The state of music education in the basic general public schools of Ecuador: The administrators’ perspective

Abstract

This study examines the state of music education in the public schools of Ecuador from the perspective of school administrators. A survey that was distributed to 1800 school administrators (27.4% response rate) was used to answer the following research questions: What are administrators’ perceptions of the current national policies for arts education? What are administrators’ perceptions of the current state of the music curriculum? Is there a difference between administrators’ perceptions of current and ideal states? What are administrators’ perceptions of the degree to which numerous variables impact on the music curriculum in their schools? What are the obstacles and challenges that administrators’ face in supporting the music curriculum? Are there differences by political zone in the ways administrators implement policies and oversee arts education instruction in their schools? Findings show that despite the creation of a national curriculum for arts, there is limited access to music. Moreover, there is a generalized lack of familiarity with policy and curricular implementation, especially among administrators who do have music. Despite this, significant differences between current and ideal conditions showed that administrators believe improvement is possible. The administrators also indicated budget and lack of music teachers were factors that had a negative impact on their music programs.

Keywords

Curriculum Ecuador Latin America policy reform state of music education

Introduction

Many countries view education as the primary factor in developing a knowledge-based economy (Aróstegui, 2017) and educational institutions are held increasingly responsible for developing knowledge, skills, and opportunities for students’ personal fulfillment as citizens (Kubow & Fossum, 2007). From this perspective, education reforms are the means through which political leaders have responded to the changing needs of society.

In Ecuador, discussions with regard to school music education are increasingly commonplace and universities have shown more interest in offering music instruction for music and general school teachers. Moreover, with the development of a national curriculum for cultural and artistic education (NCCAE), the government demonstrated a commitment to the inclusion of the arts in education, on some level at least. It is necessary to determine the current musical practices and extent to which music is offered in school, as well as understand the factors that influence the success or failure of these practices. Jaramillo and Picq (2018, para. 32) argue that despite an overall increase in educational expenditure, the new educational policies were ineffective, the result of an “authoritarian exercise of power imposed from the top,” because the Ecuadorian government eliminated teachers’ unions, thus ignoring the voices of every actor within the education system.

Schmidt and Colwell (2017) contend that creating policy is not just problem solving, but a process which fosters debates and provides guidance. Thus, policymaking or decision making must consider all actors in the educational process, from those in charge of governmental decisions to those who make everyday decisions in the classroom. Wiggins and Wiggins (2008) argue that policymakers need evidence upon which they can base their decisions about music education in schools. Thus, school administrators constitute a rich source of information, because they are responsible for making a variety of organizational and curricular decisions (Abril, 2009) that provide direction and paths for success within their institutions. This is especially relevant for arts or music programs because they are usually subject to financial and academic limitations as determined by administrators.

The purpose of this study was to determine the state of music education in the basic general education public schools in Ecuador through the perspectives of those in charge of academic decisions, the school vice-principals, whom I will refer to as ‘administrators.’ The following questions guided the study:

How familiar are administrators with the current national policies for arts education and what is their knowledge of these?

What are administrators’ perceptions of the current and ideal states of the music curriculum?

Is there a difference between administrators’ perceptions of current and ideal states?

What are administrators’ perceptions of the degree to which variables such as: (a) the new education laws; (b) the NCCAE; (c) the Ministry of Education; (d) the administrative system; (e) the upper administration; (f) budget; (g) scheduling; (h) time allocation; (i) the music teacher; and (j) the classroom teacher, have an impact on the music curriculum?

What are the obstacles and challenges that administrators’ face in implementing the music curriculum? and,

Are there differences by administrative zone (administrative grouping of provinces) in the ways in which administrators implement policies and oversee arts education instruction in their schools?

This article aims to enlighten Ecuadorian policymakers with regard to the reality of music education in the public school system and also to offer guidance through which various educational ideas could be incorporated into classrooms. It should be noted that, in the Ecuadorian context, although teachers make day-to-day decisions in relation to instruction, vice-principals are responsible for academic decisions within schools. Therefore, they were asked to give their perspectives on the ideal state of the music curriculum as a way of understanding how they think it could be improved.

Arts education in Ecuadorian schools

The current education system in Ecuador is grounded in two previous education reforms. The 2006 education reform established the basic general education level (BGE) comprised of grades 1 through 10. After the development of the new constitution (Asamblea Nacional República del Ecuador, 2008), the government initiated a reform that promoted a national economy based on people’s strengths and qualities rather than one based solely on limited resources such as agricultural or industrial production (Vázquez et al., 2014). The Ley Orgánica de Educación Intercultural (Organic Law of Intercultural Education) (Presidencia de la República, 2011) established six mandatory subject areas for the national curriculum: (a) language and literature; (b) math; (c) science; (d) social sciences; (e) cultural and artistic education; and (f) physical education (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2016).

According to former president Rafael Correa (2013), changes in education were necessary in order to decrease the poverty index and improve the economic status of the citizens. Clearly, educational success was considered to be the means by which education contributes to the development of the country and its citizens. The Ley Orgánica de Educación Intercultural granted a place in the curriculum for the creation of arts education, the practice of sports, the protection and preservation of cultural, natural, and environmental heritage, and the maintenance of cultural and linguistic diversity. In addition to the development of a national curriculum comprising the six subject areas stated above, the Ministry of Education also created the NCCAE.

The NCCAE

The official document portrays cultural and artistic education as an area that promotes citizens’ participation in and knowledge of contemporary culture and art, an area that is in constant dialogue with ancestral cultural expressions (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2016). Accordingly, it aims to foster respect for diversity within and outside the country and was conceived as a set of guidelines that could be contextualized according to the diverse necessities of cultures and subcultures of the country (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2016). The Ministry of Education defines the NCCAE as an area:

(a) focused on cultural and artistic life;

(b) based on projects that integrate different elements and disciplines within the arts and culture (music, film, visual arts, theater, dance, photography, gastronomy, and crafts);

(d) aware of immediate cultures, but also of the hybrid and globalized world as well as the array of options provided by community art;

(e) characterized by action and participation;

(f) responsive toward the knowledge students bring from outside the school;

(g) promoting spaces for personal expression, creativity, and emotional development;

(h) promoting inclusive spaces that contribute to the students’ holistic development; and

(i) capable of fostering respect for and conservation of ancestral culture, art, and knowledge (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2016, pp. 50–51).

