A great friend and colleague of mine reached out to me this weekend as he was reading a book for his school’s leadership members (of which he is one) on differentiation. His question: “All I can think about is how these ideas which are so clear in other areas is hard to do in a group literacy instruction/assessment in choir.” He asked me if I’ve ever written a blog post on the subject, and the answer is no. For the reasons he’s getting after. My quick response articulated what I think the fundamental challenges are, but I thought it might be a good exercise for me to try and expand on that here. For the purpose of providing a focal point, I’ll address the challenge as it pertains to High School choral. You can derive from this key points I suspect as they pertain to other grade levels, as well as to instrumental ensembles.

Let’s begin with my premise that learning targets (learning indicators) must be measurable. National Standard indicators for Ensembles such as, “Compose and improvise melodic and rhythmic ideas or motives that reflect characteristic(s) of music or text(s) studied in rehearsal…” is not measurable. It is an activity. “Select varied repertoire to study based on interest, music reading skills (where appropriate), an understanding of the structure of the music, context, and the technical skill of the individual or ensemble.” That’s a check box. And a check-box activity is, by it’s very definition, binary. Either ‘ya did or ‘ya didn’t. Binary activities are not measurable on any educational spectrum. Can they be useful? Of course. But educationally valid as a learning target? No. So I’m not talking about those. Learning Targets must also be objective. Subjective indicators (“Identify reasons for selecting music based on characteristics found in the music, connection to interest, and purpose or context” or “Demonstrate how interests, knowledge, and skills relate to personal choices and intent when creating, performing, and responding to music“) disqualify themselves because any “target” that relies on personal opinion or bias really loses any educational weight. So we’re not going there. Finally, measurable indicators are not vague. One of the National Standards for Connect says, “Share personally-developed melodic and rhythmic ideas or motives – individually or as an ensemble – that demonstrate understanding of characteristics of music or texts studied in rehearsal.” This is the “novice” level indicator by the way. I’m not referring to those.

Let’s get down to it. In an ensemble rehearsal, using the York High School performance indicators as my reference, I have 13 indicators listed under the standard, B. Performance Literacy – Application. These are:

1. Perform: pitch
2. Perform: rhythm
3. Perform: re-create; application of solfege/numbers)
4. Perform: posture
5. Perform: technique; use of mouth/jaw
6. Perform: tone
7. Perform: articulation
8. Perform: eyes
9. Perform: tempo; steady beat
10. Perform: intonation (honors ensembles)
11. Perform: breath phrasing (honors ensembles)
12. Perform: shape phrasing (honors ensembles)
13. Perform: visual presentation (honors ensemble)

Let’s compare this with Common Core for High School Algebra:

1. Interpret the structure of expressions
2. Write expressions in equivalent forms to solve
   problems
3. Perform arithmetic operations on polynomials
4. Understand the relationship between zeros and
   factors of polynomials
5. Use polynomial identities to solve problems
6. Rewrite rational expressions
7. Create equations that describe numbers or
   relationships
8. Understand solving equations as a process of
   reasoning and explain the reasoning
9. Solve equations and inequalities in one variable
10. Solve systems of equations
11. Represent and solve equations and inequalities
    graphically

Take a quick look at the first set of High School Life Science indicators:

1. Construct an explanation based on evidence for how the structure of DNA determines the structure of proteins which carry out the essential functions of life through systems of specialized cells.
2. Clarification Statement and Assessment Boundary
3. Develop and use a model to illustrate the hierarchical organization of interacting systems that provide specific functions within multicellular organisms.
4. Clarification Statement and Assessment Boundary
5. Plan and conduct an investigation to provide evidence that feedback mechanisms maintain homeostasis.

I could add other subject areas as well, but this will do. Take a look at the learning targets for music and those for subject areas such as math and science. Here are two things I notice as very significant differences (you might find more, but I’ll stick with these for our purposes here):

• Most notably, the indicators listed for math and science are sequential. The indicators for music are not sequential. You cannot perform as a singer in a choral ensemble without – simultaneously – exhibiting indicators 1 through 9. You can’t say to your class, “Okay, we’re going to focus on tone so please don’t sing on a pitch, or even breathe. Just tone please…” You can’t say, “…we’re going to focus today only on pitch, so please don’t use tone, open your mouth, breathe, watch my conducting, sing any rhythms at all, etc.” Can we “focus” on just one or two indicators at any given moment? Not only is the answer a resounding yes, I would submit that pedagogically we must. But unlike other subject areas, we can’t store away the other learning targets at the same time. In a sequential curriculum, concepts are built on one another. So a mastered indicator or two in math then leads to the next, and the prior ones are built upon. In music, we aren’t sequential. Every indicator is developed simultaneously… independently I would hope, but simultaneously. I’ll go one step further. Vivaldi’s Gloria, measure 6 of movement 10, “Quoniam tu solus sanctus”. A half rest followed by a dotted 8th followed by a 16th and then two 8th notes on, “Quo-ni-am tu”. Assume a metronome marking of 120. That means that the 16th note is an eighth of a second long. The first syllable in measure 10 has three components to it: “k”, “w”, “Oh”. Each one of these then is less than 1/16 of a second long. BUT, they are not equal. The emphasis is placed on the vowel so the consonants are even shorter. BUT, those consonants have to have an explosiveness to them to be on equal dynamic footing as the vowel. AND they have to be the same vowel across the board, formed with the same shape of the mouth, both inside and out. AND that vowel shape is not allowed to be impacted by the consonants beforehand. And this must be done at the same dynamic level as everybody else. UNLESS the numbers of each section of the choir are not perfectly balanced, in which case SOME have to be quieter and some louder. THEN the tempo must be perfectly aligned. AND the articulation precisely the same – legato? Marcato? Staccato? And this must be done on their respective correct pitches. And that’s for one half of one measure in a work in which the choir sings over 300 measures. In latin. WHILE ASSESSING THE INDICATOR OF JUST PITCH!

