiceincluding modes of instruction, feedback, reinforcement, and assessment. Students will reviewcurrent literature in this area and develop a project related to their own teaching. Prerequisite:none.” I’ve had a great deal of fun teaching this class, and it is a tribute to my colleagues’flexibility that they allowed one of the “music education guys” to teach a class with the wordpedagogy in the title. The other thing I would like to do is state publicly, in this official forum, that I think researchrelated to applied music instruction is appropriate for submission to the Journal of MusicTeacher Education. That has been true for some time in the pages of important journals such asJournal of Research in Music Education, UPDATE: Applications of Research in MusicEducation, and Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education. So if you or one ofyour colleagues is doing a project related to teaching music in the studio setting, I invite you notto assume that I would not be interested just because I am a music education faculty member orthat JMTE would not consider a well-written piece of scholarship because it does not apply togroups of students in a K–12 setting. One of my personal goals is to continue to develop atolerance for ambiguity in my silo.


An Analysis of Certification Practices for Music Educators in theFifty States

By Michele Henry

Michele Henry is assistant professor of choral education at Baylor University in Waco,Texas.

Bruner (1977) observed that “Americans are a changing people; their geographical mobilitymakes imperative some degree of uniformity among high school and primary schools. Yet thediversity of American communities and of American life in general makes equally imperativesome degree of variety” (p. 9). These observations also pertain to teacher credentialing practicesin the United States. A mobile society will see not only students relocating from state to state,but teachers as well. While uniform teacher certification procedures, as called for by theCarnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession (1986), the Holmes Group (1986), andGallegos (1978), may seem accommodating to teachers, the diversity of school settings andstudent populations among the states necessitates variety in certification practices. Each state determines its own standards for certifying teachers. Consequently, certificationpractices among states vary significantly. Differences in standards appear even more variedwhen looking at a single certification area, such as music. For those involved in music teachereducation, knowledge of the various certification practices is an important tool in providingquality, relevant preparation for future music educators. While it is expected that those involvedwith music educator training be familiar with certification practices for the state in which theircollege or university is located, an awareness of requirements in other states is also valuable,particularly for private schools and programs serving a large number of out-of-state students. Knowledge of certification practices can shape assignments and activities within methodscourses. While students planning to reside and teach in the same state as the college or universitymay use state goals and standards when planning lessons and identifying lesson objectives,students planning to teach in other states may benefit from citing standards or criteria from otherstates or the National Standards for Music Education (Coalition of National Arts EducationAsoociations, 1994). In addition, those serving as advisors to students can offer accurate andhelpful information to students interested in teaching in other states, particularly in terms oftesting and additional course requirements.

Previous Reviews of Certification Practices In 1972, Wolfe compiled a detailed account of state certification practices for musiceducators. Erbes (1983) replicated this study, noting the changes that had occurred during thepreceding decade. Among the changes in certification that had transpired since the 1972 report


was a decrease in the number of states offering K–12 certification in music. While many statescontinued to grant an all-encompassing license for teaching music at any grade level, other stateshad begun to issue individual certifications for various grade-level groupings. Additionally,thirteen states implemented some form of required testing for certification in 1983, an increase often states from the 1972 study. In a subsequent report, Erbes (1987) identified 29 states thatrequired testing to receive initial certification, with 13 of the states requiring testing of musiccontent knowledge. Erbes (1984) also reported a decline in the number of states offering life certification, whichcoincided with the development of state-mandated continuing education programs and advancedcertification requirements. Rowls and Hanes (1982) identified 27 states requiring recertificationfor teachers. Nine states reported no recertification requirements, either renewing certificatesautomatically after a requisite number of teaching years or issuing lifetime certification. In his 1987 article, Erbes cited the development of alternate routes to teacher certification,primarily due to declining numbers in the profession. In 2001, Berry identified 41 states offeringalternate certification; 14 of these developed their alternative certification requirements from1999 to 2001. Although these programs have many advocates (Finn & Madigan, 2001), there arealso vocal opponents to the idea of so-called “shortcuts” to teacher certification (Berry, 2000;Etheridge, 2000–2001). Regardless of one’s opinion on the relative merits of such programs,their increasing commonality has tremendous implications for music education and teachertraining at large. Access to state teacher certification information is an important necessity for hundreds ofthousands of educators each year. While increasing access to information concerning teachercertification is available through Web sites, phone, e-mail, and postal correspondence, acomparison of practices among states still remains very difficult and time-consuming.

Method The purpose of this study was to compile relevant information for music educators about thecertification practices of each state in the United States as of fall 2001 and to examine thecommonalities and differences among the states’ policies. While the results of such an analysismay reveal trends in certification procedures, it was not the intention of this study to recommendparticular certification structures or requirements. Although states’ terms for their teaching credentials vary—the use of certificate, license, andcredential are not interchangeable in many states—for the purposes of clarity in this study, theterms certificate and certification are used to designate the legally sanctioned documentpermitting employment in education, regardless of the term designated by each state.


Research Questions This study sought to provide information concerning certification of music educators in eachof the fifty states. In order to gather comparable information, answers to the following questionswere sought for each state: (a) What content areas are included under certification in musicteaching? (b) What are the age-level designations for certification in music teaching? (c) Howrecent are the current certification practices in the state? (d) What tests, if any, are required forcertification in music teaching? (e) Does the state have reciprocity for certification with anyother states? (f) What are the types of certificates available and length of validity for the variouscertificates? (g) Is there an alternative certification program available for those withouteducation degrees? (h) What fees, if any, are required for certification in the state? (I) Areapplication forms and instructions available online? A further goal of this study was to provide an overall analysis of the certification practicesidentified through the data-gathering process. After gathering the above information for eachjurisdiction, the following questions were considered: (a) Is there a trend among the variousstates regarding age-level designations and/or content areas? (b) Is there a trend among thevarious states regarding levels of certification and/or length of certificate validity? (c) Is there atrend among the various states in requiring certain kinds of tests for certification? (d) What is thelevel of cooperation among the states in acknowledging teaching certification from other states(reciprocity)? (e) Is there a trend among the various states regarding alternative certification? (f)What is the range of certification fees among the various states? (g) How accessible isinformation concerning certification in each of the states? Data collection procedures. Data for the current analysis was gathered using a variety of-means. Initially an online search engine was used to find a listing of state departments ofeducation (or comparable agencies). Using the links identified by the search engine, Web sitesfor the appropriate credentialing agencies in all 50 states were found. Therefore, data concerningeach question was gathered initially using only information provided through these Web sites. After obtaining all information available online, each of the agencies was contacted by phone.All data found online was verified by an official representative of the state credentialing agency.At this time, a request was made for any information needed for the study not found on thestate’s certification Web site.

Results Information obtained in response to the initial series of research questions is reported in Table1. Information for each state is treated individually. Data reported in Table 1 is paraphrased forthe sake of clarity and brevity, but information provided in the table is an accurate reflection ofthe actual information gained through specified data-collection procedures.


