String Music Educators’ Perceptions of the Impact of New String Programs on Student Outcomes,School Music Programs,and Communities

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of newly initiated string programs on teachers, schools, districts, communities, and existing music program administration and students. Research questions pertained to (a) locations, student access, and instructional offerings; (b) educators; and (c) perceived impact on student outcomes. Data from 64 participants were analyzed. Results indicated that new string programs were largely developed at the middle and high school levels, located in suburban (59%), urban (23%), and rural (18%) areas, with instruction held during the regular school day. The majority (86%) of teachers were credentialed string specialists. While participants cited some frustrations, such as scheduling difficulties and lack of performance facilities, they identified several benefits from the new programs, including increased student participation in all music programs, more student collaborative opportunities, increased community and local music business support, and the more comprehensive nature of the music curriculum.

Keywords

new string programs school string programs impact on music programs

The introduction and development of string instruction in school music curricula have been well documented. Birge (1928), Hoisington (1980), Humphreys (1989), and Hamann and Gillespie (2008) have described the beginnings of class violin instruction in the United States as introduced first in the Northeast in the early 1900s by Albert Mitchell in Boston. He based his violin classes on his 1910 observations of similar classes in Maidstone, England. Reports of the success of Mitchell’s class teaching traveled quickly. In the western United States, Hoisington (1980) reported that grade-school orchestras appeared in 1909 in both the Los Angeles schools and Oakland, California, schools and within the next few years in cities such as Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Detroit. By the end of the 1920s, orchestra programs appeared in 278 cities across the country, according to a 1919–1920 survey of 359 cities (Humphreys, 1989).

School orchestra programs were threatened by the growing popularity of band programs between the 1930s and 1960s (Turner, 2001). However, by the 1970s, string programs began to grow anew (Gillespie & Hamann, 1998). Researchers examining the status of school orchestra programs have reported a continuous increase in the number of string programs in American schools from the 1980s until the present (Gillespie & Hamann, 1998; Hamann, Gillespie, & Bergonzi, 2002; Leonard, 1991; Smith, 1997; Smith & Alexander, 2010; Wendell, 1999).

Russell and Hamann (2011) examined teachers’ perceptions of the impact of current string programs in their schools. During the 2007–2008 school year, the researchers surveyed all MENC (now the National Association for Music Education [NAfME]), members in two Southwestern states regarding their opinion of the impact of the string programs on their local school music programs. Fourteen percent (N = 308) of those surveyed responded. Respondents indicated that the benefits of having a string program in the schools were more important than the negative aspects of having such a program in that they offered a more comprehensive music curriculum due to a larger number of class offerings, expanded repertoire, and the opportunity for more students to study music—compared to negative consequences, such as the need for a larger budget and more fundraising to support the overall music program and the need to find qualified string teachers. Ninety-eight percent reported that a string program was beneficial to a music program and student musical and personal development.

Gillespie and Hamann (2010) identified 150 new school string programs created between 1999 and 2009, located across 33 states. The researchers surveyed the individuals teaching in the programs. Participants (N = 132, 62% response rate) responded to items designed to elicit information regarding the history of their program, its current status, and perceived future of the program. Gillespie and Hamann found that programs typically began after only 1 year or less of discussion. A local music teacher or school superintendent most often first suggested starting a new program. The researchers identified several factors as critical to the successful establishment of a new string program, including the need for strong parent and administrative support, competent string teaching once the program began, and adequate funding.

Members of professional music associations continue to advocate for string programs in the schools. NAfME and the American String Teacher Association (ASTA) have published documents encouraging the place of string programs in the schools: Content Standards (Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 1994) and A Blueprint for the Future (ASTA, 2000). Despite this, however, most school districts do not have school string programs, as found in studies on the national status of string programs in America (i.e., Gillespie & Hamann, 1998; Hamann et al., 2002; Smith, 2000; Smith & Alexander, 2011).

