Teachout PD Article

J.M.T.E.
JOURNAL OF MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATION
Spring 2005
Volume 14, Number 2
Society for Music Teacher Education Executive Committee Chairperson David Teachout University of North CarolinaGreensboro Eastern Representative Susan Conkling Eastman School of Music North Central Representative Linda Thompson University of Minnesota Northwest Representative Tina Bull Oregon State University Member-at-Large Sara Bidner Southeastern Louisiana University Southwestern Representative Robin Stein Texas State UniversitySan Marcos Southern Representative Janet Robbins West Virginia University Western Representative Jeffrey E. Bush Arizona State University Chair-Elect Don Ester Ball State University
Journal of Music Teacher Education Editorial Committee William Fredrickson, Editor University of MissouriKansas City Barbara Brinson State University of New YorkFredonia Alan Gumm Central Michigan University Alice Hammel James Madison University Debra Hedden University of Kansas MENC Staff MENC Executive Director John J. Mahlmann Director, Music Educators Journal and Publications Frances Ponick Deputy Executive Director Michael Blakeslee Associate Editor Teresa K. Preston Mitchell Robinson Michigan State University Kimberly Walls Auburn University Cecilia Wang University of Kentucky Molly Weaver West Virginia University
The Journal of Music Teacher Education (ISSN 1057-0837) is published twice yearly by MENC: The National Association for Music Education, 1806 Robert Fulton Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4348.
This material is copyrighted by MENC: The National Association for Music Education. You can read or download a single print of an MENC online journal exactly as if you had purchased a subscription to a journal in print form. You do not have any other rights or license to this material. This material cannot be reproduced, retransmitted, or reprinted without permission from MENC. This means multiple copies for handout or library reserve cannot be made. Placing on Web sites or school broadcast systems is prohibited, and printing in full or part in other documents is not permitted. To make use of an article or a journal in any of the afore mentioned circumstances, please send a request to our editorial department (caroline@menc.org), fax a request to Caroline Arlington at 703-860-9443, or call for more information at 800336-3768, x238.
J.M.T.E.
JOURNAL OF MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATION
Spring 2005
Volume 14, Number 2 CONTENTS
Special Issue: The Future of Music Education Introduction David Circle 3 From the Chair A Call for Action in Music Teacher Education David Teachout 5 What to Do about Music Teacher Education: Our Profession at a Crossroads Jeffrey Kimpton 8 What Partnerships Must We Create, Build, or Reenergize in K12 Higher and Professional Education for Music Teacher Education in the Future? Janet Robbins and Robin Stein 22 Where Will the Supply of New Teachers Come From, Where Shall We Recruit, and Who Will Teach These Prospective Teachers? William E. Fredrickson and J. Bryan Burton 30 What Is the Role of MENC, NASM, or Other State or National Professional Organizations in Providing Leadership and Support for New Research and Models? Don P. Ester and David J. Brinkman 37 Editors Commentary Assumptions William E. Fredrickson 44 An Analysis of Certification Practices for Music Education in the Fifty States Michele L. Henry 47 The Effects of Field Experience on Music Education Majors Perceptions of Music Instruction for Secondary Students with Special Needs Kimberly VanWeelden and Jennifer Whipple 62 Announcements 70
Special Issue: The Future of Music Teacher Education Introduction

David Circle
President, MENC: The National Association for Music Education Music education can be discussed, dissected, and scrutinized from many different perspectives. A persons perspective is normally determined by the facet of music education in which that person is engaged. The challenge for all of us who profess to be music educators is to perceive the totality of music education. Our challenge, also, is to collaborate with other music educators, regardless of their perspective or point of view, and to work continually to improve all facets of music education. Music teacher education at the university level is a major key in our collective efforts to bring about this improvement. To use the standard chain analogy, music teacher education is one of the vital links in the quality of music education in our K12 classrooms as well as in the quantity of music educators being produced for those classrooms. There is interdependency in this musical life cycle as students progress from Pre-K through college to become music educators. If there is a weak link at any stage of this cycle, the entire system suffers. It is incumbent upon every music educator to be cognizant of this interdependency and to be dedicated to working collaboratively with other music educators for the improvement of the quality of instruction regardless of the music specialty or instructional level. An examination of the challenges faced in music teacher education and suggestions for addressing those challenges are in this special issue of JMTE. From the perspective of a K12 school district music coordinator and MENC president, here are a few more. Rather than training band directors, choir directors, orchestra directors, and general music teachers, make a paradigm shift and educate students to think of themselves as music educators. The tools to be successful band, choir, orchestra, and general music teachers must continue to be taught because those are the classes students will be teaching when they graduate. However, if we provide these tools from a broader philosophical base, these new teachers may be more likely to teach musical skills, concepts, and knowledge to students through band, choir, orchestra, and general music classes. Most students graduating from teacher education programs do not have all the skills and knowledge needed to be successful teachers for their entire careers. Staff-development programs and relevant in-services are needed. University music faculty should take the initiative and work cooperatively with school districts to provide these experiences. Attending state conventions and workshops once or twice a year is not adequate. In order for university music education faculty to remain current and to keep their teaching
JMTE, Spring 2005, 3
relevant, programs should be developed that allow these professors to periodically go back into K12 classrooms to actually teach for a semester. Collaborative programs similar to visiting professorships or teacher exchange programs could be developed with neighboring school districts. Observing student teachers provides music education professors a glimpse of what is happening in K12 classrooms, but that exposure can be vicarious and not as realistic as being the teacher day in and day out. As MENC president, I applaud the work being done and the contributions being made by our university music education colleagues. We have always had challenges in music education and always will. We can meet those challenges and turn them into accomplishments by joining together and having a unified focus. In 2007 MENC will celebrate its centennial. Much has been accomplished in our first 100 years. Change is inevitable as we focus on the future of music education. To quote a favorite maxim: If not now, when? If not us, who?
Special Issue: The Future of Music Teacher Education
From the Chair A Call for Action in Music Teacher Education

David Teachout
Chair, Society of Music Teacher Education In spring 2003, when it was announced that Jeff Kimpton (president of Interlochen Center for the Arts and formerly the director of the University of Minnesota School of Music) would present a keynote speech at the SMTE preconference session of the 2004 MENC National Biennial Conference in Minneapolis, I contacted him to see what he had in mind for the session. Having worked with Jeff for a number of years, I knew two things: the presentation would be lively, and he would want to ask his audience to do more than simply sit and listen. His idea was to end the initial presentation with three provocative questions and ask the audience to form breakout groups to discuss possible answers/solutions to each question before reassembling to share ideas. His intention was to give legs to the ideas discussed, promoting continued thinking and action well after the final applause died down and the hall cleared. This special issue is presented in an effort to sustain the work and broaden the audience beyond those who attended the SMTE preconference session on that Wednesday afternoon. It contains Jeffs presentation and three articles, each a synopsis of the discussion work that was accomplished in the breakout groups. I thank my fellow executive board members, Robin Stein, Janet Robbins, Bryan Burton, Don Ester, and David Brinkman, and JMTE editor William Fredrickson, for monitoring the work accomplished in the breakout groups and for authoring the three articles that encapsulate that work. I also thank those who participated in each of the breakout groups for providing important contributions with their ideas and discussion. Finally, I thank David Circle, president of MENC, for providing his perspective in an introduction to this special issue. As I read through the content of these pieces and look around to notice the mercurial but everpresent forces exerting pressure on the music teacher education profession, I see a profession being asked to reinvent itself in order to maintain relevance. In his introduction, David Circle calls for us as music teacher educators to facilitate a change in how future music teachers think of themselves, away from simply being band directors, choir directors, orchestra directors, and general music teachers and toward being music educators. The implications of this worthy perspective change are enormous. Let us assume that all future music educators make such a role-identification shift. Rather than simply having had fond memories of the choir trip or felt the sense of accomplish from successfully tackling the 2nd clarinet part to a Holst Suite, their students would finish a K12 education with a level of musical expertise and sense of relevance connecting what was learned in music class to the many cultural opportunities that surround their lives. The potential impact is one in which their
students would learn about and incorporate mature musical understandings and creative activities to enhance the aesthetic quality of their daily lives to the same degree they presently incorporate understandings of math, reading, and science to function productively in society. And, perhaps, the value of music education might be more fully recognized and supported by the decision makers and policy makers. The challenges associated with such a worthy shift are also enormous. First of all, we would need to reconsider how we approach music teacher development. If, as many have reiterated, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results, then we cannot continue to train music teachers using methodologies of the past and expect new outcomes. We would need to examine every step of the current teacher-development process carefully and objectively and be willing to consider new methodologies that better facilitate the professional identity of music educator among our undergraduates. Assuming that we can successfully accomplish such a complex undertaking, our newly minted teachers then face the daunting task of surviving in a professional culture that currently provides few rewards to the successful music educator, but many to the successful band director, choir director, orchestra director, or general music teacher. Yes, the challenges are enormous, but the opportunity to move the profession forward in such a profoundly positive manner is exciting and keenly enticing to more than just a few of us music teacher educators. We must be careful to recognize, however, that the profession as a whole is facing challenges that are more ominous than the facilitation of a paradigm shift in teacher thinking. These are defining challenges because how we meet them will determine the future of music teacher education and, consequently, of K12 music education. Most critical are the factors contributing to the music teacher shortage. In his address, Jeff Kimpton systematically identifies elements of a fractured ecosystem that have contributed to the shortage and describes the consequences of continuing to do business as usual. Jeff warns, were always going to have music education, but probably not in the way that we have defined it in the programs and standards book (p. 10). He finishes by asking three questions: (a) What partnerships must we create, build, or reenergize in K12, higher, and professional education for music teacher education in the future? (b) Where will the supply of new teachers come from? and (c) What is the role of MENC, NASM, or other state or national professional organizations in providing leadership and support for new research and models? The careful work and thoughtful responses to these questions by members of the breakout groups are provided in the three articles that follow and represent an important and laudable start to a much-needed critical examination of the options before us. This work, however, must continue. In the effort to provide the legs that were intended, SMTE is holding its first Symposium on Music Teacher Education, titled Music Teacher Education: Rethinking, Researching, Revitalizing. This event will be held on the campus of the University of North Carolina at
Greensboro (UNCG) on Septbember 1517, 2005, and is cosponsored by MENC, The College Music Society, the UNCG School of Music, and the Music Research Institute at the UNCG School of Music. The purpose of this symposium is to explore current critical issues in music teacher education and to construct plans of prospective action and research in the effort to advance coordinated and sustained work on these issues. The first of several opportunities to continue further the needed work will be at the SMTE preconference session during the MENC biennial conference in Salt Lake City in 2006. There is additional information about the Symposium at the back of this issue. It is my sincere hope that this special issue and the events planned for the future will provide an ongoing forum to which all members of the music teacher education profession will be compelled to contribute ideas, research, and models of effective practice that might eventually give rise to successful solutions.
