Music, Dance and Theatre
The Caroline L. Guarini Department of Music, Dance and Theatre is an accredited institutional member of the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) and a collegiate member of NAfME, The National Association for Music Education.
Degree Programs Undergraduate
¡ B.A. in Music Education ¡ B.A. in Music Theatre ¡ B.A. in Music Business ¡ B.M. in Classical Studies ¡ B.M. in Jazz
Contact Graduate
¡ M.A. in Music Education ¡ M.A. in Performance (Classical, Jazz and Multiple Woodwinds)
Min Kim, D.M.A. Chair The Caroline L. Guarini Department of Music, Dance and Theatre (201) 200-2025
mkim@njcu.edu
New Jersey City University 2039 John F. Kennedy Blvd Jersey City, NJ 07305
njcu.edu/mdt
fied competition, subjectivity, ethics, and resource inequalities as areas of concern. Competition between colleagues may result in a “division of faculty” and undermine col- legiality. For example one participant cau- tioned: “Hour-to-hour pay parity is most effective in keeping a collaborative spirit among educators. Competing for money based on incentives fosters animosity and a lack of teamwork. Students need a team of educators, not educators who operate as ev- ery man for himself. It takes a faculty work- ing together to educate a community.” Subjective feedback from administra- tors and peers could possibly be misinter- preted. While some administrators may val- ue “process” and individual student progress as much as the “product” or the final group performance, several teachers were con- cerned about how quality and value were measured by administrators. One survey respondent commented, “In music, suc- cess can mean very different things to many different people. A performance very often cannot be simply right or wrong, good or bad, as is the case with some subjects that can be assessed using concrete means.” On the other hand, it is critical that we contin-
OCTOBER 2014
ue to create measurable objectives, conduct formative and summative assessments, and avoid using “subjectivity” as an excuse not to help our students to approximate success in music learning. It is indeed “concrete” to measure whether a musician is sharp or flat in performing a musical phrase or whether the same individual demonstrated appro- priate breath support while playing. The new “National Core Music Standards” also provide us with opportunities to evaluate specific steps of creating, performing, and responding to music with related enduring understandings and essential questions. Several survey participants were con- cerned with the ethics of additional com- pensation in the form of merit pay. The notion of taking pride in one’s work was highlighted by the following statement: “I do not believe in ‘charging’ the taxpayers more than a traditional stipend for excep- tional work; we should provide exceptional work regardless of pay because it is the right thing to do. It’s the reason we entered the profession.” Yet another respondent consid- ered merit pay to be a validation of good work and wrote: “Those who love to teach, love their students and make a difference in
23
the lives of the students deserve merit pay.” The potential for abuse and corruption among administrative leaders in rewarding friends and family was also an ethical di- lemma posed by merit pay. Disparities in resources from one dis- trict to another may place some teachers at more of an advantage than others to receive pay for performance. For example, while one district may have an abundance of instruments and classroom supplies, ideal scheduling with music built into the master grid, and strong administrative sup- port, another district may lack such materi- als, hold afterschool rehearsals with no late buses, and have no administrative policies for attendance or grades. Several elementary music teachers speculated about the misap- propriation of funds specifically for perfor- mance-based programs at the “upper level” instead of rewarding “experiential learning opportunities” in the elementary setting. Such arrangements would seem to be unfair and result in less collegiality and more divi- siveness between music educators.
continued on page 24 TEMPO
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