One of the obstacles to starting more string programs in the schools may be the lack of data on the impact a new string program may have on an existing school music program and the community in which it resides. (For the purpose of the current study, community was defined as the town, city, or geographic area that encompassed the school district.) Possible negative effects could be lowered enrollment in existing music ensembles if students currently involved withdrew to join an orchestra ensemble. Less funding may be available to support current music curricula if string instruction were added without a change in level of funding support. Music instruction facilities may not be able to support additional string classes.

Perhaps adding a string program will have positive results, however, such as enrolling students in the school music program who may not be attracted to instruction currently offered. The addition of a string program may attract additional support and attention to the current program(s) by engaging the parents of those enrolling in the new string program. A new string program could increase awareness of the arts in the local community by bringing attention to performances and outreach activities of the new school program. If the impact of founding a new string program within an established school music program and the community in which it resides is found to be positive, perhaps those wanting to begin such a program and those involved in the current program would be more encouraged to consider such a project.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of newly initiated string programs on teachers, schools, districts, and existing music program administration and student outcomes. More specifically, we sought to answer the following research questions: (1) What do new string programs look like in terms of location, student access, and instructional offerings? (2) Who were the educators responsible for teaching in the newly initiated string programs? and (3) What perceived impact did the new string programs have on student outcomes as well as the existing programs in the school, the district, and the community where they occur?

Method and Data Source

Instrument

We developed the String Program Impact Questionnaire (SPIQ) from previous research intended to examine new string programs in schools (Gillespie & Hamann, 2010) as well as the impact (i.e., budgetary, enrollment, etc.) that string programs have on gestalt music programs (Russell & Hamann, 2011). We organized the SPIQ into four major sections: items designed to determine string program descriptions, the professional backgrounds and demographics of those teaching in new string programs, the impact of the string programs on the schools where they occurred, and the impact of the string programs on districts and communities where they occurred.

The initial version of the SPIQ consisted of 46 items, of which the majority employed short-response, ipsative, and Likert-type scale responses. This form of the SPIQ was pilot tested with 10 participants from Gillespie’s (2010) original study to improve the questionnaire’s readability and validity and for the purposes of this study to ensure that each item was clear and intelligible. Each pilot test participant discussed the clarity of the SPIQ with one of the researchers. On the basis of feedback, we altered the wording of several items to increase clarity. As will be discussed in the Findings section, we assessed the internal reliability of the SPIQ through a priori subscale analysis and found an average Cronbach’s alpha rating of the three subscales to be very high (.87).

Procedure

Following pilot testing and subsequent improvements to the SPIQ, we administered a web-based survey (using Surveymonkey.com). We identified 154 potential participants from a database of string educators who initiated a new string program between 1999 and 2009 (Gillespie & Hamann, 2010). Several e-mail invitations were not delivered successfully (n = 24), leaving 130 potential participants. We sent the initial invitation as well as three e-mail reminders to complete the questionnaire. Sixty-four individuals completed the questionnaire (response rate = 49%, ±8.7% margin of error rate at 95% confidence level).

We determined that at least 62 programs, districts, and/or schools were represented in the sample. Of the 64 participants, 2 from one district and 2 from another district were identified. All other respondents represented individual programs, districts, and/or schools.

Findings

Program and Teaching Contexts

New String Program Descriptions

String program directors from 62 different school systems and/or districts responded to the survey. Those responding represented new string programs in 30 different states. The states with most programs represented included Texas and Pennsylvania (6), Ohio and Virginia (4), and Georgia and Delaware (3). Stakeholders founded the majority (56%) of new programs in the academic years 1999–2000, 2005–2006, 2007–2008, and 2008–2009. Respondents were asked to identify their programs as suburban, urban, or rural. Definitions of these descriptors were not provided, so answers reflected the opinions of the responders only. Most of the new string programs were identified as suburban (59%). Others were urban (23%) or rural (18%). This ratio of percentages is similar to the distribution of all string programs in the United States as reported by Hamann et al. (2002).