Moreover, it is stated that the subject of cultural and artistic education is vital in the successful acquisition of skills and abilities necessary for the students. As such, the NCCAE will allow students to:

(a) communicate emotions and ideas through the use of different artistic languages;

(b) be interested and actively participate in their cultural and artistic environments as well as recognize the richness of the intercultural and plurinational society in which they live;

(c) develop critical and reflective thinking through the appreciation and analysis of cultural and artistic productions of different genres and cultures;

(d) enjoy and integrate contemporary cultural and artistic activities in their personal lives;

(e) value their own cultural heritage, which at the same time encourages new creations;

(f) perceive, analyze, explore, and investigate the possibilities among different artistic languages;

(g) devise original and imaginative solutions for complex problems in their lives;

(h) develop an attitude of tolerance and resilience, and emotional and personal skills that allow them to understand themselves and others, as well as skills that allow them to accept and respect diversity (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2016, p. 52).

Although the NCCAE purports to be a holistic work, the learning experiences of students are tied to the availability of music or arts specialists, because the Ley Orgánica de Educación Intercultural does not enforce the presence of arts specialists in the classroom. Hence, parents who wish their children to have specialized music instruction usually opt for after-school instruction that takes place in public or private specialized music institutions.

Two studies were conducted before the implementation of the NCCAE in Ecuador. Bustos (2014) surveyed 13 general classroom teachers to profile the students’ musical experiences. Although this study was not large in scope, it showed that, in general, the school principals had the power to make decisions about budgets and resources in order to have music programs. The second study examined the previous curriculum in arts in the city of Milagro. Montero, Gavilanes, and Cadena (2014) surveyed 236 classroom teachers from 96 schools. Results indicated that 96% of the schools did not have a music specialist or professional development opportunities in music for classroom teachers. Furthermore, generalist teachers were eager to meet the curricular requirements and, yet, struggled to do so due to a lack of space, resources, and preparation needed to teach dance, theater, art, and music. Although both studies were informative, they did not provide substantial information about school administrators’ views of music programs.

Impact of policies on music education programs

Government leaders who seek to advance the welfare of their constituents often enact education reform. In this process, policymakers play a significant role due to their influence over the creation and implementation of every element within the education system. They create policies that will become tools government leaders use to instigate changes. To create these policies, they raise issues with regard to the role of education within their countries and how education positions their country internationally, as well as the place of teachers and students within the system.

Nations around the world strive to advance their positions internationally, not only through their economies, but also by improving their role as innovators and role models. Many nations have recognized that providing students with the “right” type of education is the key element in creating societies that are socially, culturally, politically, and professionally capable of competing internationally. As such, the creation of educational programs focused on the sciences has become a trend used to foster development. The so-called STEM education is a clear example of this. For the past decade, many school systems have used this perspective with the aim of providing students with the type of knowledge that will respond to STEM jobs and professions as well as to economic competitiveness (Brown, Brown, Reardon, & Merrill, 2011). Additionally, it has also been argued that a focus on STEM subjects increases students’ ability to solve real-life problems (Brown et al., 2011). In fact, some school administrators believe that the lack of recess, free play, or other activities away from core subjects does not have a negative impact on students’ achievements in such areas (Banner, 2005). However, it has been argued that although STEM education has increased students’ IQ scores, it has also provoked a decrease in creativity scores (Bronson & Merryman, 2010), which could have a negative impact on students’ development because we live in an era in which creative problem-solving skills are necessary (Darling-Hammond, 2010).

Although more administrators have developed a positive attitude toward the inclusion of the arts in the learning process, it has been shown that it is challenging for them to place arts subjects at the same level as subjects such as math and science. Primary challenges for doing so include student evaluation as well as school and teacher accountability. One study (Eady & Zepeda, 2007) revealed that during the implementation of Georgia’s A Plus Education Reform Act of 2000 (USA), some school administrators believed that both teachers from core subjects and teachers from areas such as arts or physical education should be held equally accountable for evaluation processes. On the contrary, other administrators contended that this could not be the case because arts and physical education teachers were increasingly required to change their lesson plans due to the reduction in instruction time.

This struggle between music and other subjects has been noted, and music educators and researchers around the world have explored the impact of education reform and its consequent policies (Abril & Abril, 2017). Specifically, those in the field of music education have studied the impact of reform on administrators, teachers, and students (Abril & Bannerman, 2014; Abril & Gault, 2005, 2006, 2008; Aguilar & Richerme, 2014; Elpus, 2014; Gerrity, 2007; Kratochvil, 2009). Discussions surrounding education reform have shown that policy change affects school administrators’ decisions and, consequently, the implementation of a given curriculum. This is particularly noteworthy within the field of music education, which, traditionally, has depended on advocacy movements to justify its existence in the general school curriculum.

Studies in England, the USA, and Hong Kong have shown that instruction, curriculum, and evaluation change rapidly when there are strong external pressures such as economic incentives, inspections, school choice, and the publication of schools’ and students’ achievements (Alexander, 2011; Fautley, 2013; Fork, Kennedy, & Chan, 2010; Ozga, 2009; Ravitch, 2010). Studies conducted in several countries have reported a list of issues in relation to school music education programs as a result of policies and education reforms: (a) time allocation due to accountability systems and testing procedures in the USA (Gerrity, 2007; Von Zastrow & Janc, 2004); (b) policies favoring subjects such as math or sciences over arts, social sciences, or foreign languages in Brazil (Hentschke, 2013) and Scandinavia (Herbert & Heimonen, 2013; Zandén & Thorgersen, 2015); (c) lack of resources in Central America (Cajas, 2007), Singapore (Lum & Dairianathan, 2014), and Sweden (Zandén & Thorgersen, 2015); (d) lack of music specialists in Central America (Cajas, 2007) and Singapore (Lum & Dairianathan, 2014); and (e) lack of training for teachers in charge of music classes in Central America (Cajas, 2007).

As noted before, research on this matter is limited in Ecuador. However, studies that profile administrators’ perceptions of music education systems around the world have provided relevant information for this study. In countries undergoing education reform, the insights of school administrators are particularly informative because these members of staff are charged with making decisions that might affect curricula, instruction and, consequently, the overall state of their institutions. Education reforms and the consequent policies focused on certain areas have led administrators to allocate specific times and budget for the so-called core and non-core subject areas. In the USA, for example, additional time has been thought of as a remediation for low-achieving students and, thus, students have been withdrawn from classes such as music, art, foreign language, or physical education to accommodate intervention for reading and math (Fredrick & Walberg, 1980; Hanson & Schutz, 1975; Karweit, 1976; Wiley & Harnischfeger, 1974).