What To Do About Music Teacher Education: Our Profession at a Crossroads

By Jeffrey Kimpton
Jeffrey Kimpton is president of the Interlochen Center for the Arts in Interlochen, Michigan, and the former director of the School of Music and professor of music education at the University of MinnesotaTwin Cities. The following is the text of a presentation to a meeting of the Society for Music Teacher Education, Music Educators National Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, April 2004. I am a product of the golden age of music education, the system that prepared so many of us in the 1960s and 1970s. I have taught hundreds of students, been responsible for music education programs that involved thousands more, and developed extensive curriculum and assessment tools to measure them. I led hundreds of teachers in rural, suburban, and urban districts; I have trained and provided professional development for thousands more. I have hired professors and administrated a major research university school of music where nearly half of our students were in music education. I have watched and chronicled the role and place of music and the arts in hundreds of cities and towns across this country. My experiences in rural, suburban, and urban school systems, and nationally in nearly every state in the union, have given me a very unique national vantage point from which to talk candidly and honestly with you about the crossroads we stand before today in this profession. Youll forgive me then if I seem somewhat impatient. I have been talking and presenting about teacher education at Music Educators National Conference (MENC) gatherings since 1984. Twenty years. Let me tell you why I am impatient. From 19841987, I sat on the Task Force on Music Teacher Education, impaneled in 1984 by MENC president Paul Lehman to look at the issues in music teacher preparation in the aftermath of the report A Nation at Risk. MENC suggested one meeting together and phone conferences; we sought a more systemic and comprehensive view of our profession. We obtained a grant of $50,000 from Yamaha Corporation to take two years and travel across the country to look at the state of music teaching. We clearly heard the heartbeat of music educators of all types and kinds. We interviewed education reformers and college deans, education commissioners, and state supervisors of music. We talked with future music educators deep into their college preparation and with those career educators who were icons in the profession and had spent their entire life teaching and leading. We talked with those educators who had burned out and left the professionsome after just two or three years, others after 15 and 20 years. Our report, Partnership and Process, published by MENC in 1987, indicated several things, but it first and foremost said that the way in which we were preparing music educators was inconsistent with the challenges being presented to music educators in actual practice and was
clearly out of step with the deep issues found in K12 education at that time. We forecast significant teacher shortages unless new partnerships were forged within and between the music disciplines that provided a new core of musical and academic experiences to better prepare teachers. We recommended a new design for teacher education programs, including significant changes in how we recruit new teachers into the profession, changes in the way in which teachers are prepared to be successful in teaching, and a major restructuring of the professional development opportunities and partnerships that help retain music educators. And we predicted that only if the profession was prepared to make significant new systemic changes in these areas would we then find a core of exemplary teachers willing to become music teacher educatorsthe teachers of teachersfor the next century. After three years of talking and listening in the trenches we could see the future before us. On the one hand the prospect of a teacher shortagein both numbers and qualitywas frightening. But it was also exciting because so many that we talked with saw the opportunities to reshape music teacher education in ways that made sense and viewed MENC as the responsible catalyst that could inspire a new generation of music teachersand those who teach them. When we submitted the draft to MENC, we were stunned by the reaction. The National Executive Board of MENC was concerned that the report would inflame the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) because of the bold suggestion that the 65/35 split of academic and musical course work was inappropriate for music education majors. MENC was even more concerned that we might upset the theorists and musicologists and the applied faculties with our suggestions of new interdisciplinary programs of preparation that taught improvisation, arranging, composition, jazz history, and the study of musicology in a sociopolitical context. Regrettably, we did not find advocates for our work. What has happened during the ensuing 16 years since this report was issued? Well, the fact that the Society for Music Teacher Education had to push for this session is indicative of the fact that were still waiting for leadership from, and standing in, this organization (MENC), as well as recognition that there is a need for new models, sponsored research or networks of colleges and districts, teachers and professors and students doing innovative work. I find it ironic that, at a time when music teacher educators and their professional organization need to be united in purpose and intent, there is a teacher mentoring session going on opposite this session. Our colleagues at NASM are also very concerned and have mounted a sustained effort to make the issue of music education a continuing dialogue at their annual conventions. I thank them for this well-intentioned but tardy action. Their motivation is real; with more than 50% of the students in the nations nearly 700 NASM-accredited music schools being music education majors, the decline in teachers and programs threatens the stability of schools of music too. Yet when one of the deans of this countrys most prestigious music schools suggested to the faculty
of that school that there needed to be an increase in the number of music education majors and that curriculum and financial aid needed to reflect the need for more music teachers, that dean was met with stiff opposition by the faculty. The answer at that school: increase the licensure track for alternative certification. If what I am going to say today isnt the reality of how things are in your university or program, then lets hear from you, because we all need to share new models. But from my national perspective, thats not what I am seeing. If you will be offended today by my candor, I apologize. As a music educator, I am offended by the inability of our profession to tackle this issue. I am not being disrespectful; I am being deeply respectful of this profession in which I was raised, one that I have expended a lifetime working to change and improve. I hope that the questions that I raise today and the solutions that we will discuss this afternoon will generate new thinking, new models, new research, and a new boldness for our own actions as music educators and music teacher educators. Music education is at a crossroads, and the time we have to make the decision about which road to take is growing shorter with each year that we wait. The future viability of the musical academy and the vitality of music study in K12 education is at stake in this country. Schools of music in this country initially grew because they were the primary source of music teachers for this country. I dont believe that music in higher education will surviveat least in the number and quality that exist todayif the responsibility for preparing future teachers is abdicated by schools and departments of music in the future. This issue has deep historical roots, and the patterns have been evident for quite some time. They include the shifting place of music in the American educational curriculum, the push of American popular culture, changes in the place and time in which we provide educational experiences, the relentless change in the role of technology and media in learning, the fortunes of teacher employment, salaries, and student access at the mercy of decades of seesawing state and local budgets. And yet, American societyand American musical societyin 2004 is vibrant, alive, mercurial, reacting to huge pressures of economy, wealth, science, technology and media, race, class, culture, and ethnicityan artistic and musical culture and educational system redefining itself in constant reaction to this complex society in these very complex times. The challenge of providing the next generation of music educators has been made infinitely more complex by the changing environment of education and society. Lets understand something from the outset: were always going to have music education but probably not in the way that we have defined it in the programs and standards book. There will be more after-school programs, community education programs, programs sponsored by symphonies and operas and in for-profit and nonprofit music academies and music businesses. Music education may not come in minutes per week bites and with certified teachers in traditional school classrooms. Take a look at the
McPhail Center for the Arts here in Minneapolis, where 6,000 studentsof all agescome every week for lessons, ensembles, classes, and enrichment, taught by a talented and dedicated cadre of teachers, many of whom have degrees in music education, and many more who do not, but who are very fine music educators! What these trends tell me is that the confluence of policies and programs in music, K12 education, higher education, and professional organizations that have contributed to this situation are being bypassed on a more frequent basis. This trend will continue. We can choose to be a part of it, or ignore it.
