Illinois Music Programs

8/10/2019 Illinois Music Programs

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/illinois-music-programs 1/15

Contributions to Music Education Vol.37, No. 1, pp. 37-50.

CHARLES R. CIORBA, PH.D.

Millikin University

MELANIE MCL AY

Sullivan Public Schools

Describing Illinois Music Programs

Using the Whole School EffectivenessGuidelines Survey for Music Education:

A Statewide Investigation

The purpose of this study was to describe Illinois music educators’ self-perceptions regard-

ing the demographics, logistics, function, and implementation of their classroom operations

using the Whole School Effectiveness Guidelines Survey for Music Programs. The survey

was administered to K-12 music educators (N = 1,251) throughout the state of Illinois.

Participants reported positive self-perceptions in relation to their teaching abilities and

leadership qualities, yet were less positive regarding the communication of goals, expecta-

tions, vision, mission, and current research with teachers outside of music, administrators,

and parents.

O ver the past 40 years, music education has continually struggled to hold asecure place in the K-12 curriculum (Koza, 2006). In the 1970s, the United

States experienced an economic recession that had a signicant impact on publiceducation. During this period, many music programs that were unable to advo-cate their reason for existence were vulnerable to being eliminated due to budgetconstraints (Mark, 2002). In the 1980s, the National Commission on Excellencein Education (1983) published A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for EducationalReform, a government report that addressed the declining quality of the Americaneducational system. The report received a great deal of publicity, and although it



Contributions to Music Education

did support arts education, the authors failed to recognize music as part of thestandard curriculum. During the 1990s, the National Standards for Music Educa-tion were introduced as part of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act . Despite thisachievement, the legislation contained no congressional mandate to adopt the

National Standards. To this day, it remains the choice of individual states and localschool districts to do so voluntarily.

As the United States entered the twenty-rst century, political andeconomic struggles continued to have an effect on music education. The Centeron Education Policy (2007) released its fth year report of the No Child LeftBehind Act, in which 491 school districts throughout the United States wererandomly solicited for participation. The report indicated that 349 districts

volunteered, resulting in a 71% response rate. Between 2002 and 2007, 62% of

elementary schools surveyed increased instructional time for English languagearts (ELA) and/or math as follows: (a) 47% for ELA, (b) 37% for math, and(c) 43% for both subjects combined. Furthermore, 44% of the districts choseto decrease the time allotted for the following subjects and activities: (a) socialstudies, (b) science, (c) art and music, (d) physical education, and (e) lunch and/or recess. This decrease resulted in a combined time reduction averaging 145minutes a week, or 30 minutes a day.

The Music for All Foundation (2004) released the results of a ve-year study,

which stated that while the K-12 student population increased 5.8%, enrollmentin music classes throughout the state of California declined by 46.5% (513,366students). Furthermore, participation in elementary general music declined by85.8% (264,821 students), and the ranks of music teachers decreased by 26.7%(1,053 teachers). This study claimed that while budgetary (Proposition 13) andpolitical (No Child Left Behind Act) issues were partly attributable to thesedeclines, the elimination of the Fine Arts Coordinator position in many Californiaschool districts had silenced the voice of advocacy for music education at theadministrative levels.

Further research indicates that such political and budgetary issues have anaffect on music education at the administrative level throughout the UnitedStates. Abril and Gault (2006) asked a random sample of 350 elementary schoolprincipals to complete a survey, which examined their perspectives regardingmusic education in the elementary school. Respondents ( N = 214) reported thatthe No Child Left Behind Act, nancial constraints, and scheduling difcultiesall had a negative impact on music education. Interestingly, the same group ofprincipals indicated they were satised with the learning goals attained by their

school music programs.