Age-level and subject area. Forty-three states offer all-level certification for music teachers.The lowest age range included in all-level certification varies from preschool (or nursery),kindergarten, or first grade among states. Twenty-nine states offer only all-level certification inmusic. Of the 21 states that provide restricted age-level certification, all but four states offermusic certification separately at the elementary level. The grade levels included in theelementary range vary, but they include combinations from preschool through ninth grade, withK–6 and K–8 being the most common. Twenty of the 21 age-restricted certification states offermusic teaching at the secondary level as an option. Only Alabama specifies an elementary-onlymusic teaching credential without also offering a secondary-only music credential. Two stateshave designations specifically geared toward middle school, although many states haveoverlapping certification ranges that include middle school with either elementary certificationor secondary certification (see Figure 1). Thirty-one states consider music a single subject area for certification purposes. Fiveadditional states offer a composite certification for all music areas. Fifteen states differentiatebetween vocal and instrumental music for certification purposes. In most of these states, eithercertificate enables teaching of general or classroom music. Three states separate certificationbetween vocal, instrumental, and general music. Finally, South Carolina has certification areasfor choral, instrumental, piano, violin, and voice. The age ranges and subject areas for music certification vary greatly among the states.Nineteen states offer only one certification for music, encompassing all grades and disciplineswithin music. States such as Kentucky explain their rationale behind broader certification as anattempt “to reduce and streamline the credential system to allow greater flexibility in staffinglocal schools while maintaining standards for teach competence” (KRS 161.028[g]). Thesebroader certifications also imply more responsibility for schools at the local level. In contrast tostates offering broad credentials for music teaching, other states have chosen to segment theircredentials to reflect specific age levels or disciplines. “The developmental levels, for licensingpurposes, need a P–12 connection and should respect school configurations at the local level,while ensuring that educators will be thoroughly prepared for the developmental level whichthey will teach” (www.in.gov/psb/licensing). States such as Indiana also separate music teachinglicensure into vocal/general and instrumental/general. “The standards clearly define each of thefine arts … as a discrete discipline” (www.in.gov/psb/licensing). Although manifesting itself invery different forms, the motivation when constructing their credentialing categories seems toplace an emphasis on local control and appropriate matches for educators and classrooms. Levels of certification and certificate length. Thirty-four states require some type ofprovisional certification for entry-level teachers. Some states also use this initial certificationdocument for out-of-state teachers with deficiencies to address before full certification is


granted. Sixteen states do not distinguish between levels of certification, using only a singlecredentialing designation. The validity length of initial certificates varies from two years to sixyears. The validity length for standard certificates varies from three years to lifetimecertification. Currently, only five states grant lifetime certification. The perceptible trend in certificate structure is toward encouraging continuing education forteachers by requiring certificate renewal. Many states indicated a departure from previousstructures that included lifetime certification, although teachers with lifetime certification underprevious structures do not have to apply for renewal certificates. Many states have also institutedmentor or entry-year programs for beginning teachers, mandating satisfaction of theserequirements before full certification status is granted. In almost all states with a tieredcertification structure, some type of continuing education is required. Several states offeradvanced certification for teachers who have earned graduate degrees. Still other states,including Massachusetts and Oregon, specify the attainment of a graduate degree in order tohave a teaching certificate renewed. Testing requirements. Currently, seven states require no standardized test for certification.The remaining 43 states utilize a combination of basic skills and general knowledge, professionalteaching knowledge, and content area knowledge tests, assessed through a variety of nationaland state-administered examinations in basic skills, professional knowledge, and contentknowledge (see Figure 2). Of these 43 states, eleven assess applicants in all three areas. Eighteenstates require two tests, either in basic skills and professional knowledge (1), basic skills andcontent area (9), or professional knowledge and content area (8). Fourteen states use a single testin basic skills (8), professional knowledge (2), or content area (4). Of the standardized tests thatare used for certification, the PRAXIS series exams (Educational Testing Service, 2001) are byfar the most frequent, used by 21 states. There are also 15 state-administered tests, from 11different states, that were identified in this study (see Table 2). Several states also haveadditional requirements such as course work in state and national constitution, Native Americanstudies, or human relations. Most of these requirements are not waived for out-of-stateapplicants. The concept of assessing qualification for teaching through standardized testing is firmlyestablished in the requirements set forth by state certification agencies. Of the seven statescurrently without testing requirements, three indicated plans to implement testing requirementswithin the next two years. While some testing is considered necessary by almost every state, thetype of tests employed by these states varies greatly. The most frequently used tests are contentarea tests. Many states that do not require basic skills tests rely on the colleges and universitiesto determine basic skill levels before admitting students into teacher preparation programs. Reciprocity. Most states offer some level of reciprocity for individuals desiring certification


who hold valid teaching credentials in other states. Forty-five states claim some kind ofreciprocity with other states, but the level of cooperation among these states is not at all similar.Seven states claim a nonrestrictive or enhanced reciprocity, in which no additional qualificationsare required to obtain certification with a valid out-of-state certificate. Conversely, five statesacknowledge having no reciprocity of any kind. Individuals seeking certification in these statesmust submit their full credentials and fulfill all requirements in the new state to obtaincertification. In its strictest sense, reciprocity applies only to the mutual acknowledgment of regionallyaccredited education programs. It does not exempt applicants from additional requirements suchas testing or specialized course work specified by the new state. Often, states issue a temporarycredential to out-of-state teachers, allowing them time to complete these requirements during thisprobationary period. In many of these states, experienced teachers can be exempted from testingrequirements with a minimum number of service years. In most cases, out-of-state teachers arenot exempted from course work requirements. Almost all states make exceptions for nationalboard certified teachers, offering this elite group automatic certification. Alternate certification programs. Thirty-nine states currently accommodate individuals whodesire teaching certification but have non-education baccalaureate degrees by providing analternative route to certification. The structure of these programs varies greatly. Some requirethat all education course work be completed prior to teaching, while others allow for certificationtraining while individuals are employed as autonomous teachers. These programs are typicallyaccelerated to allow completion in one or two years. Eleven states do not provide any alternativeroutes to certification beyond completing approved traditional education programs. Alternate certificate programs are a relatively new addition to the certification landscape. Inmany cases, these programs were developed to address growing teacher shortages. In somestates, such as Washington and Delaware, these programs are available only in certain subjectareas. Other states actively encourage individuals to consider teaching as a second career. Fee structures. Fees assessed during the application process vary greatly among states. NorthDakota assesses a $25.00 fee to obtain application materials, and it is the only state to do so.Some states assess fees for evaluation of materials. Others charge an application fee regardlessof the success of the applicant in obtaining certification. Most fees are for the actual certificationdocument. While the majority of states assess a flat fee for the certificate, some base their fee onthe number of certification areas or grade levels requested. Others charge by the number of yearsthat certification will be granted. Fees for initial certification range from zero to $175.00. Fourstates charge no fee for certification services. Three additional states charge no fees for in-stateapplicants, while out-of-state applicants are assessed $10.00–$25.00. Nine other states charge adifferent fee for in-state and out-of-state applicants. The fee amounts identified in Figure 3 are


those assessed to initial in-state applicants. Fees for certification renewal also vary greatly. Many states have identical charges for initialand renewal certificates, while others decrease the amount required for renewal. A few statesincrease the amount of renewal certificates, though the number of years of certification typicallyincreases as well. Seventeen states require a fee for fingerprinting and background checks inaddition to application or certificate fees. These fees range from $22.00 to $66.00. Accessibility. Finally, accessibility to certification information and materials also variestremendously among the states. Thirty-six states have all application materials available todownload and print. Ten states do not. Four states have online forms available only for renewalor supporting documents. While all states maintain certification Web sites, many are difficult toaccess, lack necessary information, or present information in a confusing or contradictorymanner. Unfortunately, access to information by telephone is no less accommodating. Theresearcher spent approximately 27 hours on the phone trying to reach a live person at statecertification offices to verify information.

Conclusions Trends in music teacher certification detected by Wolfe (1972) and Erbes (1984, 1987) havecontinued into the 21st century. Over 40% of states offer multiple age-level certification; morethan 66% of states have a tiered system for recertification; 43 states require some form of testingfor certification. Questions regarding reciprocity, alternate certification programs, testing fees,and online availability of information highlight additional facets of the teacher certificationprocess. State certification practices are as varied as the 50 states themselves. Specificity of age leveland content area is dependent upon individual states’ needs for flexibility or “matching”desirability between teacher and classroom. More than two-thirds of states implement a tieredcertification structure, in which teachers advance through levels of certification with addedexperience and continuing education. To encourage continuing education, most states haveabandoned lifetime certificates. Testing of basic skills, professional knowledge, or content areaknowledge is required in all but seven states. Most states acknowledge some level of reciprocitywith other states, officially extending only to approved teacher preparation programs. Alternateroutes to certification are available in approximately three-fourths of the states. Fees forcertification also vary greatly. Certification charges range from zero to $175.00, with up to$66.00 in additional fees for fingerprinting in a limited number of states. Access to informationis as varied as the information itself. Although increasingly available online, some information isnot immediately accessible or downloadable. University or college education departments shouldbe considered as viable options for obtaining certification information.