How Big Is the Problem?

The numbers are staggering and should be of great concern. Even though American schools of music have experienced an increase of more than 12,000 music majors in the past decade, and music education enrollments are up, which is good news, performance enrollments have skyrocketed. In 2000, we produced about 3,600 newly certified music education undergraduates for about 9,000 vacancies (Hickey, 2002). This is about a thousand more degreed graduates than were produced a decade ago. In 2001, we produced 3,897 new undergraduates in music education for about 11,000 vacancies (Lindemann, 2002). We increased the number of graduates by nearly 300, but the number of vacancies increased by 2,000. That disparity will increase as the huge number of boomer teachers enter early retirement age. However, these numbers are misleading, because they assume that every one of those new graduates wants to teach. What it doesnt tell us is the number of new teachers who choose not to teach after their student-teaching experience. Recent figures from The American Association for Employment in Education (AAEE) report that only about 60% of those earning degrees in education actually take a teaching jobwhich means that 40% of new teachers never set foot in a classroom. Furthermore, of those who do choose to teach, 30 to 50% will remain in teaching for less than five years, even less in urban schools (AAEE, 2001). Even if the actual numbers for music teachers are somewhat above these averages, the trends are of great concern. Any profession that retains only three in ten new professionals cannot survive as we know it. What is the cause of this phenomenon of never actualizing your degree, or dropping out so early in the experience? Some of this has to do with the program of preparation, which I will discuss later on in this presentation, but much of it has to do with location. Many students, especially those without urban experience, do not want to teach other peoples childrenthose in urban areas or suburban areas with high levels of diversity. Vacancies are highest in urban and rural districts. Few want to teach in tough neighborhoods with students who didnt come from communities like theirs, and if they do, it is for a short time. And, no one wants to teach in a district that is more than an hour from a major metropolitan area. Everyone wants the same jobs, in affluent and stable medium-sized towns, small cities or affluent suburban districts with motivated students and good budgets, close to their friends and Pottery Barn. I will wager that
this is where most of our music education students come from in the first place. When beginning teachers cant get one of those jobs, they choose not to teach. Even if we doubled current enrollments in music education in this country, something I do not think the current system is capable of producing, and even if every music teacher chose to teach, we would still face a shortage of at least 30%. I think it is time to admit that the long-vaunted ecosystem of music teacher preparationthe relationship between K12 schools, schools of music, and professional music organizations that has historically nurtured the growth of music teaching in this countryis fractured. We are just now beginning to realize the fragility of that ecosystem, a delicate balance and interrelationship between recruiting, preparing, and retaining teachers that has been a key source of strength for this profession. Without a new generation of music educators, professional musical preparation in this country is at risk. No private system will ever be able to produce the numbers of future musicians who want to become teachers or teacher educators or performers that we require in this country. The dimensions of this problem defy our normal solutions. Advocating for more teachers and tinkering with a system of music education designed for a different time, a different society, and a different kind of education system is unrealistic. We cannot expect the same systems that got us here in the first place to devise the solutions that will solve the problem. The sheer size and diversity of this country, the change in the cultural context in which these institutions exist, and the very carefully defined roles that each institution in the music profession now plays make it difficult for us to look systematically atlet alone act onthe issues causing this crisis. What has happened? The parts of the ecosystem on which we have traditionally dependedK12 music educators, state education agencies, schools of music, and professional music and education organizationshave fragmented into independent organizations and institutions with very different and often incompatible agendas. The institutions themselves have become more important than the discipline they serve. Each of these parts of the ecosystem address the issue of finding, preparing, and retaining music educators as separate issuesor not at allrather than as the sum of the parts of the ecosystem.
Teachers and Preparation

An increasing number of K12 music educators, particularly those who are new, view their work as a temporal profession, a job they hold for an indeterminate period of time among a series of career opportunities. That view is supported by the number of new graduates in music education who choose never to teach, the high dropout rates in the initial years of teaching, and the numbers of music teachers electing early retirement options. Recent research (Bergee, Coffman, Demorest, Humphreys, & Thornton, 2001) indicates that music teachers themselves are the greatest single reason why young music students in middle and high school choose to
enter the music education profession. That fact points to the interrelationship of the ecosystem, for without seasoned career professionals providing positive models, mentors, and motivators for future generations of music students, the pipeline for incoming new teachers (and I might add, applied majors too) will be a very thin one indeed. And without music educators staying in the profession long enough to gain the expertise and desire to prepare another generation of music educators, we have no ready pool of future music education professors, another area experiencing a critical shortage. To be honest, we are facing the de-professionalization of music teacher education in very short order as we race to find contract faculty who can quickly prepare students or develop equivalency or licensure programs full of performance majors who couldnt get jobs and think they want to teachand probably can and should. Is preparing students quickly for minimal competency what we want as a profession? Is this the expertise on which future schools of music and student music experience will depend?
Challenges within the Academy

Schools of music have played a unique role in the preparation of a professional core of music educators in this country. Until the early 1990s most music education programs required 145150 (or more) credits for graduation, back in the days when tuition was cheap and you could take 2224 credits per semester. Those days no longer exist. But when they did exist, students took separate semesters on each supplemental instrument; multiple semesters of conducting, methods, and lab ensemble experiences; arranging; and more field experience. As the cost of higher education began to burgeon and states (and parents) were seeking neat fouryear solutions to increasing costs, limits were imposed where about 120 credits became equivalent to a bachelors degree, regardless of the discipline. It was a simplistic solution with serious consequences. As degree programs were required to shrink toward that magic 120-credit limit, the strict adherence of schools of music to the 75-year-old NASM policy of 65% music content, 35% methods/other courses, and an increase in state-mandated courses and exit requirements forced many music education programs to disproportionately reduce the number of music education courses. There was no corresponding decrease in theory or musicology courses, and in fact many schools actually increased theory and musicology, raised applied requirements to one hour for all majors, and added chamber music requirements to ensemble requirements. Today we graduate music education majors who are, as my friend Paul Haack says, minimally competent and capable of doing no great damage. In other words, our students are leaving our universities less equipped to handle the increasing challenges of K12 instruction and management than they were 20 years ago. I am convinced that there is a direct correlation between the reduction in the number of music education courses and experiences and the dropout rate of entry-level music teachers. Even if we wanted to increase the number of music education students in schools of music, I
doubt that our colleagues in applied and academic areas would endorse such an idea, and I question whether there is the leadership in schools of music to raise the flag. The well intentioned letter sent in 2002 from NASM leadership to NASM member institutions asking them to support the growth of music education majors has not been warmly embraced by our academic and performance colleagues, particularly in the largest Tier I institutions. We may need to turn the microscope upon ourselves as music schools to understand the environment that has partially produced this problem. There is a virtual class system in schools of music between music education and performance majors, particularly at some of our largest and most respected institutions. Music education students are viewed as second-class citizens with lesser musical and academic qualities. Many applied professors limit the number of music education students in their studios; some schools even have standing quotas that prevent large numbers of music education students from being accepted. If we were to tally the number and amount of scholarships given to performance and education (which could be a really valuable question for the Higher Education Arts Data Services report), I can almost predict that the largest number and size of scholarships are overwhelmingly awarded to performance students. It would be a rare administrator who would change that formula, but I do believe that it bears review if we are serious about solving this problem. What bothers me more than anything is the decline in anticipated longevity of those who do choose to teach. A couple of years ago I participated in a leadership conference for young music educators in Minnesota, 15 teachers in their first three to seven years of their teaching careers brought together in a leadership training institute. Before we started, however, I asked them to describe their experience to date. Only 4 of the 15 had originally started out in musicthe rest came to it because they loved music and were frustrated in their first majors of computers, business, and pre-med to general education. The majority of them mentioned that their high school directors had been role models; almost everyone doubted they would make teaching a lifelong profession. When I asked them why they didnt think they would last beyond 15 years, they talked of many frustrations, wanting more options and choices in lifestyle (location), and wanting a better economic future for themselves and their families (salaries). They talked of the terrible isolation they experience each day in their schools, where music is marginally a part of the curriculum and they have no one to share their teaching challenges with because they are often the only music teacher. Most were afraid that their jobs were all too expendable in the next budget crisis, and they all wished that they had more experience with the politics of education, a greater understanding of the issues of school finance and the education reform and accountability movement, and a better knowledge of their communities. Interestingly enough, most of them felt that they left their undergraduate institution relatively well equipped to teachuntil the first week of school in their first job. And then they spoke with great clarity about the lack of
experience in methods and techniques, improvisation and arranging, reflective practice and analysis, conducting, materials selectionand the artificiality of the student-teaching experience and its relationship to real teaching. They had strong feelings about how they would change their preparation. As one young woman told me, if we trained doctors the way we were prepared to be music teachers, we would all be dead. This raises an interesting question. If students leave a school of music with minimal courses and competencies, where do they gain a connection to professional development that is a part of all professions? It would seem that the university would have some role in professional development, but the reality of that is that universities arent really involved in professional development. For the most part, higher education gives credits that lead to degrees that are not linked to individual teacher skill and competence. You sign up for graduate courses on a degree plan that may have no connection to what you need to be more successful as a teacher. I have long said that new information on top of no previous learning does not prepare master teachers. Few if any institutions today have the time, faculty resources, and I daresay real faculty interest to stay connected with young music educators once they receive their diploma and enter the field. There is no incentive in higher education to be involved in postgraduate professional development; merit and salary review considerations would view that as service and not creativity or scholarship. Statewide systems such as those in Virginia and Connecticut are not specific to music education and have had problems. Higher education will quickly point to graduate programs as professional development, but those programs are not usually the kinds of experiences, courses, or skills that relate to the instructional process and teacher developmental skills many novice teachers feel they need to be successful in the profession. We need new models, and they may not be able to come from higher education.