Charles R. Ciorba/Melanie McLay

In addition, overall public attitudes towards music education remain positive. The Gallup organization (2003) conducted a random telephone survey for theNational Association of Music Merchants (NAMM) to examine the Americanpublics’ attitudes toward instrumental music. In 2003, between February 4 and

March 8, 1,005 telephone interviews were conducted. It was reported that 95% ofthe respondents indicated that music should be part of a well-rounded education.Moreover, 93% of the respondents believed that music should be part of the regularschool curriculum.

While research has shown that economic and political issues can have anegative effect on music education (Abril & Gault, 2006; Center on EducationPolicy, 2007; Music for All Foundation, 2004), additional research has shownthat public (Gallup, 2003) and administrative (Abril & Gault, 2006) support for

music education does exist. According to Boyle (1992), when music programsare in jeopardy, evaluation has become an essential tool for music educators.Customarily, the evaluation of most music programs has been based solely onmusical performance. While performance evaluation remains important, this one-dimensional approach is no longer appropriate in today’s atmosphere of high-stakes testing. Parents and administrators expect more accountability from allaspects of public education. Ciorba and Rand (2005) responded to this dilemma bycreating the Whole School Effectiveness Guidelines Survey for Music Programs

as a means to describe the logistics, function, and implementation of operationsin the high school band room with the intention of expanding the evaluationpractices available to high school music programs.

In order to fully understand the origins of the Whole School EffectivenessGuidelines Survey for Music Programs, one needs to examine the characteristicsshared by successful schools, as outlined by Edmonds (1982). Edmonds found thatsuccessful schools exhibited a combination of actions by both the school and thefamily. Over the next two decades, these characteristics evolved into the Correlates ofEffective Schools. Lezotte (2008), a highly distinguished researcher for the EffectiveSchools Movement, outlined the following correlates: (a) instructional leadership,(b) clear and focused mission, (c) safe and orderly environment, (d) climate of highexpectations, (e) frequent monitoring of student progress, (f) positive home-schoolrelations, and (g) opportunity to learn and student time on task.

During the 1999-2000 school year, a countywide school district in west centralFlorida adopted the Correlates of Effective Schools in order to develop the WholeSchool Effectiveness Model. This model was developed to provide an effective toolfor evaluating the operations of every school in the district. The correlates were

expanded to include the areas of professional development and school culture in




hopes to provide a more effective tool for evaluation (Whole School EffectivenessModel, n.d.). In 2002, the music educators within this district developed their ownframework for assessment based on the Whole School Effectiveness Model. Thenine music specic assessment areas were dened as: (a) music director as leader,

(b) clearly stated vision and mission, (c) safe, caring, and orderly environment,(d) high expectations, (e) assessment and monitoring, (f) parent and communityinvolvement, (g) instructional delivery, (h) professional development, and (i)music program culture.

Ciorba and Rand (2005) utilized this framework to develop the WholeSchool Effectiveness Guidelines Survey for Music Programs. This survey wascreated to describe the logistics, function, and implementation of classroomoperations in the high school band classroom. The survey was administered

during a district wide in-service meeting to every high school band director andone middle school band director ( N = 24) from the district that originally adoptedthe Whole School Effectiveness Model. Results indicated that the highest ratedself-reported responses addressed the areas of leadership and high achievement,

while the lowest rated self-reported responses addressed the area of interschoolcommunication. Participants reported that while they were able to communicatetheir achievements and success with the parents and community, they were unableto do so with administrators and fellow staff members.

Given these results, a need exists to expand the research conducted byCiorba and Rand (2005) in order to describe the classroom operations of K-12music programs on a statewide level. The purpose of this study was to describeIllinois music educators’ self-perceptions regarding the demographics, logistics,function, and implementation of classroom operations using The Whole SchoolEffectiveness Guidelines Survey for Music Programs. The results of this study mayprovide an opportunity for participants to examine their strengths and weaknessesregarding classroom operations, and determine whether specic trends amongIllinois music educators exist regarding operations in the K-12 music classroom.

