Abstract
You are likely aware that the Society for Music Teacher Education (SMTE) and the Journal of Music Teacher Education (JMTE) have recently celebrated their 30th and 20th anniversaries, respectively. In thinking about the columns that I will write for the upcoming issues of JMTE, I spent some time reading the earliest issues of the journal as a means to reflect on the kinds of things that were of concern at the inception of the organization and its main means of communication. It was quite interesting to learn that some of the issues that we face today are quite similar to those of yesteryear. In the very first issue of our journal, Irma Collins (1991) wrote,
This new journal can and should act as a forum for philosophical inquiry into these and other issues that daily surround us in higher education. With greater attention given to thinking and writing, we can become true scholars of music education, not just practitioners. (p. 1)
With that in mind, I plan to use my space in the JMTE as an opportunity to provide a snapshot of the problems we are confronting in this day and age.
One of the largest issues of the day is the general crusade for accountability in education. Of course, today’s accountability movement in schools is part of a much larger movement toward greater responsibility, liability, and culpability in all aspects of our world—government, businesses, entertainment, sports, basically everything. An analysis of the derivation of that call suggests that much of the trouble may have begun in various sectors of the business world, but it has carried over to nearly every other facet of our lives.
Finding a specific definition of accountability is very difficult, yet there seems to be general consensus that purpose of accountability is good and helpful. When describing accountability in the business world, we often hear about models that involve setting goals and objectives, determining how to meet the goals, listing the resources that will be needed, and describing specific outcomes if those goals are met or unmet. In every instance, the communication of each and every aspect of the accountability plan must be communicated to all those involved. In addition, employees are provided the opportunity to question any of the disparities that exist in the plan. Once the process has been completed, there should be some sort of report related to the project.
When we consider the call for accountability in education, some of those very same themes and ideas have been sounded. But, the very complex nature of teaching and learning makes accountability in schools much more complicated than a simple report. For one thing, too many in the education workforce have not had any say in the policies that have been developed to “improve” education. And, of course, any educational policy or business model cannot take into account the complexities of learning and teaching in our schools. As a close friend always reminds me, “We don’t teach widgets, we teach people. Business models can’t work in schools.”
We are all aware of the trends and paths that accountability in education has taken over the past few years. As a means to hold schools accountable for student learning, tests are given to students and those scores were subsequently reported out to the public. That approach has created a firestorm of criticism of the education community since the test results did not produce the desired results. However, the use of high-stakes testing is also coming under condemnation. Diane Ravitch (2011) addressed this issue well when she said, “testing should be used for diagnostic purposes, to help students and teachers, but it has turned into a blunt instrument that is used to reward and punish teachers and schools.” Ravitch goes on to outline that the results of this accountability system have merely given fodder to those who call for the application of a more business-looking accountability system for education. What they forget is that the tests were designed to measure whether or not a student was reading at the proper level, not whether or not the school is failing.
Current trends in K–12 school systems seem to be pointing the finger toward the development of teacher evaluation systems as yet another means to hold education accountable for our efforts. There are all kinds of assessment and evaluation tools being espoused as a means to negotiate these waters—value-added models, observational instruments, the collection of student materials as evidence of student learning, self-reflections, and internally developed instruments. These measures or some combination of them, may provide us with some information about a teacher’s impact on learning in their classrooms, but as Janet Barrett (2011) noted, these measures lack
the moral dimensions of teachers’ work, the mutuality of teaching and learning, the contextual conditions that constrain teachers and sometimes provoke them to respond, the methodological complexities of measuring and judging quality, and the ways that prevalent belief systems skew our conceptions of quality teaching toward certain dimensions over others. (p. 2)
Many of our SMTE members have become deeply entrenched in the teacher evaluation movement that has become prevalent across the country. There is no doubt that the issues surrounding teacher evaluation are complicated and constantly evolving. For its part, SMTE has been maintaining a teacher evaluation portal on its website that includes resources and updates on current models from across the country. In addition, both the 2011 Greensboro Symposium and the 2012 NAfME Conference featured discussions about music teacher evaluation. And, in the coming years, it is likely that SMTE will engage in some of the actions suggested by immediate past chair, Janet Barrett (2011). For example, it may be important for SMTE to develop a new ASPA (Area for Strategic Planning and Action) aimed at looking at music teacher evaluation. Furthermore, we have all come to understand and realize that the assessment of student learning in music is very complex. Our organization will likely need to work with others to continue to develop more understanding of this complex facet of our work.
