ing in the non-core academic areas, including music, that districts might adopt for use at their own expense. MCEE also recommended that teacher evaluation be uncoupled from merit pay (Michigan Council on Educator Effective- ness, 2013, p. 6), although this may not be approved by the legislature, as it is in direct conflict with the stipulations of PA 102. The Partnership for Music Education Policy De- velopment (for more information on this group, see Moore and Catherman), responded to the MCEE recommendations, supporting the flexibility recommended in terms of measur- ing student growth in music and expressing concern that music growth and development could be measured by using scores from standardized tests outside of music (Partnership for Music Education Policy Development, 2013, pp. 1-2). MCEE’s recommendations will be considered by the Michi- gan legislature in 2014.
As all of this is unfolding legislatively, the Michigan Depart- ment of Education has contracted with the Michigan Assess- ment Consortium and the Data Recognition Corporation to launch the 3-year Michigan Arts Education Instruction and Assessment (MAEIA) Program. One of the purposes of this program is to develop “assessment specifications and proto- types that will guide the future development of student as- sessments in the arts” (Michigan Arts Education Instruction and Assessment Program, 2014). The assessment specifi- cations document, including the specifications for music, is completed and the assessment prototypes are under develop- ment in 2013-14 for secondary music programs and in 2014- 15 for elementary music programs. These documents will be designed to provide “a measure of individual student growth for use in the evaluation of educators that can be combined with other information about educators (e.g., observational data) to comply with state laws requiring the growth in stu- dent achievement to be a major factor in the evaluation of the performance of Michigan Educators” (Michigan Arts Education Instruction and Assessment Program, 2013, p. 13). According to MAEIA, the use of these measures will be voluntary according to each district as described by MCEE.
The music specifications development team, comprised entirely of music teachers, recommended that music as- sessments be contextual and authentic in nature. They also recommended that the assessments be “embedded in the educator’s instructional approach so as not to be onerous, or detract from the limited amount of instructional time that music educators are provided in the school schedule” (Mich- igan Arts Education Instruction and Assessment Program, 2013, p. 76). Although the music education team members recommended that no multiple choice items be included in the music measures that are in development and that the measures be performance and project based, choosing to focus on more naturalistic types of assessment, (Michigan Arts Education Instruction and Assessment Program, 2013,
p. 82), the project management team added multiple choice items to the performance and constructed response tasks in the final version of the document (p. 89). Time will tell how this disagreement is resolved in the development of the as- sessments themselves, and music teachers should examine these assessments carefully upon their completion to deter- mine whether they are useful and valid in their educational context.
Recommendations for Music Teachers
Many music educators are struggling with the new assess- ment requirements that are being imposed by their districts as a result of the state and national legislation.
Peppers
(2010) found that Michigan music teachers, particularly those who completed their music education degrees more than 10 years ago, did not feel qualified or prepared to assess the learning of their students. Yet, music teachers and their students can benefit from learning to assess student achieve- ment, regardless of the fact that they are being required to do so. In spite of their discomfort, music teachers need to take an active role in helping their districts develop assessment policies.
Otherwise policies that may not be developmen-
tally or musically appropriate will be imposed upon them and will be used as a central component of their evaluation process. The flexibility that is recommended by MCEE in terms of district’s choosing their own assessment strategies is powerful if teachers take advantage of it.
First and foremost, music teachers should involve their music colleagues actively in developing and implement- ing curricula that are based on the Michigan Standards for Arts Education and Benchmarks and GLCE (Michigan De- partment of Education, 2011). These curricula should have clearly stated goals for what students should know and be able to do, as well as assessments tools to measure whether students have achieved those goals. As recommended by MCEE (2013) and MAEIA (2014), the measure tools should include a variety of types of assessments that are valid for measuring growth and achievement in order to paint a rich picture of each student musically. The MAEIA Assessment Specifications document provides examples of these types of tools, as will the assessments that are developed by MAE- IA over the next several years, and music education faculty at local colleges and universities can serve as consultants to help when needed. In addition, examples permeate the pro- fessional literature, often are shared during conference pre- sentations, and are available through professional in-service opportunities.
Then the music faculty should work with their administra- tors to use these measurement tools as evidence of student growth and learning in the teacher evaluation process.
In 16
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