Regardless, administrators have valued how music instruction develops musical and non-musical abilities. In the USA, Greenwood (1991) revealed that administrators thought that music programs and school bands should be responsible for accomplishing both musical and non-musical goals. Among the highest rated non-musical goals were: teaching cooperation (96%); encouraging students to be more disciplined (95%); transmitting national heritage to succeeding generations (83%); promoting good public relations (91%); and school spirit (83%). For Greenwood, principals evaluated bands based on the students’ musicianship and on having realistic expectations for the music program. However, with the increased prevalence of standards in education, the views and expectations of policymakers changed. Monroe (1994) compared the opinions of high school vocal music teachers, instrumental music teachers, principals, and college music educators. He discovered that although principals believed that music was valuable for students, they thought it should be an elective because music is too specialized to be part of the core subject areas. Other studies (Greenwood, 1991; Hanley, 1987; Milford, 1995; Payne, 1990) have corroborated this perception as it has been found that although the majority of administrators supported the idea of having music in their schools, their goals and objectives were dissimilar to those of music teachers.

In another study from the USA (Abril & Gault, 2006), elementary public school principals indicated a general satisfaction with their music programs and their capability to meet both music education standards and wider educational goals. However, significant differences between current and ideal situations suggested a possibility of progress and improvement. Principals also indicated the degree to which certain variables had a negative effect on their music programs: (a) the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (45.1%); (b) budget (55.2%); (c) scheduling (40.1%); and (d) standardized testing (34.4%). Although administrators supported music instruction, findings of a study conducted by the Music for All Foundation (2004) showed that student participation and the number of music teachers in public schools in the USA had declined dramatically since 1999. The authors of this study attribute this decline to the fact that the policy focus is on testing and accountability with regard to reading, math, and science, as well as to budget restrictions. Gerrity (2007) examined the effect of policies on music instruction. Results showed that a great majority of school principals believed that music education was important in the education of their children, whereas only 37% believed that music was a vital part of every child’s education. Despite this, due to accountability issues, 79% of the principals acknowledged that they did not track the students’ achievement in music. Moreover, most of them (71%), considered music to be the least important subject in the general education of students and assigned music and the arts the lowest ranking as compared with other core subjects recognized by NCLB.

Accountability systems have been criticized as being responsible for many governing aspects of education such as budget practices, administrative organization, assessment practices, and budget for teachers (Horsley, 2009), and this has been especially detrimental for music. Accordingly, results of another study (Abril & Gault, 2008) reported that NCLB had provoked a significant reduction in music course offerings, student involvement, and the number of music teachers in secondary schools in the USA. Ciorba and Seibert (2012) examined the perceived importance of music education within a K-12 education community, and discovered that music educators’ overall perceptions of the importance of music education were significantly stronger than those indicated by administrators, teachers of other subject areas, and support staff. When asked to describe the ways in which they would be able to improve music in their schools, the most frequent response among participants was that funding should be increased. These findings corroborate findings from other studies (Abril & Gault, 2006, 2008; Gerrity, 2007). Although funding was considered one of the biggest challenges administrators face in supporting a music curriculum, non-music teachers believed that music programs would benefit from continuous curricular integration, an important evolution from previous studies.

In the Irish context, Bowe (2014) explored administrators’ perceptions of music and reported three types of principals: (a) progressive; (b) maintainer; and (c) disinclined. The great majority of principals surveyed expressed positive attitudes toward music and its place in the curriculum, 87% strongly agreeing that schools have a responsibility to provide diverse music-making experiences for students and 93% indicating that music should have the same significance as other subjects in the school curriculum. A lower, but still high percentage of principals (77%) agreed with the fact that music-making opportunities should take place in the school, whereas 83% said that practical music-making experiences should be taught only during school hours. Principals also provided a list of non-musical benefits of offering music. However, Bowe stated that although principals seemed to be appreciative of including music in the school curriculum, not all of them were willing to take action to improve teaching conditions. She further concluded that regardless of the educational policies, if administrators believe in music education and act upon it, they will find creative ways to support music programs.

The literature presented shows that administrators’ perceptions of music instruction vary. There seems to be generalized worldwide support for music instruction and, yet, obstacles such as accountability systems and budget practices have been shown to negatively affect the role of music as compared with other subjects in the curriculum. Although school administrators seem to value the presence of music in their institutions, some have struggled to take action in supporting its place and conditions in their schools. Following Schmidt and Colwell’s (2017) beliefs, it is time to bring administrators into the discussion, not only to understand their perceptions of music but also to use their insights to create guidelines that would facilitate their journey into supporting school music programs.

Method

Survey instrument

A survey was designed to determine administrators’ perceptions with regard to the state of music education in their schools. To maximize the reliability of the survey instrument, I used three main sources for its development: (a) a focus group with 10 classroom teachers from one public school in Ecuador; (b) previous research; and (c) the NCCAE. Additionally, the English version of the instrument was reviewed by four experts in music education, and the Spanish version was reviewed by one expert in music education, one school principal, and one professor of education. Comments and revisions were considered for the final version of the questionnaire. The contribution of the school principal was particularly helpful, as she helped to clarify a wide array of details with regard to the political, administrative, and academic areas in the Ecuadorian public school system.

The final version of the instrument was divided into five sections. Sections 1 and 2 collected information regarding the administrators, the school music programs, and the administrators’ familiarity with and knowledge of the implementation of policies and curriculum in arts. Sections 3 and 4 used Likert-type scales to measure administrators’ perceptions of a set of statements. Due to the subjective nature of the participants’ responses, it was necessary to find associations between all of the questions in each given set (Fowler, 2014). Thus, a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated to measure the internal consistency of the survey items for each subsection in Section 3 and for Section 4. Section 3 consisted of four subsections, each of which used a Likert-type scale (4 = Strongly Agree, 1 = Strongly Disagree). In each subsection, administrators indicated the extent to which they believe: (a) their program currently helps students achieve a set of seven music learning outcomes in current conditions (α = .92); (b) it would be important for their students to achieve the same set of seven learning outcomes under ideal conditions (α = .97); (c) music instruction at their schools helps meet 13 broad educational outcomes in current conditions (α = .99); and (d) music instruction at their schools helps students meet the same 13 broad educational outcomes under ideal conditions (α = .99). For all subsections, administrators were given a “Can’t Answer” option if they felt they did not have enough information or background to answer the questions. In Section 4, administrators were provided with a Likert-type scale (5 = Very Positive, 3 = Positive, 3 = No Effect, 2 = Negative, 1 = Very Negative) to determine the degree to which 10 factors have an impact on their music programs (α = .91). Finally, Section 5 consisted of two open-ended questions: (1) Describe the greatest obstacle(s) limiting your ability to fully support music at your institution; and (2) Describe any action that might eliminate those obstacles and improve the state of music education at your institution.