Research Questions

1. What are the demographics of the sample as reported by the WholeSchool Effectiveness Guidelines Survey for Music Programs?

2. How well does the Whole School Effectiveness Guidelines Surveyfor Music Programs describe the self-perceptions of K-12 musiceducators regarding the logistics, function, and implementation of

their classroom operations?




Method

Instrument

The survey administered in the present study was based on the original

design created by Ciorba and Rand (2005), although the wording for each surveystatement was changed to represent the entire range of K-12 music educators.Secondly, three of the original survey statements, which described practicesspecic to secondary music programs, were eliminated. Finally, two new surveyitems designed to further describe operations in the K-12 music classroom wereincluded. A four-item Likert-type scale, with an optional N/A response, wasimplemented for each statement: (a) not applicable (N/A) (b) never, (c) sometimes,(d) often, and (e) always. The online survey tool SurveyMonkey was employed

to administer the survey via the Internet. The survey utilized SSL encryptiontechnology, which insured a secure line of communication, keeping responsescompletely private during transmission. Music educators were informed that theirparticipation was voluntary. Participants’ names, the names of their schools, andtheir email addresses were not recorded.

Procedures

During the summer of 2008, a list of music educators’ names and email

addresses was obtained through an Internet search of Illinois school district websites. The Illinois State Board of Education website provided a complete list ofpublic school districts in the state of Illinois. From this list, the researchers visitedevery school website throughout the state of Illinois and located the names andemail addresses of 2,790 music educators. In the fall of 2008, an initial invitation

was sent to each email address. One week later, an email reminder was sent tothose music educators who had not yet completed the survey. A nal email request

was sent at the beginning of the third week. The survey link remained open for14 weeks. A total of 1,135 participants responded to complete the online survey,resulting in a 40.7% response rate.

Invitations were then sent rst class mail, via the United States Postal Service,to the 1,014 remaining schools whose teachers’ email addresses were not postedon their schools’ websites. From this group, 339 schools listed the names of theirmusic faculty. These letters were addressed directly to each faculty member. Letterssent to the remaining 675 schools that did not have the names of their musicfaculty listed on their website were addressed, “ATTN: Music Specialist.” Eachletter provided a link, which directed participants to a website consisting of the

consent letter and a link to the online survey. From this group, 128 participants




completed the survey for a 12.6% response rate. The overall statewide sample ( N = 1,251) was comprised of 808 female and 433 male participants. Ten participantschose not to identify their gender.

Results

In addition to completing the survey items, participants were asked to indicate:(a) years of teaching experience, (b) school setting (urban, rural, or suburban),and (c) area(s) of expertise. The category indicating years of teaching experience

was distributed as follows: (a) 194 participants (15.5%) taught 1-4 years, (b) 280participants (22.4%) taught 5-10 years, (c) 175 participants (14%) taught 11-15 years, (d) 155 participants (12.4%) taught 16-20 years, (e) 158 participants

(12.6%) taught 21-25 years, (f) 147 participants (11.8%) taught 26-30 years, and(g) 142 participants (11.4%) taught over 30 years.

In the area of school setting: (a) 748 participants (59.8%) reported teachingin a suburban setting, (b) 292 participants (23.3%) reported teaching in a ruralsetting, (c) 185 participants (14.8%) reported teaching in an urban setting, (d) 20participants (1.6%) reported teaching in a rural/suburban setting, (e) 5 participants(.4%) reported teaching in an urban/suburban setting, and (f) 1 participant (.1%)reported teaching in a suburban/rural/urban setting.

Participants were asked to indicate their area(s) of expertise (see Table 1) bychecking all that applied to the following areas: (a) elementary general music, (b)elementary orchestra, (c) elementary band, (d) middle school general music, (e)middle school orchestra, (f) middle school band, (g) middle school jazz band,(h) middle school choir, (i) high school orchestra, (j) high school band, (k) highschool jazz band, and (l) high school choir.