Like similar studies before it, information contained in the study will become outdated asstates continue to refine certification policies and to consider other models for certification.Future research should include a periodic revisitation of state certification practices, in an effortto detect policy trends within individual states as well as overall certification trends. Because of the changing nature of certification standards, it is imperative for those involvedin music education certification in any context to commit to an occasional review of currentcertification practices in their state. Knowledge of avenues for investigation of other states’certification practices is also important, although not always of immediate significance. Anunderstanding of issues involved in certifying teachers can provide insight into the developmentof teacher preparation program curricula, individual choices in educational preparation, andpotential certification models for future consideration by state credentialing agencies. Byproviding access to this information and highlighting relevant issues in certification standards,this study is intended to ensure that music educators will not be intimidated by the certificationprocess but will be encouraged to take ownership of the process.

ReferencesBerry, B. (2001). No shortcuts to preparing good teachers. Educational Leadership, 58(8),

32–36.Bruner, J. (1977). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the

21st century. Hyattsville, MD: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy.Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1994). National standards for arts

education. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.Educational Testing Service. (2001). PRAXIS series: Professional assessments for beginning

teachers. Princeton, NJ: Author.Erbes, R. (1983). Certification practices and trends in music teacher education. Reston, VA:

Music Educators National Conference.Erbes, R. (1984). Entrance into the profession: The revolution in teacher certification. Music

Educators Journal, 71(3), 34–39.Erbes, R. (1987). A new era in teacher certification. Music Educators Journal, 73(6), 42–46.Etheridge, E. (2000–2001). Alternative certification: A threat to quality. Childhood Education,

77(2), 94K.Finn, C., Jr. & Madigan, K. Removing the barriers for teacher candidates. Educational

Leadership, 58(8), 29–31, 40.Gallegos, A. (1978). A call for universal accreditation. Journal of Teacher Education, 29, 24–27.Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI:

Author.Rowls, M., & Hanes, M. (1982). Teacher recertification: The shift toward local control and

governance. Journal of Teacher Education, 33(4), 24–28.Wolfe, I. (1972). State certification of music teachers. Washington D.C.: Music Educators

National Conference.


Table 1. Certification Practices for Music Educators in the 50 StatesState Certificate Age

Levels andSubject Areas

Levels and Length ofCertification

TestingRequirements

Reciprocity AlternativeDegreeProgram

Fees OnlineForms

Alabama K–6, 1–9 GeneralK–12 ChorusK–12 Band

5-year certificate None Yes, for comparablecertificates

Yes $20 application$49 fingerprinting

Yes

Alaska K–6, K–8, 7–12,K–12 Music

5-year Type A PPST or CBTAlaskan StudiesCourseMulticulturaleducation

Yes; 3-yearcertificate issuedwhile testing andcourse work iscompleted

Yes $90 certificate$66 fingerprinting

Yes

Arizona K–6, 7–12 MusicAll-levelendorsementavailable

2-year Provisional6-year Standard

AEPA (professionaland content area)U.S. and Arizonaconstitution

Yes; 1-yearcertificate issuedwhile testing andcourse work iscompleted

Yes, but notavailable

$30 certificate$20 renewal

Yes

Arkansas PreK-8, 7-12VocalPreK-8, 7-12Instrumental

3-year Initial5-year License

PRAXIS I (basicskills)PLT (professional)PRAXIS II (contentarea)

Yes; Exams can bewaived withequivalent tests

Yes $39 fingerprinting Yes

California PreK–12 Music 5-year Preliminary5-year ProfessionalClear

CBEST (basic skills)PRAXIS II (contentarea)

No; CBEST is required; subjectarea waived w/ 3+years experience

Yes $55 credential$56 fingerprinting

Yes

Colorado K–12 Music 3-year Provisional5-year Professional

PLACE (contentarea)

Yes; Exam waivedw/ 3+ yearsexperience

Yes $48 license$36 fingerprinting

Yes(10/01)

Connecticut PreK–12 Music 3-year Initial8-year Provisional5-year Professional

CBT (basic skills)PRAXIS II (contentarea)

Yes, but exams arerequired

Yes $50 application$100 Initial ($50credit)$200 Provisional$300 Professional

SupportMaterials

Delaware K–8, 5–12, K–12Music

5-year Standard5-year Professional

PPST or CBT Yes, but requirestesting

No No charge in-state$10 out-of-state

Yes

Florida K–12 Music 5-year Professional CLAST (basic skills)FPET (professional)FSAE (contentarea)

Yes; Exams can bewaived withequivalent tests

Yes $56 per subject Yes

Georgia PreK–12 Music 1-year Conditional (out-of-state)5-year Clear Renewable

PPST or CBT (basicskills)PRAXIS II (contentarea)

Yes; Other statecontent examsaccepted if required

Yes No charge in-state$20 out-of-state

Yes

Hawaii K–6, 7–12, K–12Music

5-year Provisional PPST or CBT (basicskills)PLT (professional)PRAXIS II (contentarea)

Yes, but testing isrequired

Yes No charge Yes

Idaho 6–12, K–12 Music 5-year StandardSecondary

None Yes, within the last5 years

Yes $35 application$40 fingerprinting

Yes

Illinois K–-9, K–12 Music5–12 Vocal5–12 Instrumental

4-year Initial5-year Standard

ILCTS (basic skillsand content area)

Yes, but test isrequired

Yes $30 certificate Yes

Indiana Vocal/General orInstrumental/General availablefor:Preschool/ElementaryPrimary/ElementaryIntermediateMiddle School/JrHighHigh School

5-year Initial Practitioner10-year ProficientPractitioner5-year AccomplishedPractitioner


No; Full review ofcredentials isrequired

Yes $5 for each schoolsetting

Yes

Iowa K–8, 7–12 Music 2-year Initial5-year Standard

PLT (professional)PRAXIS II (contentarea)

Yes; 2-year regionalexchange license

No $50 transcriptevaluation$50 license$37 fingerprinting

Yes

Kansas 7–12, K–12 Music 3-year Standard5-year Standard

PLT (professional) Yes; Valid out-of-state receives a 2-year license

Yes $24 application No

Kentucky K–12 Music 5-year Statement ofEligibility5-year Provisional


Yes; Exam waivedw/ 2+ yearsexperience

Yes $35 Statement fee$50 Provisional

No

State Certificate AgeLevels andSubject Areas


TestingRequirements


Fees OnlineForms


Louisiana 1–12 Vocal1–12 Instrumental

3-year Type CLifetime Type BLifetime Type A

CBT (basic skills)PLT (professional)PRAXIS II (contentarea)

3-year provisionalwhile PRAXIStesting is completed

Yes $55 certificate Yes

Maine K–12 Music 2-year Provisional5-year Professional

PPST or CBT (basicskills)

Yes No $50 certificate No

Maryland Nursery–12 Music 3-year Standard I7-year Standard II5-year Advanced


Yes; PPST waivedw/ 3+ yearsexperience

Yes $10 certificate No

Massachusetts

PreK-9 Vocal,Instrumental, orComposite5-12 Vocal,Instrumental, orComposite

5-year Provisional w/Adv. Standing5-year Standard(master’s required)

MET (basic skillsand content area)

Yes, but test isrequired; 3-yearcertificate issuedwhile deficienciesare met

No $100 for firstcertificate$25 forendorsement (forall level music)

Yes

Michigan K–5, K–8, 7–12Music

6-year Provisional5-year Professional

MTTC (basic skills,professional,content area ifsecondary)

Yes; Testing isrequired but fullcertification mayexempt from testing

Yes $175 provisional$125 professional

Yes

Minnesota K–12 Vocal/ClassK–12Instrumental/Class

5-year Professional PPST or CBT (basicskills)PLT (professional)PRAXIS II (contentarea)Human RelationsProgram

No No $47 application$26 fingerprinting

Yes

Mississippi K–12 VocalK–12 Instrumental

5-year Class A5-year Class AA


Yes; 2+ yearsexperience Full;-2 years Special

Yesbut ending

None Yes

Missouri K–12 VocalK–12 Instrumentalendorsementavailable

3-year PC I7-year PC II10-year CPC

PRAXIS II (contentarea)