Administrators were asked to complete the survey electronically using the web-based software Qualtrics. Many of the initial emails and follow-up reminders went through email filters and, thus, there is no guarantee that all of the administrators received the link to the questionnaire. However, this method of data collection seemed appropriate due to logistical and financial limitations. A database of 13,870 BGE public schools was the population for the study and the sampling frame. Because the Ecuadorian administrative system is divided into nine established zones, it was necessary to select a sample representative of each stratum. This yielded nine distinct random samples of 200 schools per administrative zone. After obtaining permission from the Ecuadorian Ministry of Education, the National Center for Education Research, and the Institutional Review Board from the University of Miami, electronic surveys were sent to a total of 1800 BGE school administrators. Incomplete questionnaires were counted as part of the response rate and some were included in the analysis. However, most incomplete surveys were categorized as “unusable.” Questionnaires were considered unusable when administrators did not indicate whether their school offered music instruction. Moreover, for inferential analyses, only complete questionnaires were used. An initial email contact and two follow-up emails yielded a 27.4% response rate (N = 494), and 475 usable surveys.

Results

Profiles

Participants (N = 475) indicated their years of experience as administrators as follows: under 1 year (39.2%); 1 to under 5 years (43.4%); 5 to under 10 years (9.1%); and 10 or more years (8.4%). According to the Ecuadorian Ministry of Education, school administrators obtain their placements through a public competition based on the candidates’ knowledge and experience (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2018). However, many participants informed me of the temporary nature of their administrator role, which could explain why many participants had relatively little experience. Information regarding school location and socioeconomic status is displayed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 1.

School location.

Location	Frequency	Percentage
Urban	246	51.8
Rural	229	48.2

N = 475.

Table 2.

Socioeconomic status.

Socioeconomic status	Frequency	Percentage
Low	337	71.0
Medium	137	28.8
High	1	0.2

N = 475.

The majority of schools did not offer music instruction (75.4%) and approximately a quarter of the schools did offer it (24.2%). Of the schools with music instruction (N = 115), 70.9% offered music as a required subject and about half of the instruction was provided by classroom teachers (50.4%), followed by music specialists (23.1%) and arts teachers (21.4%). Participants who selected “Other” indicated that they used other teachers to teach music. Only schools with music instruction provided data in relation to time allocation and place for music classes. This information is displayed in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.

Table 3.

Time allocation.

Time allocation	Frequency	Percentage
Under half an hour per week	11	9.6
Half an hour to under 1 hour per week	31	27.0
1 hour or more per week	57	49.6
Other	16	13.9

N = 115.

Table 4.

Sessions and place for music instruction.

Item	Frequency	Percentage
Time
During school hours	102	88.7
After school hours	7	6.1
All of the above	6	5.2
Place
Regular classroom	97	84.3
Music classroom	18	15.7

N = 115.

Of the 115 schools that offered music, 37.4% offered visual arts, 67.8% dance, 35.6% drama/theater, and 5.2% film.

Familiarity with and knowledge of policies for arts education

Importantly, data with regard to arts policies were dissimilar between schools with music and those without it. As noted earlier, according to the Ley Orgánica de Educación Intercultural, vice-principals are responsible for the implementation and supervision of both the educational policies and the curriculum in their schools, including the curriculum for cultural and artistic education (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2016). Not surprisingly, the majority of administrators from schools with music showed greater awareness of policies for arts education and the curriculum. Although it is positive to find awareness among administrators, it is worth noting that only 24.3% of the schools surveyed offer music, which implies that there is a generalized lack of knowledge of policies among administrators. This could mean that the streams of information among the different levels within the education system require more attention to avoid future issues with regard to the implementation of policies for arts education. Tables 5 –7 display frequencies in relation to these data.

Table 5.

Familiarity with national policies for arts education.

Item	Count	Percentage
Familiarity (with music)
Yes	65	56.5
No	50	43.5
Familiarity (without music)
Yes	103	29.0
No	252	71.0

N = 115 schools with music; N = 355 schools without music.

Table 6.

Policy implementation.

Item	Frequency	Percentage
Responsibility for policy implementation (with music)
Yes	64	55.7
No	51	44.3
Responsibility for policy implementation (without music)
Yes	129	36.3
No	226	63.7

N = 115 schools with music; N = 355 schools without music.

Table 7.

Curriculum implementation.

Item	Frequency	Percentage
Responsibility for curriculum implementation (with music)
Yes	93	80.9
No	22	19.1
Responsibility for curriculum implementation (without music)
Yes	218	61.4
No	137	38.6

N = 115 schools with music; N = 355 schools without music.

Current and ideal states of music education

Although teachers are the ones making day-to-day decisions in the classroom, administrators were asked about current and ideal states of music instruction, given that according to policy documents they should be knowledgeable about curricular implementation in their schools. Administrators who selected the “Can’t Answer” option were not included in the analysis.

Responses to a set of seven music learning outcomes were generally positive and the confidence intervals were small and stable across variables. For current conditions, the highest mean score (M = 2.87) and smallest standard deviation (SD = 0.69) was “developing connections between music and other subjects in the curriculum,” whereas the smallest mean score (M = 2.43) and highest standard deviation (SD = 0.72) was “understanding music in relation to other arts and cultures.” Given that classroom teachers are generally responsible for music instruction, these results might indicate that teachers are using music as a way of teaching other subjects as well as a potential lack of training in arts. With regard to ideal conditions, the highest mean score (M = 3.29) and smallest standard deviation (SD = 0.61) was “understanding music’s role in society,” whereas the smallest mean score (M = 2.43) and highest standard deviation (SD = 0.72) was “understanding music in relation to everyday activities and life outside school.” Perhaps this means that although music is currently implemented to serve other subjects, administrators wish music to be used as a way for students to find their place in their communities, culturally and socially. Table 8 presents descriptive statistics for these results.

Table 8.

Music learning outcomes under current and ideal conditions.

Music learning outcome	Current			Ideal
Music learning outcome	M	SD	CI	M	SD	CI
Create/compose	2.47	0.83	±0.19	3.11	0.76	±0.17
Analyze music of diverse cultures	2.83	0.72	±0.16	3.19	0.65	±0.15
Relate to other subjects	2.95	0.61	±0.14	3.22	0.61	±0.14
Relate to sociocultural context	2.52	0.76	±0.17	3.12	0.66	±0.15
Relate to other arts and cultures	2.43	0.72	±0.16	3.01	0.69	±0.16
Relate to everyday activities	2.91	0.66	±0.15	2.92	0.71	±0.14
Relate to music’s role in society	2.92	0.71	±0.16	3.29	0.61	±0.14

N = 76.

M: mean; SD: standard deviation; CI: confidence interval.

Paired samples t-tests revealed significant differences (p < .001) between current and ideal conditions for all seven learning outcomes in music, which shows that administrators believe that improvement is possible. Additionally, the magnitude of the differences was calculated and represented as Cohen’s d values, which represent the effect sizes. All variables showed moderate to large effect sizes (d = 0.35 to d = 0.68). The variables with the largest effect sizes were “relate music to other arts and cultures” (d = 0.68) and “create/compose” (d = 0.66). The variable with the lowest effect size was “understand music in relation to other subjects in the curriculum” (d = 0.35), perhaps because it is common for classroom teachers to use music as a means to facilitate the teaching of other areas such as language or math.

