Recognition as Program Evaluation. State Music Education Associations

Somewhere between formal program evaluation strategies and informal program evaluations made by school and community stakeholders are structured recognition programs offered by state and national organizations. These initiatives, which perhaps might be considered “semi-formal,” confer an endorsement from some external organization and are often perceived as evaluations of a school music program.

State Music Education Associations. For example, Virginia Music Educators Association’s “Blue Ribbon Award” is “the highest award given to school music programs in the Commonwealth of Virginia.” To be recognized with this designation, the “top performing groups of each ensemble course taught at the school (band, choir, and orchestra)” must perform two pieces from selected repertoire lists at a district assessment event, opt to sight-read or sight-sing as part of that assessment, and each receive a final “Superior” rating. Individuals can also view a chart showing which schools have received this designation over the previous 19 years (Virginia Music Educators Association, 2020).

While readers may problematize various elements of this protocol, specific to this chapter, it is concerning that an award including a certificate and congratulatory letter sent to a principal—conferring a sense of excellence—is based on only some elements of what that state’s standards (Virginia Department of Education, 2020) suggest teachers teach and students learn. To be clear, I am not suggesting de-valuing music performance—only that a potentially-misconstrued recognition of this type should encompass the breadth of what a comprehensive music education includes if it represents “the highest award given to school music programs.”

Such awards could be modified to reflect a more expansive, standards-aligned, and as- pirational view of school music programs. For example, Randles (2010) suggested that as part of large ensemble festival/assessment events, groups would be expected to perform not only prepared repertoire, but also “a piece that they worked to create themselves with the assistance of the teacher” (p. 145). The submission process for this recognition could call for examples of student compositions, concert programs showing performance of student work, or documenting a number/percentage of students making a submission to the state music education association’s annual composition festival.

National Organizations. A “signature program” of the National Association of Music Merchants Foundation, Best Communities for Music Education (BCME) “recognizes and celebrates school districts and schools for their support and commitment to music education and efforts to assure access to music for all students as part of a well-rounded education.” To be considered for this recognition, a stakeholder completes a survey “aligned with goals for equity and access to music education for all students, and also with national standards for music education.” BCME’s website (NAMM Foundation, 2021) enumerates several benefits to participation: national recognition; community recognition; increased visibility of music education in your district, school, and community; program validation of your school or district’s support for music education; and access to a program auditing tool for your music program.

This survey includes general questions about the presence (or lack thereof) of composition in a school’s music program. There are more nuanced questions that move beyond whether something is happening to gather information about ways in which, and the extent to which, other elements are part of the curriculum. For example, other items ask: “What percentage of your elementary school students have an opportunity to perform music before an audience each year?” and “What percentage of your high schools have adequate performance venues with appropriate properties of acoustics, lighting, secure storage, and sound?”

It is worth noting that this survey includes questions that address a number of important issues (e.g., including students with disabilities, Title I students, community music opportunities, resources to support non-traditional and/or non-Western music forms). But—again, specific to this chapter—it is concerning that for an award carrying perceived rigor and endorsement conveyed by a national organization, there is limited information collected about if or how students are composing—or creating music more broadly—in these school communities.

While it is commendable that there is some information collected with regard to creating music in this survey, a single experience in one course could “check that box.” While it certainly is preferable for students to have one experience with composition each year than none, a survey that does not inquire more deeply into creative experiences generally (and composition experiences more specifically) may lead teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders toward the “twin sins” view of composition in music education mentioned earlier in this chapter—that is, that including some content and activities related to music composition is an exemplary achievement.

To think about composition in higher regard, and gather more rigorous data, some adaptations of existing questions could be useful. For example: (a) What percentage of music instruction at your high school is devoted to creating music? Performing music? Responding to music? Connecting? (b) Do middle school students have access to hardware and software to compose music digitally (e.g., microphones, USB keyboards, digital audio workstations)? (c) What percentage of elementary school students have an opportunity to create original music each year?