Not full; Testing isrequired unless 2+years experiencewith other contentarea test

Yes No charge in-state$25 out-of-state$22 fingerprinting

Out-of-stateonly

Montana K–8, 5–12, 7–12,K–12 Music

Provisional5-year Class 2 Standard5-year Class 1Professional


Yes; Other statebasic skills testsaccepted

Yes $6 initial application$6 per year ofcertificate

Yes

Nebraska K–12 Music 5-year Initial7-year Standard



No $45 certificate$40 fingerprinting

Yes

Nevada 7–12 Choral7–12 Instrumental7–12, K–12Composite

5-year Standard6, 7, or 10-yearProfessional

PPST or CBT (basicskills)PLT (professional)PRAXIS II (contentarea)

Yes; Requirescourses in U.S. andNevada constitution

No $100 initialapplication

Yes

NewHampshire

K–12 Music 3-year BeginningEducator3-year ExperiencedEducator



Yes $80 beginning orrenewal

Yes

New Jersey Nursery–12 Music Standard Lifetime PRAXIS II (contentarea)

Yes; Test and 2.75g.p.a. required

Yes $10 Cert. ofEligibility$50 LifetimeCertificate

No

New Mexico K–8, 7–12, K–12Music

3-year Level 19-year Level 29-year Level 3 w/master’s

NMTA (basic skillsand professional)

Yes; Other statebasic skills andprofessional testsaccepted

Yes $50 licensure$34 fingerprinting

Yes

New York PreK–12 Music 5-year ProvisionalLifetime Permanent

NYSTCE (basicskills, professional,content area)

Yes, but testsrequired

Yes $100 certification Yes

North Carolina K–12 Music 5-year Continuing PRAXIS II (contentarea)

Yes, but testsrequired

Yes $85 processing Yes

North Dakota K–12 VocalK–12 InstrumentalK–12 Composite

2-year Initial5-year Professional

North Dakota NativeAmerican StudiesCourse

All credentials mustbe submitted forreview; NativeAmerican course isrequired

No $25 applicationpacket $60 application$175 out-of-statereview$42 fingerprinting

Renewalforms

State Certificate AgeLevels andSubject Areas


TestingRequirements


Fees OnlineForms


Ohio PreK–12 Music 2-year Provisional5-year Professional


Yes; Tests may berequired dependingon originalcertification date

Yes $24 provisional$60 professional$50 out-of-stateevaluation

No

Oklahoma PreK–12 VocalPreK–12Instrumental

Optional 1-yearProvisional5-year certificate

OGET (basic skills)OPTE(professional) OSAT (contentarea)

Yes; 1-year licenseissued while OKtests are completed

Yes $30 certificate$10 out-of-statelicense$41 fingerprinting

Yes

Oregon EarlyChild/Elementary,Middle/HighSchool Music

3-year Initial5-year Continuing


Yes; Tests may bewaived withexperience

Yes $60 in-state$90 out-of-state$42 fingerprinting

Yes

Pennsylvania K–12 Music 6-year Instructional IPermanent InstructionalII available after 3 years

PPST (basic skills)PLT (professional) PRAXIS II (contentarea)

Yes, but all tests arerequired

Yes, but notin use

$15 certificate Yes

Rhode Island K–12 Music 3-year Certificate PLT (professional) Yes; EnhancedReciprocity

No $25 application Yes

South Carolina K–12 ChoralK–12 InstrumentalK–12 PianoK–12 ViolinK–12 Voice

3-year Initial5-year Professional


Yes; Texts waivedwith 3 yearsexperience

Yes $49 application Yes

South Dakota K–12 VocalK–12 InstrumentalK–12 Composite

5-year Certificate Human Relationsand South DakotaIndian Studiescourses

Yes, but humanrelations and Indiancourses arerequired

Yes $30 certificate$20 out-of-statereview fee

Yes

Tennessee K–12 VocalK–12 Instrumental

5-year Apprentice10-year Professional


Yes; Exemptionfrom testing forexperience

Yes None Yes

Texas PreK–12 Music 5-year Standard ExCET(professional andcontent area)

Yes; 1-yearcertificate tocomplete testing forstates w/oreciprocity

Yes $75 in-state$175 out-of-state(1/1/02)

No

Utah 6–12, K–12 Music 3-year Level I BasicType5-year Level II StandardType

None Yes, with equivalentcourse work

Yes $15 certificate$15 out-of-statefiling

Renewalforms

Vermont K–6, 7–12, K–12MusicOut-of-statespecific areas

2-year Beginning Level I7-year ProfessionalLevel II

PPST or CBT Yes, but test isrequired

Yes $25 letter ofeligibility$35 filing fee$35 per year oflicense

No

Virginia PreK–12 VocalPreK–12Instrumental

5-year License PPST or CBT (basicskills)PRAXIS II (contentarea)

Yes; Testing waivedwith 2+ yearsexperience

Yes $50 in-state license$75 out-of-statelicense$25 renewal fee

Yes

Washington PreK-12 GeneralPreK-12 ChoralPreK-12Instrumental

5-year Residency5-year Professional

None Completeapplication isrequired

Yesas intern

$25 certificate$20 initialprocessing$59 fingerprinting

Yes

West Virginia PreK-12 Music 3-year ProvisionalProfessional5-year ProfessionalPermanent

PPST or CBT (basicskills)PLT (professional) PRAXIS II (contentarea)

Yes; 1-year licenseto complete testing

No $15 license$40 fingerprinting(1/1/02)

No

Wisconsin K–6, 7–12, K–12General 7–12 ChoralK–12 Instrumental

5-year Initial5-year Renewal

PPST or CBT (basicskills)Native AmericanTribes course

Accepts otherstates’ basic skillstests;2-year to completeNative Am. course

No $100 in-statelicense$150 out-of-statelicense

No

Wyoming K–6, 5–8, 7–12,K–12Vocal/General,Instrumental, orComposite

5-year Standard NoneU.S. and WyomingConstitution course

Yes, but may haverenewalrequirements

Yes $125 evaluation$45 fingerprinting

Yes


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

PreK

-12

K-12

1-12

PreK

-9 K-5

K-6

K-8

K-9

1-9

5-8

5-12

6-12

7-12

All-Level Elementary Secondary

Num

ber o

f Sta

tes

Figure 1. Certification Age Levels for Music


��

��

��

��0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Basic Professional Content None

Testing Area

Num

ber o

f Sta

tes

Figure 2. Types of Required Tests for Certification


Table 2. State-Administered Certification Tests and Their Categorization

Test category

State Test name Basicskills

Professional Content area

AZ Arizona Educator Proficiency Assessment X X

CA California Basic Educational Skills Test X

CO Program for Licensure Assessment for ColoradoEducators

X

FL College Level Academic Skills Test X

Florida Professional Educators Test X

Florida Subject Area Examination X

IL Illinois Certification Testing System X X

MA Massachusetts Educator Tests X X

MI Michigan Test for Teacher Certification X X X

NM New Mexico Teacher Assessments X X

NY New York State Teacher CertificationExaminations

X X X

OK Oklahoma General Education Test X

Oklahoma Professional Teacher Examination X

Oklahoma Subject Area Tests X

TX Examination for the Certification of Educators inTexas

X X


��

$0.00

$20.00

$40.00

$60.00

$80.00

$100.00

$120.00

$140.00

$160.00

$180.00

$200.00

Arkansa

s

Delaware

Georgi

aHaw

aii

Mississ

ippi

Missou

ri

Tenne

ssee

Indian

a

Marylan

d

Pennsy

lvania Utah

West

Virg

inia

Alabam

aKan

sas Ohio

Rhode

Islan

d

Wash

ington

Delaware

Georgi

aHaw

aii

Mississ

ippi

Missou

ri

Tenne

ssee

Nebras

ka

Minneso

ta

Colorad

o

South

Carolin

a

Kentuc

kyMain

e

New Je

rsey

New M

exico

Virgini

a

Califor

nia

Louisi

anaFlor

ida

Oregon

Texas

New H

ampsh

ire

North C

arolin

a

North D

akota

Alaska

Conne

cticu

tIow

a

Massach

usetts

Nevad

a

New Y

ork

Wisc

onsin

Vermon

t

Wyo

ming

Michiga

n

State

Figure 3. Certification Fee for In-State Applicants


The Effects of Field Experience on Music Education Majors’Perceptions of Music Instruction for Secondary Students with

Special NeedsBy Kimberly VanWeelden and Jennifer Whipple

Kimberly VanWeelden is assistant professor of choral music education in the College ofMusic at The Florida State University in Tallahassee. Jennifer Whipple is a policy analyst in theFlorida Legislature’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability.