Responses regarding ideal conditions from schools without music were considered because they might portray what administrators considered important in an ideal situation. Responses were generally positive and relatively close to each other. The highest- and lowest-rated factors were “understanding music in relation to everyday activities and life outside of school” and “create/compose music,” respectively. This might, again, show a failure in the flow of information throughout all levels of the education system. If culture and arts are mandated by the Ley Orgánica de Educación Intercultural, and if vice-principals are in charge of overseeing the implementation of the curriculum, then it is clear that policymakers should improve their communication with administrators in relation to curricular content and implementation.

Responses to a set of 13 broad music learning outcomes were generally positive and the confidence intervals were small and stable across variables. Administrators seemed to perceive that music instruction at their institutions should serve as a means for “developing creativity” as this was the highest mean score and smallest standard deviation for both current (M = 3.36, SD = 0.63) and ideal (M = 3.56, SD = 0.50) conditions. Similar to the set of seven music learning outcomes, administrators showed less interest in using music as a means to “improve understanding of other subjects,” as this was the smallest mean score and largest standard deviation for both current (M = 3.16, SD = 0.60) and ideal (M = 3.44, SD = 0.58) conditions. This shows that there is a place in schools for the teaching of music for its own sake. Table 9 presents descriptive statistics for these results.

Table 9.

Broad educational outcomes using music, under current and ideal conditions.

Broad learning outcome using music	Current			Ideal
Broad learning outcome using music	M	SD	CI	M	SD	CI
Develop creativity	3.36	0.63	±0.14	3.56	0.50	±0.11
Transmit cultural heritage	3.23	0.53	±0.12	3.48	0.53	±0.12
Facilitate self-expression	3.32	0.47	±0.11	3.45	0.53	±0.11
Foster critical thinking	3.23	0.48	±0.11	3.48	0.50	±0.13
Create connections between music/other arts	3.23	0.51	±0.12	3.47	0.55	±0.13
Improve understanding of other subjects	3.19	0.59	±0.13	3.44	0.58	±0.12
Improve tolerance, understanding, and acceptance of other cultures	3.27	0.47	±0.11	3.41	0.52	±0.11
Improve understanding of other arts	3.20	0.49	±0.11	3.45	0.50	±0.11
Develop increased sensibility to arts	3.28	0.45	±0.10	3.45	0.50	±0.12
Promote future involvement in the arts	3.23	0.51	±0.12	3.45	0.53	±0.13
Connect learning experiences to outside-of-school experiences	3.20	0.55	±0.12	3.48	0.55	±0.11
Develop connection between music/cultures of origin	3.17	0.58	±0.13	3.47	0.50	±0.12
Provide students with a diversion	3.31	0.54	±0.12	3.48	0.53	±0.11

N = 75

M: mean; SD: standard deviation; CI: confidence interval.

Paired samples t-tests revealed significant differences (p < .001) between current and ideal conditions for all 13 broad learning outcomes in music, again showing that administrators believe that improvement is possible. All variables showed moderate effect sizes (d = 0.27 to d = 0.51). The variable with the largest effect size was “improve understanding of other arts” (d = 0.51). Three variables, “transmit cultural heritage,” “foster critical thinking,” and “improve understanding of other subjects” shared a moderate effect size value (d = 0.44). The variable with the lowest effect size was “facilitate self-expression” (d = 0.27).

Responses with regard to ideal conditions from schools without music instruction were generally positive and relatively close to each other. Confidence intervals were small and stable across the variables. Like administrators from schools with music, administrators from schools without music seemed to care about “developing creativity” in their students, as it was the highest mean score and smallest standard deviation (M = 3.54, SD = 0.62). On the other hand, “improve understanding of other subjects in the curriculum” (M = 3.44, SD = 0.66) and “develop increased sensibility to the arts” (M = 3.44, SD = 0.65) had the lowest mean scores, which implies that there is a need for developing students’ music-related skills.

Although there were differences for both sets of learning outcomes, the mean scores were relatively close to each other, which could mean that administrators did not have enough information in order to be more selective with their responses. Again, this shows that administrators could be more selective if they had more knowledge about curricular content in music. Yet, the significant differences still reveal that administrators are aware that the current situation with regard to school music could be improved.

Impact of numerous factors on the music curriculum

Responses for this section were collapsed into “positive,” “negative,” and “no effect” categories. The NCCAE was perceived by most as having a positive impact on music, 88.4% for schools with music and 74.4% for schools without music.

Administrators from schools with music believed the following factors had a positive impact on the music curriculum: “Ley Orgánica de Educación Intercultural,” “NCCAE,” “Ministry of Education,” “administrative system,” “upper administration,” “scheduling,” “time allocation,” “music teacher,” and “classroom teacher.” “Budget” was perceived as “negative.” Negative responses were scarce and generally low frequency, except for “budget.” Hence, the “no effect” responses warranted consideration and were further analyzed. A chi-square test of goodness of fit analyzed differences between two conditions: positive vs. no effect. Results showed significant differences between both conditions for most factors, except “budget.” Table 10 presents statistics for this section.

Table 10.

Frequencies and chi-square statistics for impact factors: Schools with music.

Factor	Positive	No effect	χ ²	p
Education laws	87.4%	12.6%	36.94	.0001
National curriculum	88.4%	10.5%	43.22	.0001
Ministry of Education	81.1%	16.8%	33.99	.0001
Administration system	77.9%	20.0%	28.45	.0001
Upper administration	70.5%	28.4%	18.85	.018
Budget	37.9%	41.1%	0.02	.90
Scheduling	76.8%	17.9%	31.15	.0001
Time allocation	68.4%	21.1%	18.85	.0001
Music teacher	64.2%	21.1%	12.94	.006
Classroom teacher	76.8%	17.9%	23.40	.0001

df = 1; N = 95.

Administrators from schools without music believed the following factors had a positive impact on the music curriculum: “Ley Orgánica de Educación Intercultural,” “NCCAE,” “Ministry of Education,” “administrative system,” and “upper administration.” Although the frequencies for “negative” responses were generally low, three variables are worth noting: “budget,” “time allocation,” and “music teacher.” Four frequencies from the “no effect” responses are also worth considering: “budget,” “scheduling,” “time allocation,” and “music teacher.” A chi-square test of goodness of fit (positive vs. no effect) showed significant differences between both conditions in most factors, except “budget” and “music teacher.” It is important to note that for schools without music, the frequencies for “no effect” were higher than in the previous analyses.