Results revealed that: (a) 528 participants (42%) reported teaching in one areaof expertise, (b) 341 participants (27.3%) reported teaching in two areas of expertise,(c) 371 participants (29.7%) reported teaching in three or more areas of expertise,

and (d) 11 participants (0.9%) did not indicate their area(s) of expertise.Participants also had the opportunity to specify other areas of expertise not

included in the survey. Interestingly, 225 additional responses were reported,ranging from preschool music instruction through adult community choirs. Otherareas included, but were not limited to, various levels of music theory, multiculturalmusic ensembles, percussion ensembles, guitar, recorder, piano, and marchingband auxiliary. One participant reported teaching a rock & roll methods course.

Means and standard deviations were calculated for participants’ responses to

survey items and summarized in Table 2. The six highest mean scores were attributed




to the following items: (a) The music educator provides a non-threatening, non-oppressive environment for student learning ( M = 3.85), (b) The music educatorstrives to provide every student with the opportunity to learn what he or she needsto know in order to succeed at the next level of learning ( M = 3.83), (c) The music

educator models effective leadership for her/his students ( M = 3.82), (d) The musiceducator believes, demonstrates, and promotes the belief that all students can achieveat a high level ( M = 3.78), (e) The music educator consistently uses effective teachingpractices in essential content and skill areas ( M = 3.77), and (f) The music educatorattends staff meetings as required by the district and participates in activities that

will improve student achievement ( M = 3.75).

Table 1

Participants’ Area(s) of Expertise Area(s) of Expertise n Percentage

Elementary General Music 278 22.2%

Elementary Orchestra 9 0.7%

Elementary Band 26 2.1%

Middle School General Music 12 1.0%

Middle School Orchestra 33 2.6%

Middle School Band 24 1.9%

Middle School Choir 12 1.0%High School Orchestra 20 1.6%

High School Band 28 2.2%

High School Jazz Band 3 0.2%

High School Choir 83 6.6%

Two Areas of Expertise 341 27.3%

Three Areas of Expertise 209 16.7%

Four Areas of Expertise 75 6.0%

Five Areas of Expertise 50 4.0%

Six Areas of Expertise 19 1.5%

Seven Areas of Expertise 15 1.2%

Eight Areas of Expertise 2 0.2%

Nine Areas of Expertise 1 0.1%




Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for Survey Response Items

Survey Items by Composite Area M SD

Music Educator as Leader The music educator models effective leadership for her/his 3.82 0.43

students.

The music educator leads, manages, and communicates the 3.55 0.70

total music program to the staff, students, and parents.

The music educator stays informed with the curriculum and 2.93 0.78

instruction of other subject areas in the school.

The music educator provides the school staff with information 2.52 0.91

on the goals of the music program at her/his school.

The music educator shares current music research at faculty, 2.08 0.87 team, and subject area meetings.

Clearly Stated Vision and Mission

The music program’s vision/mission statement includes the 3.45 1.01

understanding that all students can learn, although different

teaching, learning, and pacing strategies may be needed.

The music program’s vision/mission statement emphasizes 3.30 0.99

musical achievement.

The music program’s vision/mission is clearly understood by 2.88 0.86 parents and students.

Music goals are part of the goals for the school. 2.25 1.12

The music program’s vision/mission statement is printed and 2.10 1.17

posted in the music room, and communicated to parents and

staff at all programs.

Safe, Caring, and Orderly Environment

The music educator provides a non-threatening, non-oppressive 3.85 0.40

environment for student learning. The music educator expresses pride in her/his facility and works 3.61 0.74

to ensure the room is attractive, effective, and productive.

The music room is orderly, caring, purposeful, and businesslike. 3.37 0.80

High Expectations

The music educator believes, demonstrates, and promotes the 3.78 0.47

belief that all students can achieve at a high level.

The music educator frequently states a clear expectation for high 3.50 0.79

quality student performance to students, parents, and thecommunity.