Teacher academic preparation is a key component of the successful inclusion of students withspecial needs in music classes. Music educators have expressed the feeling of being inadequatelyprepared to address the needs of special learners (Atterbury, 1986; Frisque, Niebur, &Humphreys, 1994; Gfeller, Darrow, & Hedden, 1990; Gilbert & Asmus, 1981; Sideridis &Chandler, 1995). Specifically, developing classroom management techniques (Hawkins, 1992),acquiring new skills and competencies to adapt instruction (Sideridis & Chandler, 1995), andcreating a successful learning environment for all students (Gfeller, Darrow, & Hedden, 1990)are among the concerns music teachers have about their preparation when including speciallearners in their classrooms. These concerns have become the impetus for greater training withinmusic education undergraduate curricula so as to prepare preservice teachers to meet the currentchallenges of the profession. Research examining institutions offering undergraduate degrees in music education havefound many requiring course work to prepare students to work with special learners (Colwell &Thompson, 2000; Heller, 1995; Schmidt, 1989). For example, Colwell and Thompson (2000)randomly selected one Research Category I, one state-funded regional, and one privateinstitution from each state as well as all institutions that offered a degree in music therapy,creating a total of 171 schools, to examine for the study. Results found 140 courses within theseinstitutions available for music education majors (74%), with 30 containing content that wasmusic specific and 110 made up of non-music specific content. While these results indicate thatthe majority of colleges and universities include mainstreaming course work within thecurriculum, the authors recommend further investigation of the nature of this course work,including field-based experiences (Colwell & Thompson, 2000). To date, little research investigating field experiences for preservice music educators inworking with students with special needs has been conducted. In a study closely related to thecurrent paper, Kaiser and Johnson (2000) examined the effect of an interactive experience onmusic majors’ perceptions of music for students who are deaf. A pretest questionnaire wasadministered to all participants, followed by a 30-minute description of the experience and a


one-time interaction with the students. The interaction contained a performance by the universitystudents; visual-tactile demonstrations of sound vibrations and pitch; and opportunities for thechildren to feel, play, and conduct the instruments. At the conclusion of the study, a posttest wasadministered for comparison analysis. Results revealed positive increases in music majors’perceptions of music for students who are deaf and their preparedness to work with thesechildren in music settings. The Kaiser and Johnson study gave music education and performance majors an experienceinteracting with students with special needs. However, the music majors were not given theopportunity to work with the children more than once or to practice planning and teaching theactivities to the children. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to examine the effect ofa long-term field experience, which included planning and teaching, on music educationstudents’ perceptions of music for secondary students with special needs. Specifically, the studyinvestigated music education students’ (a) personal comfort interacting with persons withphysical, mental, and emotional disabilities; (b) perceptions of preparation in their educationaltraining to work with students with special needs in music settings; (c) comfort working withstudents with special needs in music settings; (d) willingness to provide music for students withspecial needs; and (e) perceptions of behavior and learning of students with special needs.

Method The subjects (N=28) were undergraduate music education majors at a large universityenrolled during the fall (n=15) and spring (n=13) semesters in a course titled “TeachingSecondary General Music.” This course was a part of the undergraduate music educationcurriculum and included students specializing in choral, instrumental, or general music. Theclass consisted of 10 weeks of in-class instruction (which met Monday, Wednesday, and Fridayevery week) and 5 weeks of field-based secondary general music lab experience (working withsecondary students with special needs on Monday and Friday) each semester. In-class Instruction. The in-class instruction included activities pertaining to various aspectsof teaching general music within secondary schools. Specifically, five broad areas were covered:(1) microteaching, (2) music listening, (3) musical games, (4) issues within secondary schools,and (5) assessment and evaluation procedures. The first area gave all students the opportunity topractice planning and teaching to their peers song leading, Orff-Schulwerk instrumentalorchestrations, world music and dance, and Western art-music lessons. The music listeningassignment asked students to read three articles (Bibbins, 1998; Burns, 1995; Kerchner, 1996)and employ each technique to a set of music chosen by the teacher. The third area asked studentsto create a game that would teach a musical concept that was age appropriate for students inmiddle or high school. Articles related to a variety of issues when teaching in secondary schools,


including two about students with special needs (Darrow, 1998; Thompson, 1999), were read bystudents and discussed in class. The last area asked students to evaluate their teaching whilewatching videotapes of themselves during their microteaching lessons and to set individualteaching behavior goals to address for the next teaching assignment. Field-based Experience. The field-based secondary general music lab experience consisted ofworking with students with special needs at a local middle school. These students were primarilyeducated within a self-contained setting and were divided into two classrooms that were basedupon the students’ disability(s). The first class consisted of students with emotional and/orbehavioral disorders (EDBD) and the resulting academic delays that often accompany thesedisabilities. The second class contained students who exhibited acute cognitive delays (ACD),such as autism, Down syndrome, mental retardation, and extensive learning disabilities. Eachclassroom had 11 to 15 students and represented the same ages as all middle school children. The preservice music educators were divided into two groups: one to work with students inthe EDBD classroom and the other to work with students in the ACD classroom. Both classeswere taught during the same time but in separate locations. Therefore, it was necessary to dividethe preservice teachers into two groups to facilitate the logistical constraints. Each class wassupervised by one of the researchers. The division of the preservice teachers was based upontheir gender and major emphasis (choral, instrumental, or general) so as to create roughly thesame teacher demographics within each classroom. Teachers were further divided into teachinggroups of three to four persons, creating two teaching groups per classroom, using the samedemographics. All divisions were determined by the researchers prior to the field experience. Two secondary general music curricula, created by the researchers, were used as thefoundation for the field-teaching experience: one for the fall semester and one for the springsemester. Both curricula contained the same types of activities found in the in-class portion ofthe course. Specifically, song leading, Orff instrumental orchestrations, world music and dance,Western Art music, music listening, and musical games were included. Because most of thestudents with special needs participated throughout the entire year, two curricula were needed toprovide new variations of the activities for students. The only exceptions to this were theopening and closing songs that were sung by all students and preservice teachers during bothsemesters. The week immediately prior to the field experience was devoted to explaining the logistics ofthe field experience, dividing the undergraduates into teaching groups, discussing thecurriculum, reading and discussing the special education articles, and giving the teaching groupstime to plan and prepare for their first teaching experience. During the first week of the field-based experience, the preservice teachers introduced themselves, created name tags for each


student, sat interspersed with the students, and participated as teaching assistants as theresearchers taught the lessons. The purpose of this first week was to give the preservice teacherstime to acclimate to the experience and students without the additional responsibilities ofteaching. Beginning in the second week, the teacher groups were given the responsibility of preparingand teaching all aspects of the lessons. Since there were two teaching groups per classroom, thegroups alternated lesson responsibilities every other week. Each lesson contained four activitiesfrom the curriculum. This gave each member of one teaching group the opportunity to plan andlead the class during the lesson. Additionally, teachers were required to teach a different part ofthe curriculum every lesson. When groups were not actively involved in teaching the lesson theyacted as teaching assistants to help students individually. During the last teaching experience foreach group, teachers were given the responsibility of planning and preparing the lesson withoutguidelines provided by the researcher. Thus, at the end of the semester, each preservice teacherhad taught four times in different general music curricular areas and assisted individual studentswith various musical tasks during 10 class periods. Classroom management techniques, consisting of rewards and consequences, were set by theresearchers under the advisement of the special education teachers at the middle school. Studentswere rewarded individually for good behavior, participation, effort, and correct answers.Teachers were highly encouraged to reward students often throughout each lesson and weregiven the responsibility of determining what type of reward (verbal approval, sticker, pencil, orcandy) and how the reward would be delivered (during an activity, between activities, or at theend of the lesson) to best meet the needs of the students while maintaining the greatest amount oflesson continuity. Likewise, students were individually given consequences if they becamedisruptive or disrespectful to their peers or teachers. Teachers were again responsible fordetermining what type of consequence (verbal disapproval, time-out, or no reward) and how theconsequence would be delivered. Teaching assessments were conducted immediately following each lesson. All teachers fromone classroom met with the supervising researcher to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of thelesson taught. Individual teaching goals (i.e., talking slower, adjusting the teaching sequence) aswell as teaching group goals (i.e., making better transitions from one activity to the next, keepingall students actively involved) were discussed and set. Teachers also met at the university everyWednesday during the experience with the researchers and their fellow classmates to discussspecific concerns and joys as well as plan and prepare for the next lesson. The Survey Instrument. The dependent variable was a survey made up of 17 questionsregarding the students’ perceptions of music for secondary students with special needs, including