Respondents indicated that although new elementary string programs had been initiated, most new string program instruction occurred in middle schools and high schools, with more in middle schools than in high schools. Most (73%) of the new programs had two or three people teaching strings in them. Students participated in string instruction most often during the regular school day: 1 to 2 days per week at the elementary level (K–5) and daily in middle schools and high schools. The duration of instruction in a majority (52%) of elementary string classes was between 30 and 45 minutes, between 30 and 60 minutes at the middle school, and between 45 and 60 minutes at the high school. If string instruction was not offered during the regular school day, it occurred most frequently after school. Most school districts offered some other music class or music ensemble instruction outside of the regular school day (e.g., choir, rock band, jazz band, piano, chamber music, guitar, mariachi, Orff ensemble).

Nearly half (41%) of the string instruction occurred in a classroom devoted exclusively to strings classes, while a third (33%) occurred in space shared with bands. The remaining 26% of string teachers did have dedicated teaching space, with the exception of two teachers who shared a regular classroom with an academic teacher. The other dedicated spaces were primarily auditorium stage/cafeteria areas (6 respondents). One teacher indicated he or she had a dedicated teaching space, which was a closet storage area.

String Teacher Professional Background and Demographics

Nearly half of the participants (49%) had taught between 5 and 15 years, with about one third (35%) having taught for 20 or more years, 10% for less than 5 years, and 5% for at least 15 years but less than 20. The majority (86%) of those teaching strings in these new string programs were credentialed string specialists (their principal performance instrument was a string instrument). Those who were not were most often credentialed instrumentalists who primarily played an instrument not in the string family. Approximately half (52%) of the string instructors taught at the middle school level, with slightly more (28%) teaching at the elementary level compared to the high school level (20%). Participants taught in more than one elementary school if they taught at that level but were more likely to teach in only one middle school or high school building. The vast majority (91%) of respondents almost exclusively taught strings/orchestra. All but one of the respondents was a teacher in a string program. That one individual was an administrator. Of the remaining 63 participants, 1 was a classroom teacher, 1 was a choral teacher, and 6 were credentialed instrumental teachers who were not string specialists or whose principal instrument was not a bowed string instrument. As with string teachers in general (Hamann et al., 2002), the majority (59%) had master’s degrees, and almost all (96%) were certified.

String Program Impact

Participants responded to two items designed to elicit their perceptions of how the string program contributed to the overall music program as well as benefited overall student learning. Participants rated both of these items on a 10-point scale (1 = not at all, 10 = very much). The vast majority (80%, M = 8.66, SD = .77) of respondents believed the new string program contributed to the music program very much and benefited overall student learning very much (78%, M = 8.42, SD = 1.60).

Additionally, participants responded to a series of items in which they indicated the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with a series of possible program benefits since the addition of the new string program (5-point scale: 1= strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The most highly rated program benefits were more students participating in music (M = 4.63, SD = .83) and a more comprehensive music program (M = 4.42, SD = .94). Participants believed the least important benefits were more money devoted to music instruction in the school district budget (M = 3.86, SD = 1.47) and more music department fund-raising activities ( M = 3.65, SD = 1.28) although, based on the larger standard deviations, less agreement existed between participants for these two categories. See Table 1 for a complete report of responses.

Table 1.

Program Benefits, Student Benefits, and Negative Outcomes.