The call for accountability, however, has recently extended beyond the evaluation of K–12 educators. As I am sure many of you have experienced, institutions of higher education are also being asked to describe how learning takes place on their campuses. And, as was the case in our K–12 programs, numerous ideas about how to determine the successes and failures of a college education permeate the discussions. To be fair, however, much of this call is because of the ever-increasing costs of higher education, but it appears that colleges are heeding the request. In his recent New York Times opinion piece, David Brooks (2012) suggests that higher education is “not reacting to the idea of testing and accountability with blanket hostility,” but rather it “embraces the idea of assessment.” Furthermore, Brooks suggests that higher education needs to seek and find a way to “enact it in a way that’s real and transparent to outsiders.” There are more questions as to what and how those assessments might be used, but it is clear that the higher education community will be working on this for years to come.
At my own institution, the accountability movement is active and thriving and requests for information about student learning are regularly appearing in my inbox. But, I believe it exists in a healthy environment that allows professors the space to investigate our successes and failures as a means to better our work. Many of our departments have developed a system to investigate learning through review of student artifacts, tests, surveys, external accreditation, and feedback from external evaluators. Currently, all of that information is gathered and analyzed as part of a “voluntary” accountability approach wholly aimed at helping us to clarifying our goals and objectives. In addition, throughout the process we are asked to consider two questions: What do we want students to learn? And, how will we know when they have learned it well? To date, we have not developed a good means to report our findings, but the reflection and analysis of our work has already caused many of us to make changes within our course offerings and degree programs. Our leadership has made the development of a reporting mechanism a major priority for the upcoming academic year.
And that perhaps is the biggest challenge of the accountability movement—finding a means to report and disseminate our results and findings about learning. In some cases, some of those asked to provide a report offer all sorts of reasons for not measuring and reporting progress or regression. Some of those include the fact that “success will be self evident”, or “it is too difficult to measure”, or “we don’t have the resources or ability” or, my personal favorite, “it can’t be measured.” I am hopeful that models will be developed in the coming years that will help us articulate and educate others about all of the good work that is done in our settings. And, I find it quite likely that many of those models will stem from those involved with teacher preparation since we are already entrenched in examining the work of our students very carefully.
For music teacher preparation, the call for greater accountability is happening on top of what is already a very complex labyrinth of tests, standards, disposition assessments, performance assessments and hurdles that need to be negotiated on the way to developing high-quality music educators. We have all been engaged with incorporating pieces of these requirements into our courses, amending coursework and projects, and modifying our personal approaches to assist our students in their preparation to meet them. With that, music teacher educators have become innovative, flexible, and more active in the policies that are the origin of the accountability. But, we too will need to find ways to report the good work that profession is doing.
As Eunice Boardman (1992) reminded us, our organization, SMTE, was intended to be a “forum for the identification and solution of common problems among the constituency.” I have no doubt that the accountability movement and the reporting mechanisms involved with it will rise to the forefront of our concern list. And while it is likely to test our patience and force us to question many of the things that we have done for years, I believe that the reflection and thinking that we will do will help advance the profession. For its role in this movement, SMTE will need to ensure that it continues to support the needs of its members by creating opportunities for member to engage in critical and discerning thought about the evolution of music teacher education.
Charles Leonhard (1991) wrote, “Music teacher educators are the elite in the profession and bear ultimate responsibility for progress in education.” Although some may find that to be a bit arrogant, I couldn’t agree more. I have seen it in the research, writings, and presentations of our colleagues. I have found it in the amazing work done by our ASPAs. I see it in the work presented by our graduate students during our conferences. And, I see it in the astonishing efforts put forth by the SMTE board. While I have a deep appreciate for all of our board members, I do wish to extend my sincere appreciation to Margaret Schmidt, David Rickels, Paul Doerksen, and Susan Conkling who are completing their terms as of July 2012. In addition, Linda Thompson completes her term as past chair. Linda’s presence and leadership will be missed, but she has worked hard to ensure that SMTE’s efforts will continue to strive forward. Thanks to all of you!