Professional Development and Professional Organizations

Most of us think that professional development is the responsibility of state and national professional organizations in music education, but a careful look at these institutions will reveal that they are not really engaged in the professional development of teachers. These groups have chosen two clear directions: advocacy and holding conventions. The cost of advocacy has diverted resources from the issue of teacher capacity and professional development. I am deeply concerned that our national and state professional organizations are so firmly entrenched in the advocacy movement that they have marginalized themselves in being part of the solution to the teacher education movement. Advocacy may have been something we had to do, and it may have prevented an even greater deterioration of music education in our nations schools, but after 25 years of trying to convince this country that music is important, are we stronger and more vibrant in the quality and quantity of programs than we were 30 years ago? Advocacy is a perpetual job, rather like mowing the grass, and noble and valiant as those efforts have been, I
have to ask if anyone is really listening to the message? If, after nearly three decades of advocacy, in a country with more music education than any other industrialized country in the Western world, we cant find enough teachers to teach and we are still seeing music education in a perpetual crisis with every hiccup of the economy, then what role has advocacy played in creating the climate for arts education that it has espoused? As I indicated in the forward to Colleen Conways 2003 book on music teacher mentoring, if we had taken just half of the money we expended on the National Standards movement and spent it on creating models, collaborations, investments in new research for teacher education and mentoring, we might really have helped the supply of teachers be better equipped to teach well with the Standards. Our almost singular focus on advocacy has prevented us from seeing the systemic problems in teacher education. We have become so concerned about the slick delivery, positive packaging, and celebrity endorsement of the advocacy message of curricular legitimacy that we have been coopted by the very entertainment world that is the antithesis of the Standards-based, sequential instruction in music education we have espoused for years, an entertainment industry that is threatening live classical musical culture in this country, and by association music education and music teacher education. Please show me the proof that Justin Timberlake, Shari Lewis, country music stars, Bose stereo discounts, the N Sync/Herbalescence contests and lesson plans, and the Oscar Meyer composition contest are really helping teachers, and especially young teachers, keep their jobs and solve vexing and perpetual issues in how to teach musicand teach music well. Good teaching and solving the instructional capacity of young teachers requires more than a Web site of experts, the Worlds Largest Concert, or a 75-minute panel discussion with three experts and five minutes of question and answer.
Looking Outside the Box for New Models

How do we begin to talk about change? We must begin by thinking about changing the model and by thinking outside of the box. Of course, for us in higher education we know all too well that we live inside the box, and we are very afraid to move beyond its four walls. Part of the box is why we are here. Presenting sessions at MENC is what helps us get tenure in the box. But the music teacher preparation box is built by four walls of four very intimidating systems: state certification requirements on one side, university requirements and the 120-credit diploma limit on the other, NASM requirements and recommendations on the third side, and on the fourth side, perhaps the most difficult side of all, conventional practice in higher education. For most college faculty and administration there is a deep-seated fear of challenging faculty consensus and the time-honored traditions, experiences, and credit requirements that are rigidly in place in most music schools in theory, musicology, performance, and many other disciplines both in the school and the university. Those are formidable walls in higher education. But these walls must be challenged, and in some cases, they must be bent or removed if we are to create a new cohort of
career music teachers. I do not believe that we can change the box ourselves by being in the box. Which means that we are going to have to move in different directions for the future, by ourselves as music teacher educators, and as individuals in our own areas. I do not come to you today as someone who talks about change and hasnt tried to make that change. While I was at the University of Minnesota we decided that we wanted to increase the quality of our music education majors. (Enrollment in music education accounted for 50% of our 600 undergraduate and graduate majors.) We looked at their preparation as part of a complete rethinking of our undergraduate curriculum. The four walls of the box were just as real for us as for anyone else. We built four key strategic directions to help us look over the walls, and then we looked at how each discipline would approach them, together, and in collaborations. And there was faculty consensus that the program of preparation for our performance students was just as important to change. This included changing the rigor and quality of the undergraduate curriculum; raising the quality of our student body overall; integrating the musical, academic, and creative processes that our students would need for the coming decades; and developing systemic partnerships and relationships that would expand content into context and experience. My music education colleagues who helped build this systemDavid Teachout, Keitha Hamann, Akosua Addo, Paul Haack, Linda Thompson, and the late Clare McCoyall deserve credit for engaging their faculty colleagues in a positive and holistic process of change. Like you, we were not satisfied with what we were doing; we were not going to be able to add full-time faculty, we had credit limits to live with, and we wanted to attract a higher quality of student, in all disciplines. We had two choices: tinker with the status quo, or start to move the walls of the box, carefully, respectfully, deliberately, but move them nevertheless. In figuring out what we wanted to do at Minnesota we stepped back and asked ourselves what it was about the current system and curriculum that we wanted to change, for there was frustration with many parts of the Berlin Wall model of governance and curriculum that is so typical in the academy. In many ways the frustrations expressed by faculty were the same as those of our students. All faculty spoke of how difficult it was to get enough content into a short period of time and the lack of engagement in required courses in theory and history. Often music education students question the validity of much of the content of their degree, such as in theory and musicology, because they have not been helped to understand how to apply that content in the context of teachingand why that content is so very important. The diploma, which many view as a terminal degree and is in fact only a pass card to a life of professional development, is crammed with a smattering of so many different kinds of experiences, benchmarks, tests, and expectations that students are bewildered when they have their own classroom and realize that they are in fact not going to be able to conduct Lincolnshire Posy with their middle school band the first year they teach. At Minnesota we decided to create at a comprehensive system of growing, preparing and
nurturing music educators in a series of comprehensive relationships that would start before they arrived as undergraduates and extend through and beyond the undergraduate degree. We started first with our undergraduate program, where we spent almost two years reshaping the undergraduate experience and core curriculum, looking at the natural intersections between theory, technology, sight singing, ear training, keyboard skills, improvisation, and music education methods, techniques courses, and practicum experiences. Rather than add new courses, we looked at ways to integrate content, experiences, and competencies. We added a fifth semester of theory that presented various options to studentscounterpoint, 20th-century music, jazz theorybut reduced total credits in each of the five semesters to do so. Professors now team teach across disciplines, with the jazz studies professor coming into the theory sequence to work on improvisation, and the theory professor working with music education professors on score study and analysis. We were blessed with new positions and critical retirements that allowed us to bring great new faculty to campus with collaborative interests. Their cross-curricular attitude has enriched the entire curriculum and helped establish a new validity among all studentsand especially those in music educationfor the content of theory and musicology, keyboard skills, and the like, because it is being applied in contexts that prove the validity. We restructured credits in techniques classes so that we could add additional methods courses. We reshaped conducting courses in instrumental and choral areas to become comprehensive experiences where students would work with instructional pedagogies; create and teach their own arrangements; prepare music history, listening, and improvisational activities; and analyze what they do on videotape and in small mentor groups with graduate students and faculty. To counter the faculty notion that music education students are not of the same caliber as applied students, we toughened admissions requirements across the board, and particularly for music education. Applications and auditions for the school and music education jumped dramatically, and the resultant rise in quality reduced most (but not all) of our esteemed applied faculty concerns. We also equitably distributed scholarship aid across the board to the best students in both degree programs and raised $3.2 million in scholarship money specifically for music education majors. Our music education faculty turned our CMENC chapter into an extension of the formal classroom experience where subjects and issues are covered that students need to know but for which there is no time remaining for credit-bearing courses. These sessions range from interviewing skills to the realities of politics and finance in Minnesota schools, understanding community engagement, and using new graduates out in the field to bring the reality of their classrooms to our students. These experiences extended into field observations and servicelearning projects. We began to use graduate students and TAs as mentors for undergraduate courses, where they provided one-on-one instruction, coached videotape feedback sessions of conducting, and worked with techniques and methods classes. Major ensembles regularly
