Abstract
Prior to the first Greensboro Symposium, Jeffrey Kimpton addressed the Society for Music Teacher Education (SMTE) at a preconference meeting of what was then the Music Educators National Conference in Minneapolis. Kimpton made no apologies for his harsh words to our profession, yet his warning that music education was “at a crossroads” (Kimpton, 2005, p. 10) inspired new actions and new research for SMTE. As I write this article, I have just returned from the National Assembly of the National Association for Music Education (NAfME) in Washington, D.C. This is an annual event where NAfME societies and councils, as well as state Music Education Association leaders, are invited to reflect on their accomplishments and set new goals. Annually, I return to Kimpton’s words, which remind me how far our society has come, yet they continue to map the road ahead for SMTE.
In his 2005 message to SMTE, Kimpton frequently used the words “relationships” and “interdependence” to point SMTE and the music education profession in a progressive direction. A goal during the past year was to develop a distributed model of leadership in SMTE, whereby a representative would be appointed in every state and SMTE division chairs could cultivate relationships among the states through increased communication. With the generous collaboration of state Music Education Association presidents, we succeeded in appointing leaders for 49 states. Our interdependent model was put to the test in January and February as proposed changes to Title II reporting threatened all but the largest of music teacher preparation programs. SMTE members went to work, commenting in the Congressional Register, writing to their elected representatives, and urging college administrators to do the same. Although we had strategically planned for such capacity within SMTE, it was still remarkably satisfying to witness how quickly our community came together to act on behalf of teacher education. I am grateful for every one of our members who took such decisive political action. Recently, we have seen the Obama administration back away from its college ranking proposal, and we hope this is a positive sign.
Kimpton (2005) admonished that we were part of a fragile ecosystem, and one important facet of that system was continuing to build the capacity of music teachers after they completed their initial licensure. He was acutely aware that little about public schooling made teachers feel like professionals, and many became dissatisfied and left the profession entirely. I doubt that he could have predicted how teacher evaluation, a procedure that is supposed to help teachers improve their capacity in the classroom and therefore lead to school improvement, would become the very issue leading to demoralization of music teachers. As Robinson (2015) points out, Music teachers are highly mistrustful of the kinds of data being used to determine their effectiveness as educators; specifically, they are mistrustful of the (mis)use of standardized tests and assessments of student achievement in subjects other than music—typically math and reading in grades 3-8—in their own evaluations. (p. 11)
Johnson (2015) concurs with Robinson (2015) and suggests that this kind of mistrust extends beyond music teachers. The researcher contends that “successful schoolwide improvement increases norms of shared responsibility among teachers and creates structures and opportunities for learning that promote interdependence” (p. 119). All teachers, Johnson suggests, have little confidence that value-added measures (VAMS) “adequately control for demographic differences among their students,” so they “do not believe that VAMS are, in fact, evenhanded” (p. 120). When high-stakes evaluation relies on VAMS, teachers’ skepticism undermines the very collaboration and interdependence that characterize strong schools. Teachers “can decide to literally or figuratively ‘close the classroom door’ and revert to working alone” (p. 120). Furthermore, teachers’ doubts about the adequacy of VAMS to determine effectiveness can lead them to mistrust school leadership about the entire evaluation process. Based on her previous research, Johnson argues that “a teacher’s colleagues, the school’s leadership, and the school’s organizational culture” (p. 120) are the factors that matter most to teachers’ overall job satisfaction. If current reforms in teacher evaluation actually isolate teachers, undermine positive and collaborative organizational structure, and create wariness about school leadership, then such reforms invite closer scrutiny.
Although NAfME has created Workbook for Building and Evaluating Effective Music Education in General Music and the Workbook for Building and Evaluating Effective Music Education in the School Ensemble, the emphasis in those volumes is on advocating for school leaders’ informed observation, and the assumption is that fair observation will lead toward music teachers’ positive professional development. Within SMTE, our Policy ASPA (Areas for Strategic Planning and Action) and our Teacher Evaluation ASPA take a broader view of teacher evaluation as part of new education reforms and hold up teacher evaluation as a primary policy concern. During the past year, SMTE intensified its efforts toward informing policy research and practice, for as Robinson (2015) indicates, while professional conversation has increased, the scholarship on music teacher evaluation remains sparse. In light of Johnson’s (2015) claims, the critical research necessary to inform policy and practice remains a high priority for SMTE on the road ahead.
A decade ago, Kimpton (2005) pointed out that it was impossible to think outside the box while remaining in the box, and he urged us to become aware of new models that might exist outside the academy. He observed that few of our music education majors wanted “to teach in tough neighborhoods with students who didn’t come from communities like theirs” (p. 11). With this observation, he implied not only that music teacher educators could be doing more meaningful work preparing future teachers for culturally relevant pedagogy but also that our institutions must look outside of White, affluent, suburban music programs for recruitment into teacher education. I wonder if Kimpton anticipated the popularity of programs such as Little Kids Rock, which, rather than presenting an alternative to public school music, partners with music programs in New York City, Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago, and Hartford school systems to make music education more widely available (Little Kids Rock, 2015, “Modern Band”). It is important to know that organizations like Little Kids Rock invest in professional development for full time teachers in addition to providing instruments and materials for school music programs. Are we witnesses to the new models for which Kimpton so urgently hoped? Judging from the acceptances of presentations and posters for the 2015 Greensboro symposium, SMTE has every good intention of collaborating with organizations like Little Kids Rock to see if our mutual efforts might lead toward greater equity and inclusion not only in school music education but in the preparation of music teachers as well.
In sum, Kimpton’s (2005) emphasis on relationships and interdependence continues to carry great weight as we contemplate the future of music teacher education. I believe we all benefit from his admonishment to remain wide-awake as we search for new models that can strengthen music education and music teacher education. Finally, I take to heart Kimpton’s sense of urgency for our profession: I am not being disrespectful; I am being deeply respectful of this profession in which I was raised, one that I have expended a lifetime working to change and improve. I hope that the questions that I raise today and the solutions that we will discuss . . . will generate new thinking, new models, new research, and a new boldness for our own actions as music educators and music teacher educators. (p. 10)
An aspect of this organization in which I take great pride is the welcome we extend to new music teacher educators. As we sent out acceptance letters for the 2015 Greensboro Symposium, we noted that about 40% of the letters were going to those who would be attending a symposium for the first time. Among those are a record number of graduate students who will present research posters and benefit from the collegial mentoring of our Journal for Music Teacher Education editorial board. Thirty others will be presenting sessions or posters for the first time, and in addition to college faculty, these include state-level music program leaders, and music teachers who have leadership roles in their local school districts. We do not make progress by standing still. As we expand SMTE membership, we expand our reach and we renew our commitment to bold thinking and action on behalf of this profession we deeply respect. We move toward a stronger, richer community, indeed.