• The indicators for math and science seem to be contextual. That’s a good thing, for many reasons. My list for the YHS music standards is not. There’s a really good reason for this too. If they WERE contextual, this is what it would look like. Instead of “B1. Perform: pitch”, it would be:

1. pitch, in unison – head voice
2. pitch, in context of traditional harmonies- head voice
3. pitch, in context of close harmonies- head voice
4. pitch, within intervals of a 3rd or less- head voice
5. pitch, within intervals of a 5th or less- head voice
6. pitch, within the interval of an octave- head voice
7. pitch, from an interval greater than an octave- head voice
8. through 14. all the above in context of chest voice.

Dude!!!! Yeah, fourteen different and essential learning targets for ONE INDICATOR, PITCH!

When I student taught, I’ll never forget my cooperating teacher ripping me apart after an amazing run-through of a song I had taught the honors choir. I thought it had gone brilliantly, and she just looked at me and said, “Rob, do you think the tenors are just going to fix that B flat at measure 71 on their own?” There was a specific reason the tenors sang the entire rest of the song perfectly, but not on that one note in measure 71. Was it the interval? The harmonic context with the rest of the group? The tessitura? Incorrect interpretation of the pitch in the music (the accidental)?

So, to me, those are the two most significant differences between learning targets in the ensemble class and those in virtually any other subject area. It could be argued that World Languages battles the same thing as a performance class (we have far more in common with French 1 and French 2 than we could ever dream of having in common with Visual Art, but that’s another blog post for another time). But ours remains unique in that we are in the skill development of Re-creation (as opposed to “creation”, examples being composing or scat-singing) and that has serious ramifications to instruction, learning and assessment.

But back to the point of this blog post, I would submit it also has incredible ramifications to differentiation in the choral classroom. Look, singing on pitch with characteristic tone while accurately performing the correct rhythms with posture that supports the breath and an open and relaxed mouth/jaw while following the visual cues of the conductor, and doing so while others around you are singing DIFFERENT pitches, and doing this EVERY SECOND you are singing, man, there is no wiggle room. So how do we get our students there? Well, we vary the literature. We vary the tempo. We vary the focal point (tone vs. pitch vs. posture/technique…). We vary the tessitura. We apply concepts across many different applications, both in warmups and rehearsing the music. We vary the actual music (context). In other words, we are models of differentiation, because that is all we ever do. You can’t “apply” differentiation to the choral classroom any more than you can apply water to a pond. It’s just… there. Look at this list of SRF strategies as I would apply them in my chorus class:

1. Structure

• Varying Scaffolding: Offer different levels of support, one on one with some students while others work more independently.
• Breaking Down Tasks: Breaking down the learning targets into chewable pieces, such as independently assessing rhythm vs. tone. Done!
• Providing Choice: Offer students a choice of how they demonstrate their learning (“For your pitch assessment, you may choose measures 1 through 10 of the song of your choice and submit it in your video assessment.”)
• Flexible Grouping: I can have students submit assessments on their own or if they wish with a peer singing a different voice part.

2. Resources

• Diverse Materials: Provide a variety of resources tailored to different learning styles and levels, including Sight Reading Factory, sheet music and practice tracks.
• Technology Tools: Utilize technology to support learning, such as those mentioned above as well as links to youtube videos to help gain context and use as an aid to practice with.
• Supplemental Materials: Offer additional readings or videos that address specific skills such as posture, singing without tension, accessing head voice and so on.
• Access to Support: Ensure students know how to access additional help from the teacher, peers, or online resources. 

3. Focus

• Adjusting Learning Objectives: Tailor the specific learning objectives for different students based on their current understanding, and making arrangements to have them meet targets through a more focused approach, such as a bass matching pitch down the octave (which then can be moved up over time).
• Prioritizing Key Concepts: Focus on essential skills and concepts for some students, while others explore more advanced topics such as intonation and phrasing.
• Varying Depth of Inquiry: Allow students to submit supplementary assessments that allow them to demonstrate advanced skills or class skills in a different way, such as songs they enjoy singing to in the car or at home.
• Personalized Feedback: Provide specific and actionable feedback that addresses individual student needs and next steps ALL THE TIME through Mote in Google Classroom. ON EVERY ASSESSMENT.

Any of this look like it goes outside the realm of basic, fundamental necessities in teaching our content? So, let’s wrap this up. Due to my indicators not being contextual, I get to vary the context every single day, dozens if not hundreds of times each class. And so do you. And because our learning targets are not linear or scaffolded, we have students at every end of the spectrum on every single indicator at all times in our class. The only way we can teach our content is through differentiation. Let me clarify: the only way we can teach our content in any educationally valid way is through differentiation. That may come across to non-music people as a bit pompous or presumptive. But I came across the following definition of differentiated instruction online and I really like it:

Differentiated instruction strategies adapt teaching to address students’ unique learning abilities, styles, and readiness levels. Instead of using a one-size-fits-all approach, teaching and learning practices are modified to match the needs of the students in today’s diverse classroom. This approach to differentiated learning transforms how teachers deliver content, engage students, and assess understanding.

I think this translates beautifully to what we do in music education, the choral classroom specifically.