community members were given a chance to rate unfamil- iar schools using MCIEA’s categories, they rated them in a much more nuanced and favorable light, suggesting that the holistic picture provided in this alternative school quality framework matters (Schneider, Jacobsen, White, & Gehl- bach, 2017).


Music educators in Michigan should continue to monitor— and push for—a school quality rating system that considers and gives weight to more than just standardized test score- based measures. Te state’s recent ESSA plan and account- ability dashboard are encouraging steps, but with the dash- board being effectively struck down in last year’s lame duck session, there is work to be done. Music educators can be a leading voice in encouraging holistic, meaningful measures of school quality.


References


Brenan, M. (2018, August 27). Seven in 10 parents satisfied with their child’s education. Retrieved from https:// news.gallup.com/poll/241652/seven-parents-satis- fied-child-education.aspx


Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2004). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Los Angeles, CA: Russell Sage Foundation.


Bukoski, B. E., Lewis, T. C., Carpenter, B. W., Berry, M. S., & Sanders, K. N. (2015). Te complexities of realizing community: Assistant principals as community lead- ers in persistently low-achieving schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 14(4), 411-436. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/15700763.2015.1021053


Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., Vigdor, J. L., & Diaz, R. A. (2004). Do school accountability systems make it more difficult for low‐performing schools to attract and retain high‐quality teachers? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(2), 251-271. https://doi. org/10.1002/pam.20003


Klein, A. (2018, December 5). ESSA: Are states’ school report cards accessible to parents? Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/cam- paign-k-12/2018/12/essa-quality-data--parents-re- port-cards.html


Michigan Department of Education. (2019). MDE rolls out phase II of online Parent Dashboard for School Trans- parency. Retrieved from https://www.michigan.gov/ mde/0,4615,7-140--487986--,00.html


Mullen, J., & Wolff, K. (2018). Engaging the arts in the broader education policy landscape. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from https://www.ecs.org/engaging-the-arts-in-the-broad- er-education-policy-landscape/


Saw, G., Schneider, B., Frank, K., Chen, I., Keesler, V., & Martineau, J. (2017). Te impact of being labeled as a persistently lowest achieving school: Regression dis- continuity evidence on consequential lchool labeling. American Journal of Education, 123(4), 585-613.


Schneider, J. (2017). Beyond test scores: A better way to mea- sure school quality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press.


Schneider, J., Jacobsen, R., White, R., & Gehlbach, H. (2017). Building a better measure of school quality. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(7), 43-48. Retrieved from http:// mciea.org/images/PDF/Building_a_Better_Measure. pdf


Shaw, R. D. (2018). Te vulnerability of urban elementary school arts programs: A case study. Journal of Re- search in Music Education, 65(4), 393–415. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022429417739855


Strauss, V. (2017, June 14). What to know before using school ratings tools from real estate companies. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.wash- ingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/06/14/ what-to-know-before-using-school-ratings-tools- from-real-estate-companies/?noredirect=on&utm_ term=.a4893f433e10


Winters, M. A., & Cowen, J. M. (2012). Grading New York: Accountability and student proficiency in America’s largest school district. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(3), 313-327.


Ryan Shaw is assistant professor of music education at Michigan State University’s College of Music, where he teaches Introduction to Music Education, Teaching Instrumental Music, and graduate courses in psychology of music education, cur- riculum, and measurement. Prior to joining Michigan State Univer- sity, Shaw was area head of music education at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio.


31


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