provided time for student conductors at the end of the semester. The steps described are small in comparison to where we need to be, yet incremental steps are what bring real change over time. Since these changes were implemented, the retention rates at Minnesota have been high, the applications to music education are growing, and the quality of students is rising sharply. Future music teachers want to succeed. Build a new system, and they will come. I think we have little choice but to invest in new models in which we explore a new kind of relationship and interdependency between and among the parts of the profession, where our traditional institutions will become as interested in helping new models gain greater ground, succeed, and be sustained as they are in the quality of performance program. It isnt either/or, it is both/and. We must create a new system of lighthouses, beacons of change that represent a rebellion of sort, new models in teacher education that are connected with networks of models, where the sharing of methods and practices becomes a habit of mind. It will take time, courage, boldness, leadership, and yes, funding. We will have to ask deans and directors to make choices. In the 1980s Gordon Cawelti, executive director of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), brought the issue of systemic school reform to a new level of prominence in the national debate by creating a remarkable group of networks focused on aspects of school-based change. His work, and those networks, created a climate for school change that advanced research by a generation in less than a decade. What if this profession were to do the same thing? Those models could represent an exciting and serious research investment by institutions and professional organizations that could advance the agenda of change in music teacher education by a generation. While there are clear roles to play for each part of our profession, everyone has to be prepared to give up old ways find new ways to think about this issue. If no one is prepared to do that, then Houston, we do indeed have a problem. The three questions for this afternoons discussion groups speak to the kinds of questions we must ask ourselves. These questions will help us grapple with the issues, think of some solutions, share existing models, or dream of new ideas and new models that could be implemented. First, what partnerships must we create, build, or reenergize in K12, higher, and professional education for music teacher education in the future? In your region or area, what partnerships must you build to bring about a greater local/regional awareness for the need for quality teachers? How do you work with local districts in providing mentor opportunities to new teachers? What does you state music education organization do to connect entry-level teachers with career master teachers? In what ways do you use your state or regional music education meetings to help and nurture the beginning music teacher? Where will the supply of new teachers come from? How must we recruit, where shall we recruit, and who will teach these prospective new teachers if there are indeed not enough music teacher education professors? How do we find prospective teachers? Who encourages these students to think about this profession? How are they connected with other young teachers who
have made that choice? Should state professional music organizations sponsor career days for high school music students interested in music education who are brought by their local music teacher, perhaps to state conventions, all states or regional gatherings? What role will colleges and universities play in making these connections? Should colleges or universities seek nominations of prospective students from high school directors that can form a database that colleges and universities can use to recruit future teachers? Should we connect prospective teachers into online communities, create special campus days for prospective teachers, or create early mentor relationships between incoming and existing music education majors? How will we grapple with alternative certification and licensure? How might you help create local collaboratives of districts and teachers to take a leadership role in ensuring that these kinds of activities are valuable, targeted, and productive? Must we look to clinical professorships of seasoned practitioners, similar to those in schools of medicine and social work? What is the role of MENC, NASM, or other state or national professional organizations in providing leadership and support for new research and models? If not them, then who? What role will colleges, universities, and state professional organizations or other state agencies play in shaping meaningful postbaccalaureate professional development and licensure and alternative certification programs? How will entry-level teachers be paired with career music educators for assistance or observations? Should state organizations provide regional meetings of novice teachers to facilitate mentoring and reflective growth experiences? How might we rethink the curriculum and experience of graduate programs to reflect the capacity and needs of individual novice teachers in order to retain them in the profession longer than five years? Of course, there are far more questions than answers, but we are at a point in time where we must at least start asking the questions. The result of the great institutionalization of our culture is that we tend to wait until the system responds to meet our challenges. We want quick answers and ready solutions to complex issues from the institutions that we created to serve our professional needs. We think that our dues give license to others to act on our behalf. But more quick fixes within the same institutional framework that caused the problems are not going to solve these problems. Individuals must take action, finding others with shared concerns and hopes to work together and choose to make differences through dialogue, consensus, leadership, and a willingness to change the box. It is about establishing a culture of change so that the idea of continual growth is built into the culture of teaching music. While our topic today is about music education, there might also be something to learn in this process for all music students, whether in performance or music education. This is very much about the culture of change in how we teach all musiciansperformers, scholars, teachers, creatorsin the academy. I urge you to push the agenda, and the envelope, under your own initiative, within your own box. We cant wait for the system to fix itself. That wont happen in the near future. Solving these problems will require your personal, active engagement at your own level of involvement.
I believe that your actions, linked and served by strong leadership from SMTE, will help us to challenge every part of our current ecosystem, reinvest resources, time, ideas and policies in helping new models of research and experimentation in teacher education move forward. It is time, and I think that every one of us in this room knows that it is time. You are at a crossroads; choose wisely which direction you decide to go, because it will determine far more than we might ever imagine.
References
American Association for Employment in Education (AAEE) (2001). Educator Supply and Demand in the United States. Information available from AAEE, 3040 Riverside Drive, Suite 125, Columbus, OH 43221. Bergee, M. J., Coffman, D. D., Demorest, S. M., Humphreys, J. T., & Thornton, L. P. (2001, Summer). Influences on collegiate students decision to become a music educator. Report sponsored by MENC: The National Association for Music Education. Retrieved October, 1, 2002, from http://www.menc.org/networks/rnc/Bergee-Report.html. Conway, C. M. (Ed.). (2003). Great Beginnings for Music Teachers: Mentoring and Supporting New Teachers. Reston, VA: MENC. Hickey, M. (2002, May). Music teacher shortage! Time for crisis or for change? College Music Society Newsletter. Lindemann, C. A. (2002, November). How can higher education address the K12 music teacher shortage? Speech presented at the National Association of Schools of Music Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
What Partnerships Must We Create, Build, or Reenergize in K12 Higher and Professional Education for Music Teacher Education in the Future?
By Janet Robbins and Robin Stein
Janet Robbins is professor of music at West Virginia University in Morgantown. Robin Stein is coordinator of music education at Texas State University in San Marcos. At the 2004 MENC preconference session sponsored by the Society of Music Teacher Education, the question of What partnerships must we create in our teacher education programs? was addressed in one of three breakout sessions. We began the discussion by looking at the types of partnerships that currently exist. Our thinking was that only when we have taken stock of where weve been can we begin to think outside the box in response to Jeffrey Kimptons call for change in music teacher education. Many of the participants reported on methods classes that apply a clinical model. These sitebased methods courses vary in the degree of collaboration that exists. On one end of the spectrum is the lab school approach in which university professors and students provide music instruction in schools where music otherwise doesnt exist. A more collaborative model is the Professional Development School (PDS), in which the methods class relocates to a school and is taught by both university and school-based teacher. Other collaborative ventures that were discussed included service learning that partnered university students with community organizations and after-school programs. The conversation then turned to examples of internal partnerships that involve the integration of music education courses with other disciplines, both outside music as well as within music departments. It is clear that there are many angles to consider when thinking about the kinds of partnerships we need to create or reenergize in music teacher education. The literature on partnerships in music education reaches far beyond the scope of our discussion in the breakout session and includes partnerships between universities and professional artists and arts organizations, as well as collaborative enterprises between universities and corporations. The following discussion draws upon selected sources as a way to frame the current conversation on partnerships and to serve as a springboard for future planning.