This might be due to the administrators’ overall lack of knowledge of and familiarity with curricular implementation in music, or the fact that the questions of the survey were not fully clear to them. Table 11 presents statistics for this section.

Table 11.

Frequencies and chi-square statistics for impact factors: Schools without music.

Factor	Positive	No effect	χ ²	p
Education laws	71.2%	27.4%	27.61	.0001
National curriculum	74.4%	24.7%	40.79	.0001
Ministry of Education	66.7%	30.6%	22.75	.0001
Administration system	63.5%	33.3%	18.36	.0001
Upper administration	63.0%	33.3%	22.75	.0001
Budget	42.9%	41.1%	0.79	.37
Scheduling	57.5%	34.2%	15.69	.0001
Time allocation	50.7%	37.0%	4.77	.03
Music teacher	36.1%	41.6%	0.16	.69
Classroom teacher	69.4%	24.7%	34.83	.0001

df = 1; N = 219.

The results of this section were compared with the last two open-ended questions of the survey to determine the greatest challenges administrators face in supporting music instruction at their schools as well as anything that might help them overcome those obstacles. A total of 293 administrators provided multiple answers for the first question, resulting in a total of 370 statements and four categories: (a) policy (curriculum/time allocation/administration/work load) (18.9%); (b) resources: (instruments/space/pedagogical resources/professional development) (28.9%); (c) budget for music teacher (48.7%); and (d) parents and community (3.5%). The same administrators provided responses for the second open-ended question, which generated 383 statements. The majority of administrators used this question to extend and emphasize their response from the previous question. The results corroborated the findings from the first open-ended question as the administrators seemed to perceive that an adequate budget for a music teacher would alleviate the obstacles they have in supporting music instruction. This category represented 39.7% of the statements and was followed by the category “policy” (33.9%), “resources” (23.2%), and “parents and community” (3.1%).

Policy and curriculum implementation among administrative zones

Chi-square tests of independence were used to look for significant differences among administrative zones with regard to: (a) familiarity with policies for arts education; (b) responsibility for policy implementation; and (c) responsibility for overseeing curricular implementation.

Chi-squares for schools with music indicated non-significant relationships between all nine administrative zones and the three factors from Section 2 of the survey: (a) familiarity with policies for arts education χ² (8, N = 115) = 7.30, p < .50; (b) responsibility for overseeing implementation of policy in arts education χ² (8, N = 115) = 7.66, p < .47; and (c) responsibility for overseeing implementation of the national curriculum in cultural and artistic education χ² (8, N = 115) = 12.33, p < .14. Given that the majority of administrators from schools with music showed greater awareness with regard to policy and curriculum, the results imply that policies and obligations are understood similarly in all zones. It is worth noting that schools with music constituted a small sample, which somehow emphasizes the results from schools without music.

Chi-squares for schools without music indicated non-significant relationships between the administrative zones with regard to familiarity with the policy in arts education χ² (8, N = 355) = 6.80, p < .56. On the other hand, the relationships with regard to administrators’ responsibility for overseeing policy implementation χ² (8, N = 335) = 19.49, p < .012, and their responsibility for overseeing curricular implementation χ² (8, N = 335) = 23.86, p < .002, were found to be significant. This lack of consistency relates to the fact that many participants have been assigned to administrative positions temporarily and, as such, may lack appropriate training to undertake administrative responsibilities.

Discussion

This study provides a portrait of music education in the Ecuadorian public school system. The findings offer an improved understanding of the nature of music programs, as well as of the current challenges that administrators face in meeting the national policy demands for arts education in schools. As such, the results of this study can serve as a starting point for discussions surrounding the improvement of music and the arts in Ecuadorian schools. It should be noted that many administrators failed to return their questionnaire. Moreover, a few of the usable questionnaires lacked some information; hence, samples were smaller in some sections. This might be due to participants’ lack of knowledge, time, or willingness to answer some of the questions. Thus, generalization of the results should be done with some caution. Findings revealed that the flow of information from the Ministry of Education and upper administration entities is not reaching all schools in the country because a large number of administrators lack knowledge about how policies and the curriculum should be implemented. It is worth noting, however, that the number of teachers with some arts training (43.6%) is slightly higher and seems to be an improvement from the past, if specialist teachers in the arts and music are combined. However, the small sample of schools with music, and the overall lack of familiarity with and knowledge of policies and curricular content is still a real concern because, overall, the results indicate that music is implemented unequally, and administrators do not seem prepared to manage this process.

With regard to music and broad music learning outcomes, administrators were generally positive. However, these results should be understood with caution as this might imply that administrators did not have enough insight or knowledge in order to be more selective in their responses. Having said this, the significant differences between current and ideal conditions may mean that administrators believe that improvement is possible, especially because they have given importance to variables such as “creativity” or the students’ development of social skills. This aligns with the main goals of the NCCAE as well as with prior research in the USA (Abril & Gault, 2006).

Despite this clear link between the administrators’ perceptions and the national curriculum, it is important to note that the tendency of learning music through other subjects or as a means of understanding other subjects has occurred within other systems of education. Prior research (Bresler, 1993; Saunders & Baker, 1991; Wiggins & Wiggins, 2008) has suggested that when music is taught by a non-specialist, it usually focuses on performance (singing) activities that are connected to other subjects in the charge of the classroom teacher. This phenomenon might explain why administrators believed composition and an understanding of other arts were the least-developed areas in their schools, which aligns with prior studies of primary school music programs in the USA (Abril and Gault, 2006).

Paired t-test analyses showed medium to large effect sizes for music learning outcomes, in which “understand and create music in relation to other arts and cultures of the country and the world,” “create and compose music,” and “relate music to the sociocultural context” had the largest effect sizes. These findings are consistent with the findings of prior studies about elementary school principals (Abril & Gault, 2006) and in-service elementary school teachers (Abril & Gault, 2005).

As the system of education underwent reform, it was assumed that many of the schools without music instruction had offered it at some point and, thus, their responses were considered. It seemed that for these administrators it would be important to create a connection between music in the students’ everyday activities and life outside of school. Composition was the lowest rated among the statements, which supports the assumption that when classroom teachers are in charge of music instruction, music learning serves as a means of developing social skills or learning other subjects (Abril & Gault, 2006). Broad learning outcomes in music were also perceived positively and showed that in both current and ideal conditions they were focused on the importance of developing creativity, which supports Abril and Gault’s study (2006). The NCCAE, however, focuses on the integration of arts and culture as a way to improve tolerance and understanding among cultures, which would only be possible if classroom teachers, art teachers, and music teachers were qualified and had received training in arts integration instruction.