Music goals are posted in the music room. 2.47 1.20

Music goals are placed in the music handbook and reviewed 2.44 1.46

during parent meetings, as well as reinforced through the year.

Assessment and Monitoring The music educator supervises and assesses student 3.71 0.60

performance.

The music educator uses student assessment results to improve 3.48 0.74

instructional delivery.

The music educator monitors student grades, discipline referrals, 3.46 0.91

and daily attendance.

Student music progress is monitored frequently with a variety of 3.45 0.67

measures.

The music educator meets with students who are receiving low 2.71 1.11 grades and helps them with an improvement plan.

Parent and Community Involvement

The music educator and parents communicate within the rst 2.94 1.04

weeks of school and at least once during each grading period.

The views of parents are recognized, valued, and considered when 2.92 0.86

planning curriculum, events, and programs for students.

Parents support the music program’s mission and play an active 2.88 0.85

role in its achievement.Parents are given an opportunity to read, sign, and return a form 2.87 1.40

that states their understanding of the music program policies and

procedures.

Parent participation/membership is encouraged and solicited on 2.84 1.09

all music projects.

Instructional Delivery

The music educator strives to provide every student with the 3.83 0.45

opportunity to learn what she/he needs to know in order tosucceed to the next level of learning.

The music educator consistently uses effective teaching practices 3.77 0.49

in essential content and skill areas.

The music educator knows the ISAT goals for the school. 3.24 1.02

Professional Development

The music educator attends staff meetings as required by the 3.75 0.57

district and participates in activities that will improve student

achievement.




The music educator participates in professional development 3.30 0.80

meetings that provide best practices in the classroom.

The music educator attends state clinics and/or conferences. 3.24 0.89

The music educator devotes the bulk of her/his time and energy 3.23 0.76

to improving the quality of her/his teaching and learning.

Music Program Culture

The music educator demonstrates the beliefs embedded in the 3.60 0.74

vision and mission that support the instructional program.

The music program’s culture (climate) supports the needs of 3.47 0.66

the students, parents, and community.

The music educator includes the music program’s expectations 2.19 1.51

in the school handbook for students.

Note. Survey statements were matched to a four-item Likert-type scale with an optional N/A response: (a)Not Applicable (N/A), (b) Never, (c) Sometimes, (d) Often, and (e) Always.

Items attributed to the six lowest mean scores were: (a) Music goals are postedin the music room ( M = 2.47), (b) Music goals are placed in the music handbookand reviewed during parent meetings, as well as reinforced throughout the year( M = 2.44), (c) Music goals are part of the goals for the school ( M = 2.25), (d) Themusic educator includes the music program’s expectations in the school handbookfor students ( M = 2.19), (e) The music program’s vision/mission statement is

printed and posted in the music room, and communicated to parents and staff atall programs ( M = 2.10), and (f ) The music educator shares current music researchat faculty, team, and subject area meetings ( M = 2.08).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to describe Illinois music educators’ self-perceptions regarding the demographics, logistics, function, and implementation

of their classroom operations using the Whole School Effectiveness GuidelinesSurvey for Music Programs. An examination of participants’ teaching specialtiesrevealed that 528 participants (42%) reported teaching in one area of expertise,

while 712 participants (57%) reported teaching in two or more areas of expertise. These ndings are analogous with those reported by Rosenthal (2005), whoacknowledged that many music educators in the state of Illinois are required toassume multiple teaching responsibilities. With over half the sample reportingthat they teach in two or more areas of expertise, one needs to ask whetherundergraduate music education majors are receiving a variety of general, vocal,and instrumental teaching methods courses in order to prepare them for today’s




job market. It should be noted that while a comparison of the survey responsesfrom teachers in various subject areas (e.g., general music versus performance-based courses, instrumental music versus vocal music courses, or primary versussecondary grade levels) could yield enlightening results, the present data could not

support such a comparison. With the majority of participants reporting teachingin multiple subject areas, it would not be plausible to break down the results basedon these criteria.

Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe the self-perceptions ofK-12 music educators regarding the logistics, function, and implementation oftheir classroom operations. A mean score analysis revealed that ve of the sixhighest rated self-reported responses were attributed to teaching effectiveness andleadership qualities. The application of effective teaching practices is imperative

in today’s music classroom. According to the results reported from the Center onEducation Policy (2007), many music programs are having their hours cut to makemore instructional time available for English language arts and math. Effectiveteaching practices result in improved classroom efciency. This is extremelyimportant, as today’s music educators may be required to do more in less time.

The six lowest rated self-reported responses were attributed to participants’self-perceptions regarding the communication of goals, expectations, vision, andmission to parents and the rest of the educational community. If music educators

are not communicating their goals, expectations, vision, and mission with parentsand the rest of the educational community, the signicance of their programsrun the risk of being overlooked by administrators and teachers outside of music.Furthermore, if music education is not represented at the administrative levels,music programs run the risk of being eliminated in an atmosphere where astrained economy can result in budget cuts (Music for All Foundation, 2004),and standardized testing issues can result in a decreased time allotment for musiceducation (Center on Education Policy, 2007).

Edmonds (1982) reported that successful schools share a combination ofactions by both the school and the family. It is recommended that K-12 musiceducators in the state of Illinois post their goals, expectations, vision, and missionstatement in the classroom, and review them at all parent meetings and musicprograms. Parents are often the strongest advocates for music education (GallupOrganization, 2003) and it is important for them to be aware of the operations inthe music classroom. Music educators are also encouraged to discuss their goals,expectations, vision, and mission with students throughout the year. It is furtherrecommended they be placed in the school handbook and communicated with

administrators and fellow staff members.




The results from this study are similar to those reported by Ciorba andRand (2005). Participants from both studies reported positive self-perceptionsin relation to their teaching abilities and leadership qualities, yet were lesspositive regarding the issue of interschool communication. Due to the nature

of the self-reported responses utilized in both surveys, caution should be taken when interpreting the results. Even though participants reported being effectiveteachers and leaders, this does not necessarily imply that they are. As a result, theconclusions drawn from both studies can only be attributed to participants’ self-perceptions. With that said, it is interesting to note that the two samples of musiceducators, representing two different geographical areas of the United States,exhibited similar trends when responding to the survey items. Administration ofthe Whole School Effectiveness Guidelines Survey for Music Programs beyond a

regional level is recommended to determine if similar self-perceptions exist amongmusic educators in other parts of the United States. With the advent of onlinesurvey applications such as SurveyMonkey, administration of the Whole SchoolEffectiveness Guidelines Survey for Music Programs across several regions, or anationwide investigation, is indeed possible.

The response rate for participants contacted via rst class mail wassignicantly lower than the response rate for the participants contacted via email.

These results are similar to those reported by Miksza, Roeder, and Biggs (2010),

although further research regarding the response rates of electronic versus hardcopy versions of surveys has exhibited varied results (Dixon & Turner, 2007;Mehta & Sivadas, 1995; Miksza, Roeder, & Biggs 2010; Shannon & Bradshaw,2002). As such, the cause for such discrepancy between response rates for theelectronic versus hard copy surveys in the present study cannot be determined.Possible factors may have included: (a) the anonymity associated with many ofthe rst class mail invitations, (b) the inconvenience associated with respondingto a survey invitation sent rst class mail, or (c) a lack of music teachers in theschools contacted via rst class mail. It is possible the different contact approaches(email vs. rst class mail) could have affected the representation of the samplepopulation. Many of the less afuent rural and urban districts may have had webpages that were not as well maintained as the more afuent suburban districts. Itis recommended that future research include a more thorough approach to datacollection in the urban and rural areas to insure a comprehensive representation ofthe entire sample population.