Subscale	M	SD
Program Benefits
More students participating in music	4.63	.83
A more comprehensive music curriculum	4.42	.94
More visibility of the music program in the community in general	4.41	.86
Expanded repertoire performance opportunities for students in band or choir	4.39	.93
Increased overall performance standard	4.33	.85
A greater awareness of the music program among nonmusic teachers	4.31	.89
More parental involvement in the music program	4.25	.89
More music course offerings	4.18	1.17
More collaborations with other music ensembles, such as band or choir	4.16	1.11
More money devoted to music instruction in the school district budget	3.86	1.47
Greater support from local music businesses for the school music program	3.83	1.32
More music department fund-raising activities	3.65	1.28
Increase in private string teaching in the community	3.58	1.29
Student Benefits
More frequent opportunities to experience the arts in general	4.63	.67
Greater opportunity to develop confidence and self-esteem	4.55	.65
Greater opportunity to develop personal commitment and self-discipline	4.53	.62
Greater opportunity to develop musical expressiveness	4.53	.62
Greater opportunity to mature personally	4.50	.51
More possible music study opportunities	4.49	.65
Greater opportunities develop leadership skills	4.45	.71
More collaborations with other musicians and ensembles	4.41	.79
More opportunities for college scholarships	4.39	1.00
Greater opportunity to develop personal social skills	4.39	.79
Greater opportunities to learn skills to develop personal time management	4.36	.67
An increased opportunity relax and relieve personal stress	4.33	.59
More exposure to music masterworks	4.31	.92
An increased motivation to participate in music in the schools	4.27	.70
Greater opportunity to develop understanding of different cultures	4.22	.85
Greater opportunities to travel	3.78	1.21
An increased motivation to practice	3.71	1.00
Negative Outcomes
Increased difficulty in scheduling music instruction and performance space	3.31	1.36
Increased difficulty in securing performance facilities	3.00	1.43
Decrease in ability to fund-raise for the music program	2.33	1.34
Decrease in communication between fine arts faculty in the school system	2.04	1.19
Decrease in administrative support for the music program	1.80	1.13
Decrease in music student enrollment in the overall music program	1.73	1.16
Decrease in community visibility of the music program	1.64	.92
Decrease in community support for the music program	1.60	.85
Fewer opportunities to collaborate with other student musicians in the school	1.59	.84
Lack of development of expressive performance skills among students	1.53	.71
Decrease in student motivation to practice and succeed in music study	1.52	.55
A decrease in enrollment in the music program	1.45	.65
Less motivation to enroll in the music program	1.35	.48

Note. Scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Participants responded to an additional series of items designed to elicit their perception of the possible benefits to students of the new string program. Respondents most strongly agreed with the benefit of more opportunities to experience the arts in general (M = 4.63, SD = .67) and giving students greater opportunities to develop confidence and self-esteem (M = 4.55, SD = .65). Although generally still positive, participants believed greater opportunities to travel (M = 3.77, SD = 1.21) and an increased motivation to practice (M = 3.71, SD = 1.00) were the least likely student benefits. See Table 1 for a complete report of responses.

To give participants the opportunity to voice their thoughts on the possible negative impact of new string programs, the questionnaire included a series of items in which participants indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with possible negative program and student outcomes since the inception of the new string program. Although participants generally disagreed with the possible negative outcomes, respondents most agreed with the more positive outcomes—that they would receive greater support from local businesses for the school music program (M = 3.83, SD = 1.32) and that there would be an increase in private string teaching in the community (M = 3.58, SD = 1.29). Participants were least likely to agree with negative enrollment or student outcomes, for example, a decrease in enrollment in the music program (M = 1.45, SD = .65) and a decrease in student motivation to practice and succeed in music study (M = 1.52, SD = .55). See Table 1 for a complete report of responses.

Subscale Reliability Analysis

To organize data for subsequent analysis, we logically grouped items into three distinct subscales, as reported in Table 1. We examined the internal consistency of these subscales using Cronbach’s alpha and found each to be highly reliable: Program Benefit subscale (PBS), Cronbach’s α = .83; Student Benefit subscale (SBS), Cronbach’s α = .90; Negative Outcomes subscale (NOS), Cronbach’s α = .89. Based on the high internal consistency of each subscale, we computed a composite score for each subscale for each participant using the arithmetic mean of individual responses.

Teacher Individual Differences’ Impact

To gain perspective on the characteristics of those who initiated a new string program, we examined the impact of the participants’ individual differences (i.e., teaching experience, highest earned degree, certification status, and primary instrument played) on their responses to each subscale through bivariate analyses. Due to the number of analyses, we used the more conservative α = .01 to mitigate Type I error.

Participants’ teaching experience was not significantly related to PBS (F = .973,p = .43), SBS (F = .795, p = .54), or NOS (F = 2.77, p = .04). Respondents’ highest earned music education degree was also not related to PBS (F = .133, p = .88), SBS (F = .99, p = .41), or NOS (F = 3.92, p = .02). Due to the minimal variance regarding participants’ certification status (the vast majority being certified) and primary instrument played (the vast majority being string players), bivariate analyses of these variables’ impact could not be conducted.

