state take-over or closure. Many of these students belong to populations that NCLB originally intended to help. In the effort to close the achievement gap in English and math, are students being deprived of opportunities to grow creatively, emotionally, socially, and culturally?


Closing Thoughts


Although the proposed reauthorization of NCLB calls for a place for the arts within the core, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting that music education is still, in fact, a “specials area” in the eyes of some school admin- istrators and district officials. It is therefore critical that music educators know and be able to articulate the value of music education in their school setting to ensure that all students, privileged and underprivileged alike, receive a comprehensive, well-rounded education that includes the arts.


So what can music educators do to combat this troubling trend? First and foremost, music educators need to make music a part of the school culture. This can take a variety of forms: providing musical commentary at athletic events, singing the school song at assemblies and other school programs, and collaborating with non-music teachers are just a few. Providing these opportunities for administrators, faculty and staff, and community members to see students interacting with and benefiting from music in a variety of ways is critical when advocating for music programs.


Second, music educators should consider documenting the ways in which music is benefitting targeted populations. In a time when data driven accountability seems to be motivating instruction, it is important to be able to pro- vide relevant, measurable data showing the ways in which classroom music instruction is assisting in meeting the educational goals of the neediest children. For the music educator, this may mean becoming very familiar with and an active participant in the planning of Individual Educa- tion Plans (IEPs) or 504 Plans. The benefits of this are twofold: (1) music educators become more integrated into the faculty population, validating their role in the education of students with special needs; and (2) music educators are better able to provide assistance to students in need.


Finally, music educators must find their voice. State and national organizations may have the best interests of the overall profession in mind, but teachers are truly the only people who can see the ways music instruction impacts the lives of students on a daily basis. Music education remains one of the few locally controlled school programs, and therefore the power of one voice to enact change can be great. It is important for music educators within district, county, and state borders come together and talk about ways music is meeting the needs of students and then take


these ideas to administrators, parents, board members, and state officials. This step is critical in changing the narrative and the status of music education from “specials area” to “core subject.”


References


Ashford, E. (2004). NCLB’s unfunded arts programs seek refuge. The Education Digest, 70(2), 22-26.


Baker, R.A. (2012). The effects of high-stakes testing pol- icy on arts education. Arts Education Policy Review, 113(1), 17-25. doi: 10.1080/10632913.2012.626384


Beveridge, T. (2010). No child left behind and fine arts classes. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(1), 4-7. Center for Education Policy. (2006). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public schools, http:// www.cep-dc.org (accessed December 9, 2013). Center for Education Policy. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Retrieved from http://www.artedu- cators.org/research/InstructionalTimeFeb2008.pdf


Gerrity, K.W. (2009). No Child Left Behind: Determining the impact of policy on music education in Ohio. Bul- letin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 179, 79-93.


Henley, J., McBride, J., Milligan, J., & Nichols, J. (2007). Robbing elementary students of their childhood: The perils of No Child Left Behind. Education, 128(1), 56-63.


Heilig, J.V., Cole, H., & Aguilar, A. (2010). From Dewey to No Child Left Behind: The evolu- tion and devolution of public arts education. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(4), 136-145. doi: 10.1080/10632913.2010.490776


Jackson, A.J., & Gaudet, L. (2010) Factories: Getting rid of learning. American Journal of Business Education, 3(1), 61-63.


Lehman, P.R. (2012). Another perspective: Reforming edu- cation – the big picture. Music Educators Journal, 28, 29-30. doi: 10.1177/0027432112444404 Michigan District and School Accountability Scorecards (2014). Retrieved September 27, 2014.


http://


www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-22709_25058- --,00.html


Mishook, J.J., & Kornhaber, M.L. (2006). Arts integration in an era of accountability. Arts Education Policy Review, 107(4), 3-11.


New York State School Report Card. (2014). Retrieved September 27, 2014. http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/ reportcard/


Obama, B., & Duncan, A. (2009, July 30). President Obama, Secretary Duncan announce Race to the Top [Video file]. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=exPGVO_4pkw


http:// Pederson, P.V. (2007). What is measured is treasured: The 30


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