Professional Development School Partnerships: Collaborative Teaching and Research

Since the mid-1980s, various initiatives to strengthen teacher education have called for more field experiences that would better prepare undergraduates for the real world of music teaching and learning. Possibly the most popular form of school-university partnerships in teacher
education is the Professional Development School (Neirman, Zeichner, & Hobbel, 2002). The establishment of Professional Development Schools was a response to the Holmes Group, a consortium of research universities involved in teacher education reform that called for improved partnerships between higher education and K12 schools. Their report in 1990 spawned the development of a number of PDSs that were based on shared decision making and collaborative research among university teachers, student teachers, and site-based teachers. Theory that resided in the university classroom was merged with practice in K12 classrooms in order to produce practicing teachers who were both responsible and responsive (Darling-Hammond, 1994, p. 204). At first glance, the differences between what we think of as the music education practicum and the PDS partnership model may not be entirely obvious. However, PDSs are founded on a significantly different principle, namely, that everyone is a learneruniversity teacher, sitebased master teacher, and student teacher. Planning, teaching, and reflecting occur collaboratively, requiring a rethinking of roles and authority. In music education, however, only a few have fully realized the PDS concept. The work of Conkling and Henry is well documented (1999, 2002) and provides a strong model for change, one that challenges the traditional music education practicum in which theory resides exclusively in the university and reflection is an individual rather than collective act. Based on their work in general and choral music classrooms, they make the following suggestions for creating PDS partnerships (2000): Make a long-term, philosophical commitment to the partnership project. Identify a K12 partner with whom you can spend many hours designing, implementing, and maintaining the project. Be prepared for some discomfort when confronting competing value systems. Secure appropriate allocation of human and financial resources. Determine how the university facultys work in the PDS will be viewed and rewarded by the university in terms of teaching and research. Place student learning at the heart of both theory and practice. Partnerships associated with Professional Development Schools also involve collaborative research. One of the most striking features of current PDSs is their emphasis on collaborative research among teachers, student teachers and teacher educators (Darling-Hammond, 1994, p. 9). Preservice teachers, particularly those in five-year programs leading to a masters degree, engage in action research projects during their final year. Action research, or teacher research, helps to cultivate habits of inquiry, and as a result of conducting research, both preservice and in-service teachers may become part of a professional culture that values research. The formation of teacher research groups, or cooperatives, provides necessary support for getting started and also decreases feelings of isolation that so many music teachers experience (Robbins, 2000).
Most important, the research process is liberating and transformative for teachers. Researching teachers who view themselves as producers of knowledge, as opposed to consumers of knowledge, have a greater chance of becoming independent, curious, and innovative. According to Zeichner (1994), reflection and teacher research signify a recognition that the process of learning to be a teacher continues throughout ones entire career, and no matter what teacher education programs do, and how well it is done, we can at best only prepare teachers to begin practice (p. 71). A beginning that includes teachers collaborating to study their own teaching and their students learning may reduce the teacher burnout rate in the long run.
Partnership Networks for In-Service Teachers

Teachers continued professional development can be the single most important factor that contributes to career success and fulfillment (Olsen, 1987). Socialization into the profession does not end with graduation. Universities need to establish networks that provide professional development opportunities for both novice and expert teachers in the form of apprentice programs, professional development workshops, site-based methods classes, and collaborative research. Unfortunately, teachers often become isolated and unaware of professionaldevelopment opportunities. Even when opportunities do exist, teachers are rarely included in the planning, and as a result, the activities often do not engage teachers in thinking about how to solve real classroom problems. Universities can help develop networks for in-service teachers that connect them with other teachers, community musicians, and university experts with like interests who might not otherwise come together (Hookey, 2002). Such is the case in several initiatives taking place at the Eastman School of Music in Rochester, New York (Robinson, 1998). The RochesterEastman String Project has a multifaceted design that connects university students, K12 students and teachers, and community members. University faculty and graduate students provide the instruction for students in one of Rochesters urban elementary schools where no string program has existed for years. Undergraduate music education students volunteer as mentors to the young students. Participating K12 students are paired with a beginning adult string player from the community who agrees to learn and practice with the student. The adult musician, in turn, receives an instrument from the schools along with free beginning instruction from Eastman. Another Eastman initiative uses an apprenticeship model in which middle school choral teachers work side-by-side with Eastman faculty. Many Voices, Many Songs involves several layers of apprenticeship that function simultaneously, not only for the K12 teachers, but also for music education students who work as apprentices in the schools during short-term internships (Robinson, 1998). In addition to Eastmans many initiatives, a number of arts organizations, such as the Lincoln
Center Institute and the Kennedy Center, have long traditions of offering professional development workshops and institutes for teachers; however, university involvement is often superficial or lacking. A future goal might include the establishment of stronger partnerships between arts organizations and university music education programs for the purpose of providing professional development opportunities for new music teachers.
Community-Based Partnerships
Music education partnerships often develop between universities, schools, and arts organizations. Research supports the premise that such partnerships, if designed and executed well, can strengthen music teaching and learning (Myers & Brooks, 2003). For more than thirty years we have seen varying types of artist-in-education programs (AIE) that feature artists working in schools. While Professional Development School models bring university faculty and students into K12 schools, AIE programs bring artists into the schools for short-term residencies to enrich the school environment and enhance student learning. Sometimes universities develop the project or are included in it, but often projects only involve an interaction between artists and the resident school. A grant-funding agency or donor is sometimes the catalyst in the mix. A number of orchestras have created outreach programs for area schools, moving beyond an emphasis on exposure-type goals in music to the creation of more meaningful connections throughout the curriculum (Myers, 2003). Performance models of the sort that McCusker (1999) describes connect music teachers and students with university and community performances. The Gibbs Street Connection in Rochester was designed as a collaboration with the Rochester area schools to bring K12 students to the performance environment of the Eastman School and the Rochester Philharmonic. The Pennock Listening Project (Addo, 2002) is an interesting departure from the normal public school outreach. Home-schooled students were identified as an underserved population and were for the first time included in this listening project with the Minnesota Orchestra, the University of Minnesota Division of Music Education/Music Therapy, and the local school district. Sound Learning is an Atlanta collaborative among faculty and students at Georgia State University, the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, three elementary schools, and freelance performers. Its primary goal is to strengthen sequential music learning and to ensure a sustained presence in the schools, rather than short-term interaction (Myers, 2003). Performers and composers collaborate with music specialists and classroom teachers, each contributing their own expertise. There has been criticism of some artists-in-schools models because of the concern that artists will somehow replace arts specialists and that long-term sequential instruction will be reduced to mere exposure activities. Continuing issues for community-based partnerships relate to the
specific roles of teachers and artists, the preservice and in-service education of teachers and artists, and the development of high-quality classroom models (Myers & Brooks, 2001).
Internal Partnerships
Unless we build partnerships within our own units and universities, efforts to create teaching and research partnerships with K12 schools and community artists and organizations may not be entirely appreciated and understood. Ours is a profession that has been socialized to teach and research in relative isolation. Faculty have been initiated into a system in which, except for the sciences, team teaching and collaborative research are rare (Hutchens, 1998, p. 36), and with the growing demand for fewer hours in the undergraduate curriculum, issues of turf often escalate as faculty become protective of content. However, despite the competitive culture of academe, more and more faculty are working together to develop interdisciplinary courses and design experiences that cut across the curriculum. Although not well documented, stories of collaboration do exist. Entry-level Introduction to Music Education courses are often taught collaboratively by music education faculty who design experiences and assignments aimed at examining the diversity of music teaching and learning contexts. Music education and theory faculty at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota experimented with a team-taught freshman ear-training course, collaborating to apply music education methods to teach aural skills. Students and teachers began to recognize the value of collaborative teaching and realized that pedagogy and content used in theory and piano classes, for example, did indeed apply to music teaching and learning. Postbaccalaureate students at the University of Northern Colorado take an integrated methods course for art, music, and physical education. The class is a collaboration among three instructors, one from each department. They work using a common theme, sharing segments of class time to teach within their own discipline, and then bringing everything together during integrated segments in several theme-related projects. Perhaps more dramatic is Kimptons account of the reshaping of the undergraduate curriculum at the University of Minnesota that involved integrating content and competencies and the restructuring of credits. The level of collaboration and the amount of time required may seem daunting for some, but the cross-curricular attitude that now permeates the thinking of faculty and students is clearly attainable.