how prepared, comfortable, willing, and perceptive they were toward working with speciallearners. This questionnaire was fashioned after a similar survey instrument used by Kaiser andJohnson (2000) who investigated the effect of an interactive experience on music majors’perceptions of music for students who are deaf. Prior to any in-class discussion relating tostudents with special needs or general music lab experience, each subject was asked to completethe pretest questionnaire. At the conclusion of the field experience, students were asked tocomplete the same questionnaire, creating a pretest-posttest design. All questions used a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” to ensure that allparticipants interpreted the rating scale in the same direction. Questions are listed in Figure 1.

Results To begin the analysis process, questions were grouped according to the following categories:general interactions (questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5); preparation (questions 6, 7, 8); comfort(questions 9, 10, and 11); willingness (questions 12, 13, and 14); and perceptions (questions 15,16, and 17). One-way ANOVAs using pretest and posttest scores for each grouping werecompleted. The preservice teachers’ scores significantly increased within the categories ofgeneral interactions (F{28,1}6.19, p = .016) from pretest (M = 15.07, SD = 3.10) to posttest (M =16.78, SD =1.73); preparation (F{28,1}18.46, p = .001) from pretest (M = 9.89, SD = 2.42) toposttest (M = 12.29, SD = 1.67); and comfort (F{28,1}11.47, p = .001) from pretest (M = 10.79,SD = 2.21) to posttest (M = 12.64, SD = 1.87). Significant increases were also found when allcategories, creating overall pretest (M = 65.36, SD = 9.23) and posttest (M = 71.52, SD = 5.74)scores, were combined (F{28,1}8.75, p = .005). One-way ANOVAs comparing pretest and posttest scores for each classroom assignment,EDBD or ACD, by category were completed to determine whether differences existed. Theresults found the EDBD teachers’ scores significantly increased in the categories of preparation(F{14,1}20.11, p = .001) from pretest (M = 9.14, SD = 0.54) to posttest (M = 12.69, SD = 0.56)and comfort (F{14,1}14.63, p = .001) from pretest (M = 10.14, SD = 0.54) to posttest (M =13.00, SD = 0.56), as well as for all categories combined (F{14,1}8.61, p = .007) from pretest(M = 62.57, SD = 2.02) to posttest (M = 71.30, SD = 2.10). The ACD teachers’ scores increasedin the categories of general interactions, preparations, comfort, and all categories combined,though not significantly. Several questions on the survey asked preservice teachers about working with secondarystudents with special needs in different music settings. These included secondary general musicclass (questions 5, 6, 9, and 12); performance ensemble (questions 5, 7, 10, and 13); and privatestudio (questions 5, 8, and 11). Comparative analyses of the teachers’ pretest and posttest scoresfor each setting were completed. One-way ANOVAs revealed significant increases in preservice


Figure 1. Survey Instrument Questions

1. I am comfortable interacting with middle school students.2. I am comfortable interacting with people with physical disabilities.3. I am comfortable interacting with people with mental disabilities.4. I am comfortable interacting with people with emotional disabilities.5. I believe music education should be a part of the curriculum for students with special needs.6. I feel my educational training has prepared me to work with students with special needs in a

secondary general music class setting.7. I feel my educational training has prepared me to work with students with special needs in a

music ensemble setting.8. I feel my educational training has prepared me to work with students with special needs in a

private music studio setting.9. I would be comfortable working with students with special needs in a secondary general music

classroom.10. I would be comfortable working with students with special needs in a private studio for music

lessons.11. I would be comfortable working with students with special needs in a music ensemble.12. I would be willing to provide music experiences to students with special needs in a secondary

general music classroom.13. I would be willing to provide music experiences to students with special needs in a secondary

performance ensemble.14. I would be willing to provide music experiences to students with special needs ina special

education classroom.15. I believe students with special needs behave in class the same as other students their age.16. I believe students with special needs can learn the same musical material as other students

their age.17. I believe lesson adaptations for students with special needs should be stated on the lesson

plan.

teachers’ perceptions of music for special learners in all three settings: classroom (F{28,1}11.89,p = .001) from pretest (M = 17.00, SD = 1.84) to posttest (M = 18.50, SD = 1.37); ensemble(F{128,1}6.37, p = .015) from pretest (M = 16.50, SD = 2.33) to posttest (M = 17.86, SD = 1.62);and studio (F{28,1}13.46, p = .001) from pretest (M = 11.11, SD = 2.04) to posttest (M = 13.96,SD = 1.73). Additionally, individual classroom assignment differences within each musiceducation setting were investigated using one-way ANOVAs. Significant differences were foundwithin the EDBD class for all three settings: classroom (F{14,1}9.86, p = .004) from pretest (M= 16.64, SD = 1.73) to posttest (M = 18.57, SD = 1.50), ensemble (F{14,1}8.28, p = .008) frompretest (M = 15.79, SD = 2.54) to posttest (M = 18.14, SD = 1.70), and studio (F{14,1}19.66, p =.001) from pretest (M = 10.79, SD = 2.04) to posttest (M = 13.64, SD = 1.27). The ACDteachers’ scores also increased within each area, though not significantly.

Discussion Some caution should be used in interpreting these data since they were obtained from asample of only 28 music education majors. Still, the first category of survey questions examinedthe general comfort preservice teachers felt when interacting with persons with physical, mental,


and emotional disabilities. All preservice teachers’ comfort in interacting with persons with thesedisabilities increased after the field experience. Being comfortable interacting with persons withdisabilities is a major step toward positive attitudes about people with disabilities. Sideridis andChandler (1995) found that music educators expressed negative attitudes regarding theintegration of students with mental retardation and emotional and behavioral disabilities ingeneral music classrooms. Students within this study, however, became more comfortableinteracting with these populations after the secondary general music lab experience. Theseresults lend support to one of the goals of this experience, and a purpose for all field-basedinstructions, which was to facilitate positive attitudes about the populations served (Eyck, 1985). Educational preparation to work with students with special needs in music education settingswas also rated significantly higher at the end of the experience. Specifically, preservice teachersrated their preparation to work in inclusive secondary general music classrooms and performanceensembles as well as individually with students with special needs in private studio lessonshigher at the end of the experience. The great advantage of working in the field during preservicetraining is to practice and prepare for “real life” experiences. Since this field experience wasdesigned to prepare students to successfully work with students with special needs in music, thestudents’ posttest scores indicate this goal was met. And, while the experience took place withina secondary general music class setting, the results indicate this situation transferred to thepreservice teachers’ feelings of preparedness in other music education settings as well. Students were also asked about their comfort in working with students with special needs inmusic settings. Results indicated the field experience had a significantly positive effect in regardto students’ comfort in inclusive music education settings. Student posttest scores also showedpositive increases in all three music settings, classroom, ensemble, and studio, with the largestincreases found within the EDBD teachers. Since the field experience combined knowledge andteaching skills acquired in class with direct hands-on application, the positive results areimportant. During the in-class portion of the course, the teachers were never asked to designtheir microteaches, musical game, or listening assignments to meet the needs of special learners.Yet, during the field experience, teachers had to plan and prepare the activities in order to adaptto the students’ needs as well as modify rate of instruction and material covered during the actuallesson presentation. Thus, when the act of teaching was coupled with the myriad of challengesdisplayed by the needs of the special learners, the comfort of working with this population mayhave seemed difficult for beginners. Students within this study, however, ended with high levelsof comfort in their abilities to work with students with special needs in different music educationsettings following their field experience.


