Abstract
As Eunice Boardman (1992) offered, one of the earliest and important accomplishments of the Society for Music Teacher Education (SMTE) was the publication of Teacher Education: Partnership and Process (1987). This report was done by a task force on music teacher education chaired by Gerald Olson that met in the mid-1980s and it was published by MENC. As Boardman notes, the strongest recommendation from that report was the development of partnerships between higher education and schools. But, in that same commentary, she outlines the various steps SMTE was taking to garner more support and establish a stronger relationship with MENC (now NAfME). With that support, Boardman (1992) noted that SMTE was prepared “to serve more fully as a forum for the identification and solution of common problems . . .” (p. 3).
Boardman’s concerns about SMTE’s relationship to other stakeholders in music teacher education are very much on my mind as well. In our early discussions and preparations for our 2013 Greensboro Symposium, the board recognized that SMTE had built a strong structure to accomplish many wonderful things. In particular, our ASPAs (Areas of Strategic Planning and Action), symposia, the Journal of Music Teacher Education, our website, and biennial meetings have done much to connect our membership, advance our common understandings, and strengthen the work that each of us does in our own settings.
In the development of the very first SMTE Greensboro Symposium in 2005, David Teachout noted that the purpose of the symposium “is to explore current critical issues in music teacher education and to construct plans of prospective action and research in the effort to advance coordinated and sustained work on these issues.” (Teachout, 2005, p. 7) That has certainly become a reality and a quick glance at the depth and breadth of the listing of presentations and posters suggests that SMTE is tackling and investigating everything pertinent to our field—it is exactly what our organization should be doing! And, without any doubt, the 2013 Symposium was no exception. Special thanks to Symposium Chair David Teachout, Review Committee Chair David Rickels, Chair-Elect Susan Conkling, the entire SMTE board, our ASPA leads, and all our friends at University of North Carolina–Greensboro for their work and effort in creating a wonderful and successful event.
There is no question that SMTE has positioned itself as a leader in music teacher preparation and music education as a whole. I believe the time has come for us to use our position to advance our visions for music teacher education. In my previous column, I wrote the following and I believe it underscores the next level of engagement for our organization to explore: Surely, SMTE will continue to be a place for members to engage in critical and discerning thought about the evolution of music teacher education. But, given the strengths of our members and our firm connections to partners like CMS, NASM and NAfME, our next step should be to confidently promote our visions for music teacher preparation outside of our own field and into that of the broader educational context. (Orzolek, 2012, p. 4)
In fact, SMTE’s mission provides us with that very charge: to improve the quality of teaching and research in music teacher education; to provide leadership in the establishment of standards for certification of music teachers; to serve as an arm of NAfME in influencing developments in music teacher education and in the certification of music teachers. It feels that it is time that our organization extends itself and its well-polished structure to guide and encourage changes based on our ever-growing body of research and knowledge.
Our role in promoting our visions and leading change within the profession is certainly nothing new for us to consider or explore. The SMTE session titles from the 1988 MENC National Conference suggest that it was very much on the minds of the SMTE board members during that era as well. The session titles included “NASM, CMS and the Carnegie/Holmes Groups: Impact on Music Education;” “Partnerships in Music Teacher Preparation;” and “SMTE State Units Interacting with State Agencies.” (Boardman, 1992, p. 4).
Recent SMTE chairs have recognized our role in leading effective change as well. Don Ester (2006) wrote, Change is, of course, inevitable; the direction of change is not. SMTE has the opportunity, indeed the responsibility, to proactively address the critical issues of the present and work toward positive change. (p. 3)
Janet Barrett recognized that as music teacher educators, many of us are already doing this sort of thing at our own schools, communities and states. She wrote, As music teacher educators, we are policy makers as we craft curricula and program requirements; we implement policy as we translate stipulations into requirements; we are susceptible to changes in state and federal policies that influence the preparation of music teachers. In turn, we organize our efforts to influence policy and to articulate why revisions in our theories of action are necessary for widespread change. (Barrett, 2012, p. 3)
In the past 10 years, SMTE has indeed begun to reach out to our partners and affiliates with whom we share common goals and visions. We have begun the process of sharing our knowledge and skills and gathering allies to advance our profession. As an example, Linda Thompson described SMTE’s involvement in a discussion forum with composers during the 2008 CMS national conference. Thompson (2009) made the following reflections: It was thrilling to be a part of this gathering where music professionals from these two different areas exchanged questions, ideas, and suggestions on how to work together to strengthen future music educators’ abilities to teach and promote composition in the schools. It quickly became apparent that we need each other. The composers expressed genuine interest in the ways composition is being increasingly included in P-12 settings, while the music educators asked in-depth questions about compositional techniques and the pedagogy of composition. Participants suggested multiple ways that composition can become a much stronger component of music teacher education. All of us left the session motivated and challenged to pursue similar conversations and at our own institutions. (p. 2)
SMTE has even explored and defined the possible roles that the various stakeholder organizations might hold in leading changes in our profession during a forum held during the 2004 MENC National Conference. In their article summarizing the forum, Ester and Brinkman (2005) noted that NASM, CMS, MENC (NAfME), and SMTE “have the visibility, credibility, and potential authority to provide leadership and facilitate change in the area of music teacher education” (p. 37). Specifically, however, those participating in the forum felt that each of those groups should play a defined role in moving things forward. The forum recommended the following role for SMTE: SMTE members are on the front lines of music teacher education issues: They are the teacher educators who are involved in the recruiting and preparation of the nation’s music teachers; they are primary presenters of in-service sessions to practicing teachers at national, state, and local teacher conferences; they are the primary producers of current research on music teaching and learning. Simply stated, they, more than the members of any other group, understand the challenges and have the aggregate knowledge and experience to develop the solutions. As a result, SMTE must eagerly accept the responsibility of developing the all-important vision and facilitating the cooperation and action of the other professional organizations to transform the vision into real change. (Ester & Brinkman, 2005, pp. 40-41)
In their conclusion, Ester and Brinkman (2005) wrote, While SMTE can and should take the lead, it cannot make profound changes alone. SMTE can push the agenda, however, helping MENC, NASM, and CMS to not only understand the significance of the problem but also work together to implement recommended solutions. SMTE can no longer wait for other organizations to lead; it must be proactive and assertive, convincing others that action is required and enlisting each organization to take advantage of its unique niche to bring about the necessary change. (pp. 41-42)
In the world of nonprofit organizations, taking steps or building skills and knowledge to meet goals, missions, objectives, or realizing a vision is often referred to as “capacity building,” although the term is certainly used in a variety of contexts. Capacity building can take any number of forms: identifying a communications strategy; improving volunteer recruitment; learning about new policies, and responding to them by proposing alternatives; developing a leadership succession plan; collaboratively studying, researching, and identifying solutions to complex problems and issues; and engaging in collaborations with community partners and stakeholders. It is often encouraged for organizations to review their existing capacity prior to embarking on a plan to fulfill its mission.
In reflecting on all of this as well as the wonderful many things shared during our 2013 symposium, I think we can officially declare that SMTE has built every facet of its capacity to confidently say that we are in the very position that SMTE has always desired and carefully developed over the past 30 years. So what is the wise course of action for our organization? What is our collective vision for the profession? How do we use our capacity to make meaningful change that enhances our work?
SMTE has reached a time for action. Our position is a strong one and we must use it wisely.