Further recommendations include a follow-up study examining theexpectations from administrators who hire music educators. The results from such

a study may provide a better understanding of the skills required for those who




wish to teach music. We further recommend an investigation of university musiceducation programs to determine if undergraduate music education majors arereceiving a variety of teaching methods courses for the versatile work requirementsexpected of them. In addition, future research examining whether undergraduate

methods courses are addressing the creation and application of goals, expectations, vision, and mission with future music educators may be of value to the eld ofmusic education.

The results drawn from this survey indicate that the Whole SchoolEffectiveness Guidelines Survey for Music Programs may provide valuableinformation regarding the strengths and weaknesses of classroom operations asreected by the self-perceptions of K-12 music educators. It is hoped that thissurvey can provide an effective tool for describing the logistics, function, and

implementation of operations within our K-12 public music classrooms, whilefurther expanding the evaluation practices of music educators.

Received February 14, 2009; Revision received August 6, 2009; Accepted December 24, 2009.

References

Abril, C., & Gault, B. (2006). The state of music in the elementary school: Theprincipal’s perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54 , 6-20.

Boyle, D. J. (1992). Program evaluation for secondary school music programs. In T.

F. Koerner (Ed.), NASSP bulletin: LXXVI/544 (May 1992): Music education for

the year 2000 (pp 63-68). National Association of Secondary School Principals:

Reston, VA.

Center on Education Policy (2007, December). From the capitol to the classroom: Year

5 of the no child left behind act [Rev. ed.] [Electronic version]. Washington, DC:

McMurrer, J. Ciorba, C. R. & Rand, C. A. (2005, April). Describing Florida high school band

programs using the whole school effectiveness guidelines. Paper presented at the

University of North Texas Music Education Research Symposium, Denton, TX.

Dixon, R. & Turner, R. (2007). Electronic vs. conventional surveys. In R. A.

Reynolds, R. Woods, R., & J. D. Baker (Eds.), Electronic Surveys and

Measurements (pp. 104-111). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference.

Edmonds, R. R. (1982, December). Programs for school improvement: An overview.

Educational Leadership, 40 , 4-11.




Gallup Organization. (2003, March). American attitudes toward music . Retrieved

June 9, 2008, from http://amc-music.org/news/pressreleases/images/gallup/

Gallup2003.ppt

Koza, J. (2006). “Save the Music?”: Toward culturally relevant, joyful, and

sustainable school music [Electronic version]. Philosophy of Music Education

Review, 14 (1), 23-38.

Lezotte, L (2008). Effective Schools . Retrieved December 31,2008, from http://www.

effectiveschools.com/

Mark, M. L. (2002, September). A history of music education advocacy. Music

Educators Journal, 89(1), 44-48. Retrieved June 9. 2008, from Academic Search

Premier database.

Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail vs. electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37 (4), 429-439.

Miksza, P., Roeder, M., & Biggs, D. (2010). Surveying Colorado band directors’

opinions of skills and characteristics important to successful music teaching.

Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 364-381.

Music for All Foundation. (2004, September). The sound of silence: The unprecedented

decline of music education in California public schools [Electronic version]. Warren, NJ.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The

imperative for educational reform (Stock No. 065-000-00177-2). Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofce.

Rosenthal, R. K. (2005). The status of music teaching in Illinois. Illinois Music

Educators Association. Retrieved January 8, 2010, from http://www.ilmea.org/

documents/Status_of_Music_Teaching_in_Illinois_v.1.pdf

Shannon, D. M., & Bradshaw, C. C. (2002). A comparison of response rate, response

time, and costs of mail and electronic surveys. The Journal of Experimental

Education, 70 , 179-192. Whole school effectiveness model . (n.d.). Retrieved July 19,

2008 from http://www.buildingchoice.org/cs/bc/view/bc_res/984.



Copyright of Contributions to Music Education is the property of Ohio Music Education Association and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Illinois Music Programs