This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATION DIVISION Joseph Manfredo, Vice President


Music Education Week and Supervisors Academy


T e annual Music Education Week sponsored by the National Association for Music Education (NAfME) traditionally sponsors presentations and work sessions for the presidents and executive administrators of state music education associations. Recently, NAfME has added a series of two-day academies on various areas of music education, including Research, General Music, Choral, Instrumental, Marching Music, and Supervisors. I chose to attend the Supervisors’ Academy for it addressed many critical topics covered in my instrumental methods and introduction to music education courses. In addition, it provided me with an opportunity to meet music supervisors from every region of the United States.


T e academy chair was Johanna J. Siebert, music supervisor for the Webster Central School District in New York. In addition, she is the chair of the National Council for Supervisors of Music Education. Johanna, who has a doctorate in music education from the Eastman School of Music, led sessions on the Role of Music Education in the Development of 21st Century Skills, Developing and Keeping Career Music Educators, and Action Research in the School Music Program. Elizabeth Sokolowski, who is on the faculty at T e University of the Arts in Philadelphia, made two presentations on designing curriculum and assessment strategies. One of the most benefi cial sessions was a roundtable discussion that focused on evaluation of music teachers. Mark Propst, supervisor of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg (NC) schools, Jim Harmon, supervisor of the Loudoun County (VA) schools, and Raymond Lowther, of the Lincoln (NE) schools led this session.


Two of the most interesting revelations from this academy were the diff erences in the administrative structure of schools in various regions of the country and that many states have already implemented a teacher evalua- tion system based upon the Danielson model. As many of you are aware, a new system is being implemented in our state.


60


In my career as a school music educator, I was a music supervisor for two public school districts: the fi rst in Highland, Indiana and the second for the Urbana, Illinois school district. In both instances, I supervised music teachers, administered budgetary matters, scheduled classes, etc. at eight (8) schools. At this academy, I met music supervisors who were doing these same administrative duties, but for 50, 60 and even 70+ schools within their county. Somehow they even managed to teach one or two classes!


T e Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) and its Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC) have been working on the development of a new system for the evaluation of teachers. While reading and math curricula and teachers have been under scrutiny for these past years due to NCLB, music and other subjects have not had to quantify student learning or teacher eff ectiveness. Yes, the Professional Learning Community (PLC) movement, that is so prevalent in Illinois school districts, has led to music educators designing and implementing common core curriculum and assessments. However, the eff ectiveness of these systems has not had an impact on the music educator or the music program. Now with ISBE adopting a Danielson-like model of teacher evaluation, music educators will have to be able to provide data on individual student learning, or face serious consequences.


At the Supervisors’ Academy, I was surprised to discover the large number of states that have implemented Danielson-like teacher evaluation systems. T e supervisors shared their challenges and also recommendations for states, like Illinois, who now have to address teacher evaluation. Many of them were also willing to share tests, materials and strategies they use for teacher evaluation.


Nurturing the Creative Musician


Roseanne Rosenthal, our IMEA president, has suggested a theme of “Nurturing the


Joseph Manfredo, Illinois State University E: jmanfre@ilstu.edu


Illinois Music Educator | Volume 72 Number 1


Creative Musician” for articles in this journal. T is theme will fi t into the general theme of “T e Creative Mind” for the winter issue and the Illinois Music Education Conference (formerly the IMEA All-State Conference) in January.


Scott Shuler, NAfME president, has been a leading force in bringing the subject of creativity in music education to the forefront. Scott’s article in the June 2011 issue of the Music Educators Journal presented some new ideas about creativity. I hope you’ll be able to share this article and the topic of creativity with your students.


Announcements


IMEA Music Teacher Education Vice President-Elect: It is my pleasure to an- nounce that Jackie Kelly-McHale of DePaul University has been elected the VP-Elect of our MTE division! Jacqueline will take over as head of the MTE division at the end of my term, which is January 2013. We all know she will do a tremendous job and are thrilled that she will be a part of the IMEA Board of Directors. Please congratulate her at your earliest convenience.


2013 State Conference Presentation Deadline: T e change in the submission deadline for presenters at the 2012 conference caught many of us off -guard. So I will post a reminder about the March 1 deadline for the 2013 conference. Plan ahead and we hope to hear from many of you.


2012 State Conference Presentations: Despite the change in the deadline, we received a large number of applications. I’m very excited about the quality of the pre- senters and know we will be off ering many exciting and interesting sessions. Please put the Friday, 12:30–1:45 pm MTE division meeting and luncheon on your calendar.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88