Teaching Context Impact

To examine the impact of teaching context (school location, most common grade level taught, how often string classes are taught, length of string classes, whether or not other string teachers are working in the district, and the physical space in which string classes are taught) on new string program creation as well as participants’ view of the positive and negative outcomes of the new string program, we conducted a series of bivariate analyses, again using a more conservative α = .01 in order to mitigate Type I error.

We found that school setting (i.e., suburban, urban, rural) was not significantly related to PBS (F = .378, p = .69), SBS (F = 2.31, p = .11), or NOS (F = 2.65, p = .08). The grade level in which participants most commonly taught was also not related to PBS (F = .220, p = .80), SBS (F = .103, p = .90), or NOS (F = .526, p = .60). Those who taught in elementary schools were not impacted by how often (days per week) string classes met (PBS, F = 1.21, p = .33; SBS, F = 1.00, p = .41; NOS, F = 2.49, p = .09). Similarly, how often a string class met did not influence participants’ perceptions in middle schools (PBS, F = .775, p = .52; SBS, F = .253, p = .86; NOS, F = .956, p = .43) or high schools (PBS, F = .464, p = .71; SBS, F = .773, p = .52; NOS, F = .968, p = .43). Class length (minutes per class) did not impact participants’ beliefs in elementary (PBS, F = .932, p = .44; SBS, F = .752, p = .53; NOS, F = 1.29, p = .29), middle (PBS, F = .675, p = .65; SBS, F = 1.15, p = .35; NOS, F = 1.62, p = .18), or high school levels (PBS, F = .508, p = .73; SBS, F = 1.36, p = .27; NOS, F = 2.01, p = .12). Whether or not the string teachers had another colleague teaching string classes in the district did not impact beliefs about the outcomes of string programs (PBS, t = −1.33, p = .19; SBS, t = −.760, p = .45; NOS, t = 1.35, p = .18). Finally, the physical space in which string classes took place did not influence participants’ beliefs about the outcomes of the new string programs (PBS, F = 1.31, p = .29; SBS, F = .597, p = .56; NOS, F = .174, p = .91).

Impact on Enrollment, Budget, and Program Awareness and Support

We asked participants to respond to several items designed to gather information regarding the impact of the string program on enrollment, budget, and their perception of the awareness and support for the overall music program garnered by the new string program. Participants reported no significant changes in choral (dependent samples, t = −1.34, p = .19) or band (dependent samples, t = –.850, p = .40) class enrollment after the inception of the new string program. Similarly, enrollment was not related to participants’ beliefs regarding PBS (r = –.23, p = .16), SBS (r = .04,p = .82), or NOS (r = –.19, p = .27). Those participants who experienced an increase in music budget (M = 4.33), however, were more likely to indicate more positive PBS (F = 5.03, p = .005) than were those who experienced no change in their music budget (M = 3.49). No significant differences existed between impact on music budget and SBS or NOS.

We found significant relationships between PBS and increased awareness of nonmusic teachers (r = .38, p = .01), district administrators (r = .58, p < .001), the community (r = .49, p = .001) and increased support from nonmusic teachers (r = .34, p = .02), the community (r = .42, p = .004), band directors (r = .47, p = .001), and general music teachers (r = .47, p = .002). We identified fewer, yet significant, relationships between SBS and increased awareness of the music program with nonmusic teachers (r = .45, p = .002) and district administrators (r = .33, p = .03) as well as significant relationships between SBS and support from the community (r = .34, p = .02) and other music teachers (r = .40, p = .008). No significant relationships existed between NOS and participants’ beliefs about awareness of the music program or support from various stakeholders.