Greater increases by the EDBD than the ACD classroom teachers from pretest to posttest mayhave been due to a variety of factors. The mean pre-experience survey scores for the EDBDteachers in the classroom, ensemble, and studio question groupings were lower than those of theACD teachers. This difference may have predisposed the ACD teachers to less room forimprovement. For the classroom and ensemble question groupings, the post means of the EDBDand ACD groups were more comparable than were the pre means of the two groups. The reasonfor the differences between groups in pre-experience survey response scores is unclear, though alarger sample size might provide a more even distribution of student perceptions. Differences inclass dynamics, including student strengths and deficits, may have resulted in greater impactfrom the EDBD classroom experience, though additional research is needed to determinewhether this is a consistent trend and, if so, what the specific cause may be. Willingness to work with students with special needs in the future showed positive, but notsignificant, gains. This was the only category of questions that asked students to predict futureactivities. While it may be unreasonable to ask and difficult for students to plan beyond theirinternship, it should be noted the students did rate their preparedness and comfort working withstudents with special needs in music significantly higher after the field experience. Comfort andpreparation in dealing with special populations is necessary before additional opportunities towork in these areas are sought (Kaiser & Johnson, 2000; Stephens & Braun, 1980; Wilson &McCrary, 1996). Therefore, since the students responded positively to those categories and to theoverall field experience, a longitudinal study during the students’ internship or after they areworking within the profession should be used to investigate whether these students are willing towork with students with special needs in their specific music education setting. The preservice teachers’ perceptions of the behaviors of students with special needs and theircapabilities to learn like other children their age did not change significantly after the fieldexperience. This experience did not give the preservice teachers the opportunity to work withstudents with and without disabilities together in one classroom; only students who wereprimarily educated within the two self-contained settings were instructed. While all the musiceducation students had worked with children in other field-based experiences in their majoremphasis prior to this class, this was their first opportunity to work with students in a secondarygeneral music setting. Thus, it may have been difficult for teachers to determine whether thestudents’ behavior and capabilities to learn were the same as their nondisabled peers in asecondary general music classroom since they had no frame of reference. Future research in thismusic education setting will ideally include larger sample sizes and examine how secondarystudents with and without disabilities behave and learn when in the same general musicclassroom as well as the teachers’ perceptions of all students’ behavior and capabilities to learn.


ReferencesAtterbury, B. (1986). A survey of present mainstreaming practices in the southern United States.

Journal of Music Therapy, 23(4), 202–7.Bibbins, N. P. (1998). Listening with the whole mind. General Music Today, 11(3), 11–13.Burns, K. (1995). Teaching music listening skills: How low can you go? General Music Today,

8(3), 31–33.Colwell, C. M., & Thompson, L. K. (2000). “Inclusion” of information on mainstreaming in

undergraduate music education curricula. Journal of Music Therapy, 37(3), 205–21.Darrow, A. A. (1998). Sticks and stones … and words can hurt: Eliminating handicapping

language. Music Therapy Perspectives, 16(2), 81–83.Eyck, S. G. T. (1985). The effect of simulation and observation training on the music teaching

behaviors of undergraduate music therapy/music education majors in a field teachingexperience. Journal of Music Therapy, 22(4), 168–82.

Frisque, J., Niebur, L., & Humphreys, J. T. (1994). Music mainstreaming: Practices in Arizona.Journal of Research in Music Education, 42(2), 94–104.

Gfeller, K., Darrow, A. A., & Hedden, S. K. (1990). Perceived effectiveness of mainstreaming inIowa and Kansas schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38(2), 90–101.

Gilbert, J. P., & Asmus, E. P. (1981). Mainstreaming: Music educators’ participation andprofessional needs. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29(1), 31–37.

Hawkins, G. D. (1992). Attitudes toward mainstreaming students with disabilities among regularelementary music and physical educators. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland,College Park, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 3245A.

Heller, L. (1995). Undergraduate music teacher preparation for mainstreaming: A survey ofmusic education teacher training institutions in the Great Lakes region of the UnitedStates. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1994). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 56, 858A.

Kaiser, K. A., & Johnson, K. E. (2000). The effect of an interactive experience on music majors’perceptions of music for deaf students. Journal of Music Therapy, 37(3), 222–34.

Kerchner, J. L. (1996). Creative music listening. General Music Today, 10(1), 28–30.Schmidt, C. P. (1989). An investigation of undergraduate music education curriculum content.

Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 99, 42–56.Sideridis, G. D., & Chandler, J. P. (1995). Attitudes and characteristics of general music teachers

toward integrating children with developmental disabilities. Update: Applications ofResearch in Music Education, 14(1), 11–15.

Stephens, T. M., & Braun, B. L. (1980). Measures of regular classroom teachers’ attitudestoward handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 46, 292–94.

Thompson, K. P. (1999). Challenges of inclusion for the general music teacher. General MusicToday, 12(3), 7–9.

Wilson, B., & McCrary, J. (1996). The effect of instruction on music educators’ attitudes towardstudents with disabilities. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(1), 26–33.


Call for Submissions for Assessments in All Music Subject Areasand All Grade Levels for New MENC Assessment Publication

Music educators are invited to submit copies of assessments they use in their classrooms to bereviewed for inclusion in an upcoming assessment publication. Assessments that address theNational Standards are especially sought. Many types of assessments including rubrics, writtentests, and checklists are welcome. Assessments are sought for band, chorus, orchestra, generalmusic, and specialized areas at all levels: elementary, middle school, and high school. Pleasesubmit assessments no later than August 30, 2005.

Criteria for Evaluation of Assessments are as follows:• Assessments should be standards-based and reflect the music skills and knowledge that

are most important for students to learn.• Assessments should support, enhance, and reinforce learning.• Assessment should be reliable, valid, and authentic.• Assessment is replicable in many classrooms and teaching situations.• We ask that contributors please submit their assessments using the template found on the

MENC Web site at www.menc.org/connect/assessment/call.html.

Please submit a clean copy of each assessment, as well as an electronic copy to Beth Pontiff,MENC, 1806 Robert Fulton Dr, Reston, VA 20191-4348. Electronic copy can be on disk or e-mailed as a Word attachment or in the body of an e-mail. For further information, contact Tim S.Brophy, PhD, book editor, at University of Florida School of Music, PO Box 117900,Gainesville, FL 32611-7900 or Beth Pontiff, production editor, at 800-336-3768.


Call for Committee Members for New MENC AssessmentPublication

Committee members to review classroom assessments for a new MENC publication onassessment are now being sought. This book will be a collection of assessments that workingteachers are using in their classrooms. Committee members will need to be available to reviewassessments in summer and fall 2005. Applicants should have a strong academic or practicalbackground in both assessment and their subject area. Please send an abbreviated Curriculum Vitae or resume (1–2 pages) highlighting yourexperience with assessment and complete contact information by May 1 to Tim S. Brophy, PhD,book editor, at University of Florida School of Music, PO Box 117900, Gainesville, FL 32611-7900. For further information contact Beth Pontiff, production editor, at 800-336-3768.


Symposium on Music Teacher EducationMUSIC TEACHER EDUCATION: RETHINKING, RESEARCHING, REVITALIZING

September 15-17, 2005University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Sponsored By• Society for Music Teacher Education• School of Music at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG)• Music Research Institute at the UNCG School of Music• Music Educators National Conference: The National Association for Music Education• The College Music Society

PurposeThe purpose of this symposium is to initiate a sustained exploration of current critical issues in music teachereducation. Three broad areas of critical need are (a) finding future music educators, (b) preparing future musiceducators, and (c) supporting the professional development of music educators. These areas correspond to majorthemes of the MENC Task Force on Music Teacher Education that resulted in the publication of Music TeacherEducation: Partnership and Process. In this symposium, we will examine the charges presented in that 1987document, discuss the current challenges, and explore current research and models of effective practice. Adistinguishing feature of this symposium is that the agenda will be pursued beyond the conclusion of the meeting.The symposium will culminate with the development of specific plans for action and research in the effort toadvance coordinated and sustained work on the critical issues. The first of several opportunities to review progresswill be at the SMTE preconference session during the MENC biennial conference in Salt Lake City in 2006.