Future Possibilities
Looking back on this preconference session and the experiences that were shared, it is clear that more time and thought are needed to fully appreciate the concept of partnership, not only in its myriad applications, but also with respect to the implications for music teacher education. Our
scholarship on music teaching and learning must not be done in isolation and needs to include more voices of K12 teachers. Myers (2003) challenges us to continue to strengthen relationships between schools of education and schools of music in order to broaden professional understanding of the role of music in childrens lives and learning. We must also strengthen relationships within our undergraduate music program, not only for music education majors, but also for classroom teachers. Traditionally, we separate the course work for music majors and general classroom teacher. How might more collaborative work in their undergraduate programs build communities of learners once theyre teaching? Could graduate seminars combine music education students with administrators and teachers of other disciplines for learning-centered partnerships? Would these relationships lead to better understanding and collaboration in future community relationships outside the university environment? Bresler (2002) cautions that we must not mandate or prescribe collaborations; rather she suggests that we consider conditions that would favor thoughtful and productive outcomes. As we think ahead to partnerships in the future, the following conditions, or principles, may be useful to our work: 1. Plan strategically. Work collaboratively with colleagues to integrate existing course content and streamline curricula. 2. Search for funding opportunities to buy the time needed to develop innovative courses and collaborative programs. Strong partnerships take time to develop. Many universities already offer incentives for faculty to develop new, interdisciplinary courses, and many state departments and arts agencies are eager to collaborate to develop professional programs in the arts for teachers. 3. Expand faculty perspectives and consider whether collaborators are open to diverse ways of thinking. A greater understanding of other disciplines and will lead to an increased understanding of our own. 4. Be open to multiple perspectives and values and learn to appreciate the ideas of others. In the case of the PDS partnerships, two cultures are coming together, each with its own set of roles and rules. 5. Be aware of the issues of power and authority related to the question of whose knowledge is the most valuable. 6. Establish clear goals that all understand and agree to. Compromise is necessary when designing courses and programs, making it important to develop shared outcomes that do not dilute content. 7. Search for overlapping content and concepts in curriculum. What skills and knowledge cut across the curriculum in music? 8. Resist isolation. Professional renewal of skill and knowledge can result from shared experiences. This is true for both faculty and K12 teachers.
Strong partnerships are vital to the future of music teacher education. With appropriate partnerships in place, students will be better prepared to sustain a lifelong commitment to music teaching and learning. Working in a collaborative environment at all levels can lead to renewed engagement in music and strengthen our music teacher education programs in the future.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following participants in the MENC breakout session: David R. Montano University of Denver Diane Mack Central Missouri State University Linda K. Damer Indiana State University Katy Strand Indiana University Joe Murphy Mansfield University Mary Kennedy Rutgers University Patrick Freer Georgia State University Brett Nolker University of North CarolinaGreensboro Pam Stover Clarion University Andrew Murphy Missouri Western State College Rachel Harrison Missouri Western State College Mary Schleff CSU Northridge Ben Smar University of MassachusettsAmherst Ellen Abrahams Westminster Choir College Alicia Mueller Towson University June Grice Colorado State University Diane Persellin Trinity University
References
Addo, A. (2002). University-community music partnerships. Paper presented at ISME Community Music Activities Seminar. Retrieved October 25, 2004, from http://www.worldmusiccentre.com/uploads/cma/addo.PDF. Bresler, L. (2002). Out of the trenches: The joys (and risks) of cross-disciplinary collaborations. (XXV International Society for Music Education World Conference keynote address, Bergen, Norway, August, 2002). Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 152, 1739. Conkling, S. W., & Henry, W. (2002). The impact of professional development partnership: Our part of the story. Journal of Music Teacher Education. 11(2), 713. Retrieved October 11, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/journals.htm. Conkling, S. W., & Henry, W. (2000). Professional development partnerships in music education: We need you! Presentation at the American Orff-Schulwerk Association National Conference, Rochester, NY. Conkling, S. W., & Henry, W. (1999). Professional development partnerships: A new model for
music teacher preparation [Electronic version]. Arts Education Policy Review, 100(4), 18. Retrieved June 21, 2000, from EBSCOhost. Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1994). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession. New York: Teachers College Press. Hookey, M. (2002). Professional development. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 887902). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hutchins, J. (1998). Research and professional development collaborations among university faculty and education practitioners. Arts Education Policy Review, 99(5), 3540. McCusker, J. (1999). The Gibbs Street Connection [Electronic version]. Music Educators Journal, 86(3), 3739, 54. Retrieved November 27, 2004, from EBSCOhost. Myers, D. (2003). Quest for excellence: The transforming role of university-community collaboration in music teaching and learning. Arts Education Policy Review, 105(1), 512. Myers, D., & Brooks, A. (2002). Policy issues in connecting music education with arts education. In R. Colwell, & C. Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 90930). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Neirman, G., Zeichner, K., & Hobbel, N. (2002). Changing concepts of teacher education. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 81839). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Olsen, G.(Ed.). (1987). Music teacher education: Partnership and process. A report by the task force on music teacher education for the nineties. Reston, VA: MENC. Robbins, J. (2000, Spring). Reflections on teacher research. The Orff Echo, 32(3), 3336. Robinson, M. (1998). A collaboration model for school and community music education [Electronicversion]. Arts Education Policy Review, 100(2), 3239. Retrieved November, 24, 2004, from EBSCOhost. Zeichner, K. (1994). Personal and social change. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform: Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 6684). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Where Will the Supply of New Teachers Come From, Where Shall We Recruit, and Who Will Teach These Prospective Teachers?
By William E. Fredrickson and J. Bryan Burton
William E. Fredrickson is associate professor of music education and associate dean of academic affairs at the Conservatory of Music at the University of MissouriKansas City. J. Bryan Burton is professor of music education and graduate coordinator for the School of Music at West Chester University of Pennsylvania. This question is central to the long-term viability of the music teaching profession. The changing landscape of public education, the prevalent values of American society, and countless other variables have brought us to a point where these questions need concrete answers if music education is to survive and thrive as a central part of our public education system. Participants in the 2004 MENC National Biennial In-Service Meeting Preconference Special Focus Session on Teacher Preparation considered this question in one of three breakout sessions following Jeffrey Kimptons keynote address. Current thought and practice, as represented by the participants of the session, as well as extant research in this area, suggest some possible solutions for consideration. These solutions are a starting point for continued discussion and action in this area.
Developing a Recruiting Pipeline

It may be that the sources we traditionally gravitate toward to recruit undergraduate music education students arent sufficient, or even most appropriate, for the many and varied needs of the music teaching profession. High school students in all-state performance groups and from large suburban school districts with highly visible music programs naturally get a great deal of attention from college recruiters. Not only are these students likely to possess refined musical skills, but they are also in situations that appear attractive from a professional standpoint. But according to the research it is likely that these students will think of the music education profession as being what they see in their schools and ensemble experiences and may expect that they will go into the work force in similar situations (Kelly, 2003). Reality of the marketplace dictates that entry-level jobs might not be in these settings and areas of highest need certainly are not. 1. With greater areas of need in urban and rural settings, we should increase efforts to identify, mentor, and recruit high school music students in those settings to increase the likelihood that students might be willing to work in these settings after graduation. 2. In preparation for the needs of the marketplace, we need to develop ways to portray the music teaching professions diversity to high school students. Current music teachers may be the best recruiters the profession has. They exert a great deal
of influence that could positively affect the recruiting of future music teachers (Bergee, Coffman, Demorest, Humphreys, & Thornton, 2001). From the time students make a choice to be involved in music, music teachers are representing their profession and should consider the possibility that any of their students might develop the interest and potential to become a colleague someday. Looking for opportunities to foster students early interest in music teaching might include focusing efforts on Tri-M chapters and future teachers clubs. College/university music education faculty could investigate partnerships between their institutions and these public schoolbased efforts as well as local MTNA (Music Teachers National Association) groups. While Bergee et al. (2001) did not find these types of experiences to be highly influential, if their purpose was focused on identifying and recruiting future teachers, that trend could change. Bergee et al. (2001) also found that previous teaching opportunities were influential, although rare, and these organizations might be used to facilitate the development of precollege experiences in classrooms and ensembles. While extensive podium time is unlikely in many programs, the development of regular peer-tutoring opportunities at various levels might be facilitated. Many college/university music education faculty members also regularly present clinics and guest conduct in public school settings. It might be fruitful to think of these instances as opportunities for professional recruitment. The profession has a farm system, but we need to be better at sending out scouts and encouraging young prospects. 1. Urge current music teachers to promote the positive aspects of their profession to their students and community. 2. Look for opportunities (through Tri-M chapters, future teachers clubs, and their own clinics with school-aged children) to enfranchise students early by helping develop teaching experiences (such as peer-tutoring) for students. Once high school students get to college and begin a music education degree program, they become highly involved in a variety of music-related activities. Some naturally begin to question whether they really want to teach. Early opportunities to experience public school music classrooms are a chance to develop perspective and make decisions about educational goals. Teachout (2004) found that undergraduates in methods classes see these early experiences as an important part of their education. If we are looking for more students to teach in urban and rural schools and in elementary and middle school classrooms those early experiences should reflect those needs of the profession. Balancing the needs of the profession with the students comfort level and expectations (where they came from and what they know) make this a delicate task (Benham, 2003). Informing students, and helping them develop their attitudes towards diverse situations without scaring or alienating them, is not easy (Emmanuel, 2003). Identifying the important characteristics of good teachers and formulating assessments to help identify promising students has been a focus of research, and implementing findings from that research can help (Rohwer & Henry, 2004).