Lack of budgetary resources and specialist teachers were considered the main factors affecting the current situation of school music programs. Research has shown that both are common factors that have an impact on music programs (Abril & Gault, 2006; Wiggins & Wiggins, 2008). The open-ended questions corroborated these concerns. Statements such as, “we don’t have a music teacher because we have very few students,” “we try to fill in gaps by using every and any resource available … we would use recycled materials and build our own instruments,” and “the truth is that we haven’t had a music teacher for a long time because the Ministry took him away from the school … everything was more positive when the music teacher was here,” showed that administrators believed that the upper administration was neglectful and did not care enough about the arts. Administrators emphasized the need for teacher training opportunities because the curriculum is too broad for general teachers who would implement it “in a very superficial way, which is bad, because this [music] education is essential for the cognitive development of our students.” This supports Bustos’ (2014) study and studies in other countries in Latin America (Cajas, 2007), which indicate that both generalists and specialists need training provided by the upper administration.

Administrators showed a generalized lack of knowledge in relation to the administrator’s role of implementing policies for arts education, especially when there is no music instruction provided in school. Considering that the school administrators’ understanding of the policy regarding arts and its implementation is inconsistent, it would be important to create spaces and opportunities to clarify and discuss the details and nuances of such policy. These might take the form of periodic meetings, training opportunities, or the use of the Internet. Many of the administrators showed their concerns about the current state of music, which shows that there is a body of advocates who could improve the situation of music education in the country. Hence, collaboration with administrators and teachers could have a positive impact on the nature of programs such as music, which by nature is tied to social constructs that have been highlighted by the Ecuadorian government.

Conclusion

The current rhetoric of the Ecuadorian government is grounded in the ideal of providing equal opportunities and free education for all citizens attending public institutions. This perspective has granted open access to education for many people who previously struggled to secure it. However, an absolute standardization of policies can be detrimental for music programs, especially when administrators are not trusted, or are given independence to make decisions uniquely applicable to their schools. For example, the Ministry of Education has stated its desire of making Ecuador the “Finland of Latin America” (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2014). However, despite some resemblance with the Scandinavian country, one aspect that does not seem to be present is what Sahlberg (2009) calls “a culture of trust.” He claims that trusting the actors within the education system has been the key element in the success of the Finnish education reform. He states (Sahlberg, 2009, p. 27): “The culture of trust simply means that education authorities and political leaders believe that teachers, together with principals, parents and their communities, know how to provide the best possible education for their children and youth.” Thus, inviting the actors in the system to collaborate with the educational development of a nation can have a positive impact on the nature of programs such as music.

Although this study provides information with regard to music education in the public schools of Ecuador, it is important to delineate elements that could contribute to a deeper understanding of research on policies for music education. According to Schmidt and Colwell (2017, p. 13), it is necessary “to challenge the centralized and hierarchical forms of policy action” as well as to de-mystify the nature of policy. As such, this study provides an example of a unidirectional system that would benefit from the participation of every actor in the arena. If schools are held accountable for nations’ development and international competitiveness, then it is necessary to create a culture of participation that gives voice to those in charge of such responsibilities. This would promote a “culture of trust” and the creation of a system with different levels or hierarchies that work collaboratively instead of bureaucratically.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental_Material – Supplemental material for The state of music education in the basic general public schools of Ecuador: The administrators’ perspective

Supplemental material, Supplemental_Material for The state of music education in the basic general public schools of Ecuador: The administrators’ perspective by Johanna E. Abril in International Journal of Music Education

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

ORCID iD

Johanna E. Abril

References

Abril

C. R.

(2009). School music education in the United States: Beliefs, conditions, and implications. Diskussion Musikpädagogik, 43, 43–53.

Abril

C. R.

Abril

J. E.

(2017). Educación musical en las Américas: Condiciones, prácticas, y políticas desde una perspectiva socio-ecológica. Revista Electrónica Complutense de Investigación Musical, 14, 29–46.

Abril

C. R.

Bannerman

J. K.

(2014). Perceived factors impacting school music programs: The teacher’s perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62, 344–361.

Abril

C. R.

Gault

B. M.

(2005). Elementary educators’ perceptions of elementary general music instructional goals. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319260

Abril

C. R.

Gault

B. M.

(2006). The state of music in the elementary school: The principal’s perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 6–20.

Abril

C. R.

Gault

B. M.

(2008). The state of music in secondary schools: The principal’s perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 68–81.

Aguilar

C. E.

Richerme

L. K.

(2014). What is everyone saying about teacher evaluation? Framing the intended and inadvertent causes and consequences of Race to the Top. Arts Education Policy Review, 115, 110–120.

Alexander

(2011). Evidence, rhetoric and colateral damage: The problematic pursuit of “world class” standards. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41, 265–286.

Aróstegui

J. L.

(2017). Neoliberalismo, economía del conocimiento y educación musical. Revista Electrónica Complutense de Investigación Musical, 14, 11–27.

10.

Asamblea Nacional República del Ecuador. (2008). Constitución de la República del Ecuador (Registro Oficial No. 449) [Constitution of the Ecuadorian Republic]. Retrieved from http://www.asambleanacional.gob.ec/sites/default/files/documents/old/constitucion_de_bolsillo.pdf

11.

Banner

A. B.

(2005). A Comparative study of the perceptions of elementary school administrators, teachers, and students regarding recess and free play in the public school (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2162&context=etd

12.

Bowe

M. L.

(2014). Post-basic general music education in Ireland: Principals’ perspectives (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3624898)

13.

Bresler

(1993). Music in a double-bind: Instruction by non-specialists in elementary schools. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 115, 1–13. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40318744

14.

Bronson

Merryman

(October, 2010). The creativity crisis. Newsweek. Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/creativity-crisis-74665

15.

Brown

Reardon

Merrill

(2011). Understanding STEM: Current perceptions. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70, 5–9.

16.

Bustos

P. R.

(2014). Situación de la enseñanza musical impartida por docents de educación inicial de la ciudad de Cuenca, año lectivo 2012–2013: Estudio de caso de las escuelas de las parroquias San Blas, San Sebastián, Gil Ramírez Dávalos y El Sagrario (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universidad de Cuenca, Ecuador.

17.

Cajas

E. G.

(2007). Music education in Central America: A comparative study of educational policies and practices in Guatemala, Honduras, and Costa Rica (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3271222)

18.

Ciorba

C. R.

Seibert

(2012). Music education in the state of Oklahoma: Perceptions from the K-12 educational community. Bulleting of the Council for Research in Music Education, 193, 31–43. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.193.0031

19.

Correa

(2013, 27 May). Rafael Correa presenta el modelo de educación gratuita y de calidad en Ecuador [Rafael Correa: “Without education there cannot be revolution, nor there can be democracy]. Retrieved from https://www.lavanguardia.com/internacional/20140424/54406163442/rafael-correa-educacion-revolucion-democracia.html

20.

Darling-Hammond

(2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.