Discussion

Overall, participants felt that newly initiated string programs benefited student learning as well as the overall music program. Specifically, student benefits included more frequent opportunities to experience the arts, and program benefits included an increase in the number of students participating in music and an increase in the comprehensive nature of the music curriculum. Respondents also indicated that more opportunities for student collaborations were a benefit of the new string program. With more student collaborations, string music educators may also find ways of collaborating with other music educators in their building or district, which may lead to greater job satisfaction and career stability (Russell, 2008, 2009). The majority of participants disagreed with most negative outcomes but reported some frustration with new scheduling difficulties and lack of performance facilities. Researchers have documented similar frustrations with such pragmatic issues for those starting new string programs (Gillespie, 2010; Russell & Hamann, 2011).

The participants’ background and teaching context had little to do with their reported responses regarding the impact of the string program. Participants reported high agreement with both program and student benefits regardless of their teaching experience or highest earned degree. Participants believed their new string program was beneficial regardless of the school setting. Responses are consistent with results reported by previous researchers who found that the starting grade level of lessons did not impact student benefits (Hartley & Porter, 2009). Moreover, participants’ responses indicated that class frequency, class length, and physical space in which string classes occurred closely mirrored national averages for both elementary and secondary school music programs (Parsad & Spiegelman, 2011), and these variables did not impact participants’ beliefs about the benefits of the string program.

School leaders often cite decreasing enrollment in other programs as a reason for not starting new string programs (Russell & Hamann, 2011). However, participants reported no significant changes in enrollment in the band (the average number of students enrolled in the band actually increased from 142 students per building to 154 students after the string program began) or choir programs in their schools following the start of the string program. In fact, as a result of the founding of the new string program, the majority of participants (90%) reported an increase in the overall student enrollment in their school district music program, while at the same time experiencing increased community and local music business support.

Logically, those music teachers who received an increase in their music budget were more likely to agree with the itemized program benefits, because their existing budget was not burdened to fund an additional curricular offering. Participants in a previous study (Gillespie, 2010) cited funding as one of the three major obstacles to starting a new string program. Those who participated in the current study who were able to procure additional pecuniary support believed the new string program to be a more positive force in the overall music program. Moreover, only 6% of respondents indicated a decrease in the district music budget, suggesting that new string programs did not strain the budgets of existing programs.

Russell (2008) found that perceived support from several groups of stakeholders (i.e., other teachers, administrators, parents, and students) played a major role in the short- and long-term career plans of string music educators. Respondents in the current study identified an additional outcome of this support. Participants who perceived an increased awareness of their program from other school stakeholders (i.e., nonmusic teachers and district administrators) reported greater agreement with program benefits as well as student benefits. Similarly, those who reported greater support from their community and band director and general music teacher colleagues indicated greater agreement with the overall program benefits and the student benefits of the new string program. The apparent symbiotic relationship between support, teacher career longevity, and program benefits suggests that school leaders and teachers not only could improve student learning through developing such support but also could help keep effective teachers in the music classroom. As the community and administrators offer greater support to their music teachers, those experienced music teachers may be more likely to remain in their position, improving student learning as students have access to ever more experienced teachers.

Conclusion

We began this research project to examine the impact of new string programs on the other music programs in order to inform school leaders and music teachers of the possible benefits and vicissitudes experienced by those who successfully initiated a new program. Some of the often-cited anecdotal concerns that professional music educators and administrators have about starting a new string program are not supported by the experiences of the participants. On the basis of our data, we concluded that few programs experienced declines in enrollment as a result of adding a string program to the local music curriculum. Issues that did cause frustration (e.g., scheduling and instructional space) are ones that can be resolved perhaps through compromise and teacher flexibility. Despite these growing pains, school leaders and teachers with a range of experience were able to start string programs in a variety of settings across the United States. Music teachers created new programs that mirrored national trends (e.g., class frequency, length, physical space, etc.) in music instruction in both the elementary and secondary schools, indicating that these programs exist as well planned, integral parts of the overall music curricula. Moreover, the vast majority believed the program created a wide range of positive outcomes for students and the overall music program as well as fostered greater awareness and support of the overall music program with a range of stakeholders from within and outside of the school building.

