Public school music teachers, the game has changed. You can decide for yourself if that’s a good or bad thing, but I’m not happy.
If you’ve read anything in this blog for the past four years now, you know my mantra: Music is either academic or it is not. If it is, it belongs in the school day and it holds students accountable to a rigorous curriculum through which every INDIVIDUAL student is assessed, along side the practices of every other academic subject. If it is not, it doesn’t belong in the school day and it shouldn’t be taught by full time teachers under a continuing contract, but rather outside of the school day as a co-curricular activity. This is a black and white issue. For over a decade, No Child Left Behind listed Visual and Performing arts as “core“. We have used this over and over again to support our belief (if not always practice…) that music is academic. The states in no way have had the authority to override this federal support for Visual and Performing Arts, and when they’ve tried, they have been called out on it and have had to retreat (Maine Legislature, 2009 for instance).
The Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA, has just been passed into law. Why is this significant?
1) It removed the language of what is core; there is no more “core”.
2) It give states the authority to interpret what a “WELL ROUNDED EDUCATION” looks like in practice and implementation.
3) Students now only need “access” to the individual subjects listed in ESSA… and this includes increased implementation of after school “enrichment”.
So, instead of Visual and Performing Arts being listed as core academic subjects, music SPECIFICALLY (thanks NAfME…) is now listed as something all students must merely have “access” to, during the school day OR OTHERWISE. States are now free to interpret this as they wish. We went from protected by federal legislation to being completely left hung out to dry.
No Child Left Behind Core subjects:
- Reading/Language Arts
- Foreign Languages
- Visual and Performing Arts
- Social Science
ESSA “courses, activities, and programming in subjects such as”:
- Reading or language arts
- Foreign languages
- Civics and government
- Computer science
- Career and technical education
- Physical education
- Any other subject, as determined by the State or local educational agency, with the purpose of providing all students access to an enriched curriculum and educational experience
NAfME interprets this as providing a greater support for Music. Anyone else here read it the same way? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?
President Obama also said that the law would give states more “flexibility” in raising student achievement (in what… everything listed above??!?! ME DON’T THINK SOOOO!) while maintaining a federal role for ensuring that all students have the opportunity to get a “quality education”.
Want more good news? The legislation has now removed a great deal of language about what defines a “highly qualified teacher,” clearing the path for hiring teachers who do not have the proper training or credentials. CURRENTLY: our neighbors to the west have listed music as an area of “critical shortage” for teachers, and consequently anyone with a college education can apply for a New Hampshire “Statement Of Eligibility” to teach music in public schools. Wanna hear what the requirements are to teach music in New Hampshire right now?
- Documentation of passing two college courses in music, OR…
- Documentation of experience as a musician or other related experiences in music, OR…
- Documentation of fluency in reading music and competence in playing at least one musical instrument
And now federal legislation has loosened the reigns of what constitutes adequate training. The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education put out this statement this week, “ESSA does not include minimum entry standards for the teaching profession, leaving this determination up to each state. With multiple provisions in the bill encouraging expansion of alternate routes to the classroom and the use of teachers-in-training as teachers of record, ESSA tempts states to lower standards for the profession, which would have an adverse impact on the students who are most in need of highly skilled, well-prepared teachers.”
Get a load of this: Cecil Wilder, executive director of the Georgia Music Educators Association, was quoted in a widely circulated article this week: “We’re not so much committed to every child being required to study music, because not every child has the same abilities and interests, but we are committed to the prospect of every child having access to a good, quality, sequential music program.”
WHAAAA? We don’t believe we’re essential for every child?? But we should be considered “essential”?? How does THAT work! Now that the NCLB mandate that music
is was core is gone, we’re going to allow ANYONE to utter the words, “We’re not so much committed to every child being required to study music, because not every child has the same abilities and interests???” And we think we’re not being set up to be undermined in a monumental way? What do every other subject listed in the new legislation above have in common? Answer: EVERY LAST, STINKIN’ ONE OF THEM BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR EVERY CHILD! Do WE? If programming is going to be moved outside of the school day or minimized during it, which do you think they’re going to diminish: programs that are essential for EVERY student, or ones who believe they are not because, “not every child has the same abilities or interests?” And before you go thinking this is just one rogue music educator speaking, I’ve seen three High School music program websites right here in Maine this week which state that their music courses are open to students who are “interested” in or have a “love” for music. How many Math departments include that criteria? That’s really how we promote our subject? Through THAT filter? Think we can afford to do that NOW?
Do students get pulled from your music classes in order to receive “interventions” in math and reading? The new law says this shouldn’t happen. From NAfME: removal of students from the regular classroom during regular school hours (music, arts) for instruction provided under this part, must be minimized. Under NCLB, this language proved helpful in protecting music programs in multiple states. (pg. 171) Here’s what NAfME didn’t say: do you currently have music students who are pulled out of other classes for lessons or sectionals? How long under this provision do you think that’s going to last?
It gets even better. Again from NAfME (Expanded Learning Time): Includes activities and instruction for enrichment as part of a WELL-ROUNDED education (music, arts).(pg. 783). AND music is listed in this section as a stand-alone subject for the first time ever. How long is it going to take before administrators and state legislators start putting THOSE two pieces together?
Two days ago an editorial in the Los Angeles Times summed up ESSA’s biggest shortfall best: “…a new law should be more than a repudiation of the old; it should provide a blueprint for improving educational outcomes.” It certainly doesn’t for the Arts, whether music is listed specifically or not.
This legislation changes music from being a core academic subject to something all students should merely have access to. I began this post with my belief that music, especially at the high school level, is either academic or co-curricular. Now we have federal legislation that no longer has an opinion on that, and it simultaneously lists music as a stand alone entity. Are we prepared for the scrutiny? I’ll let you answer for yourself… but before you do, consider this: every other listed subject area above meets with 100% of the student population. Up until a few days ago when we were an essential component of Visual and Performing Arts, so did we. How ’bout now? It’s a “new day” alright…