21.

Eady

C. K.

Zepeda

S. J.

(2007). Evaluation, supervision, and staff development under mandated reform: The perceptions and practices of rural middle school principals. Rural Education, 28, 1–7. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ783875.pdf

22.

Elpus

(2014). Evaluating the effect of No Child Left Behind on U.S. music course enrollments. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62, 215–233.

23.

Fautley

(2013). Assessment issues within national curriculum music in the lower secondary school in England. In Brophy

T. S.

Lehmann-Wermser

(Eds.), Proceedings of the third international symposium on assessment in music education. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications. Retrieved from: http://drfautley.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/fautley_bremen_paper.pdf

24.

Fork

P. K.

Kennedy

K. J.

Chan

J. K. S.

(2010). Teachers, policymakers and project learning: the questionable use of “hard” and “soft” policy instruments to influence the implementation of curriculum reform in Hong Kong. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 5, 1–14. Retrieved from http://journals.sfu.ca/ijepl/index.php/ijepl/article/view/198

25.

Fowler

F. J.

(2014). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

26.

Fredrick

W. C.

Walberg

H. J.

(1980). Learning as a function of time. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 183–194.

27.

Gerrity

K. W.

(2007). No Child Left Behind: Determining the impact of policy on music education. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (No. 3262133).

28.

Greenwood

R. A.

(1991). Secondary school administrators’ attitudes and perceptions on the role of music and school bands. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 3552.

29.

Hanley

B. A.

(1987). Educators’ attitudes to philosophies of music education: A Q study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 73.

30.

Hanson

R. A.

Schutz

R. E.

(1975). The effects of programmatic R&D on schooling on students. Technical report No. 53. Los Alamitos, CA: SWRL Educational Research and Development.

31.

Hebert

D. G.

Heimonen

(2013). Public policy and music education in Norway and Finland. Arts Education Policy Review, 114, 135–148.

32.

Hentschke

(2013). Global policies and local needs of music education in Brazil. Arts Education Policy Review, 114, 119–125.

33.

Horsley

(2009). The politics of public accountability: Implications for centralized music education policy development and implementation. Arts Education Policy Review, 110, 6–13.

34.

Jaramillo

Picq

(2018, 5 September). Ecuador’s not-so-pink tide: A Citizen’s Revolution against its citizens. Retrieved from https://www.opendemocracy.net/democraciaabierta/grace-jaramillo-manuela-picq/ecuador-s-not-so-pink-tide-citizen-s-revolution-again

35.

Karweit

(1976). A reanalysis of the effect of quantity of schooling on achievement. Sociology of Education, 49, 236–246.

36.

Kratochvil

K. R.

(2009). The survival of arts education in the NCLB era: A case study of one K-8th grade arts focused charter school in a California program improvement school district (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3367731)

37.

Kubow

P. K.

Fossum

P. R.

(2007). Comparative education: Exploring issues in international context (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education/Merrill Prentice Hall.

38.

Lum

C. H.

Dairianathan

(2014). Mapping musical learning: An evaluation of research in music education in Singapore. International Journal of Music Education, 32, 278–295.

39.

Milford

G. F.

(1995). Attitudes of Ohio high school principals toward band. Dialogue in Music Education, 19, 60–72.

40.

Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador. (2014). Manuel Rivadeneira: “Queremos convertir al Ecuador en la Finlandia de América, en el tema educativo.” [Manuel Rivadeneira: “We want to make Ecuador the Finland of America, in educational matters.”] Retrieved from https://educacion.gob.ec/manuel-rivadeneira-queremos-convertir-al-ecuador-en-la-finlandia-de-america-en-el-tema-educativo/

41.

Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador. (2016). Educación cultural y artística [Cultural and artistic education]. Retrieved from https://educacion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2016/08/ECA-completo.pdf

42.

Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador. (2018). Vicerrectores y Subdirectores. Retrieved from https://educacion.gob.ec/vicerrectores-y-subdirectores/

43.

Monroe

R. A.

(1994). Music education in Ohio high schools: A comparative study of the opinions of music teachers, principals, and professors of music education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Miami University, USA.

44.

Montero

E. G.

Gavilanes

P. V.

Cadena

(2014). Educación estética en el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje: Instituciones educativas de educación básica y bachillerato del canton Milagro [Aesthetic education in the teaching learning process: Educational institutions of basic education and baccalaureates from the Milagro canton]. Revista Ciencia UNEMI, 2, 47–57.

45.

Music for All Foundation. (2004). The sound of silence. The unprecedented decline of music education in California public schools: A statistical review. Retrieved from http://music-for-all.org

46.

Ozga

(2009). Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self-evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24, 149–162.

47.

Payne

B. S

. (1990). Justifying music in the American public school: A survey of selected Ohio school personnel. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 2194.

48.

Presidencia de la República. (2011). Ley Orgánica de Educación Intercultural (Registro No. 417) [Organic Law of Intercultural Education]. Retrieved from http://www.evaluacion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2015/06/Anexo-b.-LOEI.pdf

49.

Ravitch

(2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.

50.

Sahlberg

(2009, April). A short history of educational reform in Finland. White Paper. Retrieved from http://www2.disal.it/Resource/Finland-Sahlberg.pdf

51.

Saunders

T. C.

Baker

D. S.

(1991). In-service classroom teachers’ perceptions of useful music skills and understandings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39, 248–261.

52.

Schmidt

Colwell

(2017). Introduction. In Schmidt

Colwell

(Eds.), Policy and the political life of music education (pp. 1–36). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

53.

Vázquez

J. A.

Betancourt

V. A.

Chávez

G. J.

Maza

J. V.

Herrera

A. G.

Zúñiga

G. N

. (2014). Analysis of educational reform in Ecuador. Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Contables, 22, 201–207.

54.

Von Zastrow

Janc

. (2004). Academic atrophy: The condition of the liberal America’s public schools. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.

55.

Wiggins

R. A.

Wiggins

(2008). Primary music education in the absence of specialists. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 9, 1–27. Retrieved from http://www.ijea.org/v9n12/v9n12.pdf

56.

Wiley

D. E.

Harnischfeger

(1974). Explosion of a myth: Quantity of schooling and exposure to instruction, major education vehicles. Educational Researcher, 3, 7–12. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189x003004007?casa_token=Lybxz8LnDEIAAAAA:bhJcGVVa9y6FtXF8oDhFDcI5sJJVrBx_5IN1x-Yp1R2PMmH_FaHk2YEZhrKlKnsgJHOd5fisVkPQ6w

57.

Zandén

Thorgersen

C. F.

(2015). Teaching for learning or teaching for documentation? Music teachers’ perspectives on a Swedish curriculum reform. British Journal of Music Education, 32, 37–50.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.29 MB