Although it is difficult to generalize from these data, given the relatively small sample size as well as homogenous population (string teachers), some informative data have been culled that may be useful to those advocating for the initiation or retention of a string program. Similar research should be conducted to examine the beliefs of students, other teachers, administrators, and parents so that music educators and policy makers have information from a broad range of stakeholders. Such information may enhance our ability to make the most of the time and resources dedicated to music education.

In a time of education budget cuts and close public scrutiny of school expenditures and practices, it may be necessary for music educators to create efficient and meaningful programs that serve our students well, while also developing greater awareness in the local community and with administrators. Music educators, counterintuitively, may be able to accomplish this through developing and expanding their programs by adding string and orchestra classes in their schools.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Robert Gillespie is a professor of music at The Ohio State University. His research interests are school/orchestra teaching in the schools and string pedagogy.

Joshua A. Russell is an associate professor of music education at the University of Hartford’s Hartt School. His research interests include education policy, teacher education, string education, and psychological/cognitive development in music learning and teaching.

Donald L. Hamann is a professor of music education at the University of Arizona. His research interests include issues within string education, burnout, performance anxiety, and topics in higher education.

References

American String Teacher Association. (2000). A blueprint for the future. Retrieved from http://Astaweb.com

Birge

(1928). History of public school music in the United States. Philadelphia, PA: Oliver Ditson.

Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1994). National standards for arts education: What every young American should know and be able to do in the arts. Reston, VA: MENC. Retrieved from https://musiced.nafme.org/resources/performance-standards-for-music/standards-publications/

Gillespie

(2010). New string programs in schools. American String Teacher, 60(3), 66–70.

Gillespie

Hamann

(1998). The status of orchestra instruction in the public schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 75–86. doi:10.2307/3345761

Gillespie

Hamann

(2010). An investigation of new string programs established in American schools between 1999 and 2009. ASTA String Research Journal, 1, 25–38.

Hamann

Gillespie

(2008). Strategies for teaching strings: Building a successful school orchestra program (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hamann

D. L.

Gillespie

Bergonzi

(2002). Status of orchestra programs in the public schools. Journal of String Research, 2, 9–36. Retrieved from http://web.cfa.arizona.edu/sites/jsr/wp-content/docs/StatusofOrchestraProgramsinthePublicSchools.pdf

Hartley

L. A.

Porter

A. M.

(2009). The influence of beginning instructional grade on string student enrollment, retention, and music performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 370–384. doi:10.1177/0022429408329134

10.

Hoisington

(1980). The development of American public school elementary string classes and orchestras to 1950. Missouri Journal of Research in Music Education, 4, 39–62.

11.

Humphreys

(1989). An overview of American public school bands and orchestras before World War II. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 101, 150–160.

12.

Leonard

(1991). Status of arts education in American public schools. Urbana: National Arts Education Research Center at the University of Illinois.

13.

Parsad

Spiegelman

(2011). A snapshot of arts education in public elementary and secondary schools: 2009–10 (NCES 2011–078). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011078.pdf

14.

Russell

J. A.

(2008). A discriminant analysis of the career plans of string music educators. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 204–219. doi:10.1177/0022429408326762

15.

Russell

J. A.

(2009). String music educators’ job satisfaction: Underlying structures and relationships with various factors. Journal of String Research, 4, 39–58.

16.

Russell

J. A.

Hamann

(2011). The perceived impact of string programs on K–12 music programs. String Research Journal, 2, 49–66.

17.

Smith

C. M.

(1997). Access to string instruction in American public schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 650-662. doi:10.1177/0022429409350086

18.

Smith

C. M.

(2000). String programs in low socioeconomic level school districts. Journal of String Research, 1, 97-115.

19.

Smith

C. M.

Alexander

(2010, February). The status of orchestra programs in the United States: A white paper. Paper presented at the 2010 American String Teachers Association Annual Conference, Santa Clara, CA.

20.

Turner

(2001). A history of string programs. American String Teacher, 51(3), 74–81.

21.

Wendell

(1999). A snapshot of new string programs around the country. American String Teacher, 49(2), 56–68.