Target AudienceAnyone who is interested in music teacher education is welcome to attend the symposium and submit a proposal.Music teacher educators, deans/directors of schools of music, state and local fine arts supervisors, state policyofficials associated with certification, licensure, and school improvement, K–12 educators, and graduate students inmusic education are especially encouraged to participate.

Presentation Formats• Research Papers• Presentations on Best Practices• Position Papers• Research Posters• Graduate Research Posters of In-progress or Completed WorkTopicsThose submitting research papers, presentations on best practices, or position papers are asked to address one of thethree areas of critical need:(a) finding future music educators;(b) preparing future music educators; or(c) supporting the professional development of music educatorsThose submitting research posters or graduate research posters of in-progress or completed work may explore anyarea of music education in addition to the three areas of critical need mentioned above.

Submission Format and Procedures Research Papers addressing an area of critical need (see Topics) will be considered for presentation at one of theprimary working sessions of the symposium. Papers may utilize quantitative or qualitative paradigms as well asphilosophical or historical research methodologies. Please submit four copies of an abstract of no more than 500


words describing your study. If your paper is accepted, you will be asked to submit a completed full version to beincluded in the symposium proceedings. Presentations on Best Practices will be considered for one of the primary working sessions of the symposium.Sessions should describe programs or practices that are effectively meeting one or more of the areas of critical need(see Topics). Sessions may be presented utilizing PowerPoint. Please submit four copies of an abstract of no morethan 500 words describing the session that you plan to present. If your session is accepted, you will be asked tosubmit a completed version either as a PowerPoint file or as a paper by July 1, 2005, to be included in thesymposium proceedings. Position Papers will be considered for presentation at one of the primary working sessions of the symposium.Authors should present a unique viewpoint capable of generating thoughtful discussion about one or more of theareas of critical need (see Topics). Please submit four copies of an abstract of no more than 500 words. If your paperis accepted, you will be asked to submit a completed full version by July 1, 2005, to be included in the symposiumproceedings. Research Posters proposals exploring any area of music education will be considered for presentation at theSymposium Research Poster Session. Posters may utilize quantitative or qualitative paradigms as well asphilosophical or historical research methodologies. Please submit four copies of an abstract of no more than 500words describing the study that you plan to present. If your poster proposal is accepted, you will be asked to submitan updated abstract by July 1, 2005, to be included in the symposium proceedings. Also, participants will be requiredto furnish 10 copies of the completed report and 50 copies of a one- to two-page report summary at the postersession. Graduate Research Posters of In-Progress or Completed Work exploring any area of music education will beconsidered for presentation at the Graduate Research Forum during which members of the JMTE Editorial Boardwill provide encouragement and feedback to members of the next generation of music education researchers. Pleasesubmit four copies of an abstract of no more than 500 words describing the study that you plan to present. Postersmay utilize quantitative or qualitative paradigms as well as philosophical or historical research methodologies. Ifyour poster proposal is accepted, you will be asked to submit an updated abstract by July 1, 2005, to be included inthe symposium proceedings.

General Submission InformationAll submissions should not have been published prior to the symposium and should comply with the “Code ofEthics” published in the Journal of Research in Music EducationProposals that represent collaborations—either cross-institutional or cross-departmental within a singleinstitution—of research and/or practice are especially welcome.

All submissions should include a cover letter (indicating name of the author(s), institutional affiliations, emailaddresses/contact information, and presentation format) and four copies of a 500-word abstract. Submissions must bepostmarked by April 15, 2005, and sent to:

David J. Teachout, ChairSymposium on Music Teacher Education

School of MusicP.O. Box 26170

UNC GreensboroGreensboro, NC 27402-6170

April 15, 2005: Submission postmark deadline for proposalsJune 1, 2005: Notification of acceptance for proposalsJuly 1, 2005: Deadline to submit materials for publication in the symposium proceedings.

All proposals will be subject to blind review by an advisory panel. If accepted, the primary or a listed co-author mustregister for and attend the symposium. Registration information will be posted on the SMTE Web site in late spring2005 (www.menc.org/smte).


“Sounds of Learning” Study

The International Foundation for Music Research (IFMR), a nonprofit foundation funded in partby NAMM, the International Music Products Association, has launched a major research projectdesigned to expand knowledge of the value music plays in a quality education. The organizationis currently soliciting research proposals for this important undertaking.

IFMR has contributed $150,000 toward projects that will be funded under “Sounds of Learning:The Impact of Music Education,” an authoritative examination of music education’s influence onacademic achievement, children’s growth and development, how music is used in people’s dailylives and how it impacts school, home and work environments. Additional funds available forcontract research have been provided by the Fund for Improvement of Education at the U.S.Department of Education.

By inaugurating the “Sounds of Learning: The Impact of Music Education” project, IFMRexecutives aim to assemble quantifiable, unimpeachable data on some of the finer points in theongoing music education discussion. There has been an abundance of credible research showingthe immediate as well as long-term value of music education, but this new project, which willcomprise numerous research studies, delves deeper into specific areas of study as it relates to thebenefits of teaching music and encouraging the playing of music in school-age children.

“As evidenced by the debates over the federal government’s No Child Left Behind initiative andthe continuing discussions in state houses across the country, key decision-makers andacademics are hungry for the best research on music education’s importance,” said MaryLuehrsen, executive director of IFMR. “We’re soliciting proposals from the top researchersinterested in conducting an authoritative, important study of this crucially important topic.”

“Sounds of Learning” will be an extended project that has been divided into two phases. ForPhase I, research proposals are due April 1, 2005. Research requests for phase two of the“Sounds of Learning” project, which will give closer focus to how music education impactspeople’s home and work lives, are due later this summer.For more information on the project, and to submit a proposal, interested parties can e-mailIFMR at [email protected].


JMTE Yearbook! If you’re weary of searching online for new ideas and research in music teacher education, the newJMTE Yearbook is for you! This first edition is a hard copy publication of the fall 2004 and spring 2005issues of the Journal of Music Teacher Education.

Articles in this first edition of the JTME Yearbook will include:

A Tribute to a Founder of the Society for Music Teacher Education: George N. HellerEdward P. Asmus

An Investigation of Second-Career Music TeachingMargaret H. Berg

The Problem of Music Education Philosophy for UndergraduatesPaul Broomhead

Where Do We Begin with Inquiry-Based Degree Programs?Suzanne L. Burton

Raising the Standards: Music Teacher Education in a Performance-Based WorldDon P. Ester

Comparing Prospective Freshmen and Preservice Music Education Majors’ Reflections of Music Interactions

Deborah A. Sheldon and Gregory DeNardo

What to Do about Music Teacher Education: Our Profession at a CrossroadsJeffrey Kimpton

What Partnerships Must We Create, Build, or Reenergize in K–12 Higher and Professional Education for Music Teacher Education in the Future?

Janet Robbins and Robin Stein

Where Will the Supply of New Teachers Come From, Where Shall We Recruit, and Who Will Teach These Prospective Teachers?

William E. Fredrickson and J. Bryan Burton

What Is the Role of MENC, NASM, or Other State or National Professional Organizationsin Providing Leadership and Support for New Research and Models?

Don P. Ester and David J. Brinkman

An Analysis of Certification Practices for Music Education in the Fifty StatesMichele L. Henry

The Effects of Field Experience on Music Education Majors’ Perceptions of Music Instructionfor Secondary Students with Special Needs

Kimberly VanWeelden and Jennifer Whipple

Visit www.rowmaneducation.com after June 1 for price and availability information.

Documents

Teachout PD Article