When first-year teachers were asked to give advice to students currently in music teacher education programs, they put a great deal of focus on job-related skills not traditionally associated with music, pedagogy, or classroom discipline (Fredrickson & Hackworth, 2005). Administrative skills and people skills in general, the things all new professionals need in almost any environment, were very much on these new teachers minds. In preparing undergraduates, it might also be wise to allow some flexibility for the development of other interests and talents. Facilitating and promoting the pursuit of a double major (performance and education, for example) might help keep good students involved in teacher preparation programs. 1. Help undergraduates begin to think and work as professionals early in their programs by infusing field experiences in freshman and sophomore years. 2. Find diverse placement environments that mirror the needs of the profession, but supply support for students going into those placements to prepare them for success. 3. For talented students with a variety of musical interests, encourage and facilitate dual degrees or double majors rather than forcing choice too early. Musicians with a bachelors or masters degree in another area of music (performance, theory, history, etc.) sometimes reconsider music education as a professional choice (Bergee et al., 2001). Helping this population involves adjusting the existing curriculum, which was originally designed and scheduled as an integral part of a complete undergraduate degree experience, and making those experiences available for someone with subject-matter expertise looking for a quick path to teacher certification. Sometimes those obstacles are difficult for both the prospective student and the music unit to overcome. It could be advantageous to be proactive about identifying promising undergraduate or even graduate music majors while they are still in school. Faculty could talk with them about the possibility of adding teacher certification and help deal with some of the misconceptions that might create negative bias. At the same time facilitating the addition of new curriculum to existing degree programs might require some flexibility and creativity on the part of music education faculty. Approaching colleagues in other music areas about assisting us in identifying appropriate students and enlisting their help in the inevitable curricular compromises can make recruiting of the next generation of teachers every college music faculty members business (Thornton, Murphy, & Hamilton, 2004). 1. Actively look for good students in music bachelors and masters programs who might consider adding teacher certification. Include international students who have come to the United States to further their musical education and may not know about the potential possibilities for employment in this field. 2. Develop flexible alternatives within teacher certification programs so current students can add on teacher certification without adding overwhelming time and credits to their planned programs while still covering material needed to meet state requirements and professional expectations.
3.
Enlist music faculty colleagues in identifying students and facilitating long-term career planning. The way we think about how one chooses a profession and how long one commits to a given profession may have changed. People are changing jobs, and even career areas, more often. Schools and departments of music are receiving inquiries from people who did not even receive a music degree as an undergraduate who are interested in coming back to school to become a music teacher. College/university music education faculty might consider working to identify good candidates who are actively involved in music-related activities in proximity to their institutions. These nontraditional students bring their own set of logistical challenges and curricular needs. Many colleges and universities are actively involved in developing viable paths for the growing demand for alternative certification (Asmus, 2003). People with existing degrees in music as well as those with much less formal training are looking for programs that allow them to make the transition they are considering without going back to the very beginning. In many cases these students want course work scheduled for nights, weekends, and summers to accommodate their need for concurrent full-time employment. In many parts of the country, schools are partnering with universities to allow these populations to work full-time in classrooms while completing the course work necessary to be fully certified to teach. Unfortunately the paradigm for alternative certification that has developed for the certification of elementary classroom and secondary subject-matter teachers in areas other than music dont always align comfortably with music education faculty expectations. Flexibility and creativity are needed on the part of school districts, nontraditional music teacher education students, and college/university teacher educators if viable alternatives are to be found. 1. Develop partnerships with school districts to create viable alternative certification programs that meet the needs identified by music education faculty. 2. Work with college/university music departments and music education faculty to facilitate the accommodation of nontraditional teacher education students needs. 3. Be proactive in identifying viable candidates from nontraditional populations (community bands, choirs, and orchestras, church choirs, and adults taking private lessons).
Retaining Good Teachers in the Profession

Ending the current shortage of good music teachers is not simply a matter of finding more individuals to train. Keeping good teachers that are already certified and teaching should also be a priority. Attrition is particularly high at the beginning of the career. A large group of potentially productive music educators leave teaching within the first three years for a variety of reasons (South, 2004). For some it is due to a lack of adequate preparation. Others become disillusioned when the job isnt what they were expecting. Some simply find out too late that
they are not suited to the demands of the teaching profession. Some research (Conway & Garlock, 2002; Fredrickson & Hackworth, 2004; Fredrickson & Neill, in press; Pembrook & Fredrickson, 2000/2001) suggests that both new teachers and experienced teachers are preoccupied with the demands of teaching as an everyday job (not just problems with subject-matter, teaching competency, or classroom discipline). Providing training, experiences, and perspective to deal with these many issues, which can range from lunch duty and budget preparation to personal emotional strain and stability, would better prepare teachers to face the realities of their jobs. Often there isnt time in an undergraduate program to deal effectively with the myriad issues involved, and in-service workshops, continuing education experiences, and masters programs could help (Bowles, 2003). 1. Teacher preparation programs can continue to work toward training that provides realistic preparation for all the daily tasks encountered by the music teacher. Moving from a model dominated by the use of student teaching as the capstone experience to one with a true internship could also help. 2. Provide in-service workshops, continuing education classes, and experiences in masters programs that help practitioners cope with the many challenges of their environments. Mentoring for new teachers might further help with difficulties encountered in the initial years of teaching. State music educators groups and college/university music education departments could sponsor and facilitate programs matching experienced teachers with new teachers. Using available database resources and communication tools, these organizations might be able to construct programs that could potentially benefit a large majority of the new teachers functioning in the public schools of their state. Preparing college music education students to find their own mentors could help in cases where a new teacher is in an isolated circumstance or does not have access to a formal program. Teaching these new professionals that good mentors can include teachers outside their subject-matter specialty might be wise.
Acknowledgments
On behalf of the Society for Music Teacher Education, the authors would like to thank the following professionals for their contributions to the conference session and this article: Sheila Feay-Shaw University of WisconsinWhitewater Darla Hanley Shenandoah University Linda Hartley University of Dayton Steven Kelly Florida State University William Lee University of TennesseeChattanooga Rod Loeffler Northwestern College Peter McCoy State University of New York at Potsdam Ken Phillips Palm Beach Atlantic University
Ann Porter University of Cincinnati Dale Misenhelter University of Arkansas Barbara Resch University of IndianaPurdue Fort Wayne Victoria Smith Elizabethtown College David Teachout University of Minnesota Somchai Trakarurung University of Toronto (graduate student)
References
Asmus, E. P. (2003). Commentary: Advantages and disadvantages of alternative certification. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 13(1), 56. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/journals.html. Benham, S. (2003). Being the other: Adapting to life in a culturally diverse classroom. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 13(1), 2132. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/journals.html. Bergee, M.J., Coffman, D. D., Demorest, S. M., Humphreys, J. T., & Thornton, L. P. (2001, Summer). Influences on collegiate students decision to become a music educator. Report sponsored by MENC: The National Association for Music Education. Retrieved May, 17, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/networks/rnc/Bergee-Report.html. Bowles, C. (2003). The self-expressed professional development needs of music educators. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 21(2). Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/journals.html. Conway, C., & Garlock, M. (2002). The first year teaching K3 general music: A case study of Mandi. Contributions to Music Education, 29(2), 928. Emmanuel, D. T. (2003). An immersion field experience: An undergraduate music education course in intercultural competence. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 13(1), 3341. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/journals.html. Fredrickson, W. E., & Hackworth, R. S. (2005). Analysis of First-Year Teachers Advice to Music Education Students. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 23(2). Fredrickson, W. E., & Neill, S. (in press). Is it Friday yet? (Perceptions of first-year music teachers). Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education. Kelly, S. N. (2003). The influence of selected cultural factors on the environmental teaching preference of undergraduate music education majors. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 12(2), 4050. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/ publication/articles/journals.html. Pembrook, R. G., & Fredrickson, W. E. (2000/2001). Prepared yet flexible: Insights from the Daily Logs of Music Teachers. Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education, 147, 14952. Rohwer, D., & Henry, W. (2004). University teachers perceptions of requisite skills and characteristics of effective music teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 13(2), 1827. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/ journals.html. South, J. (2004, January). Factors related to music teacher retention in Oklahoma. Poster presented at the Missouri Music Educators Association Annual In-Service Meeting, Osage Beach, MO.
Teachout, D. J. (2004). Preservice teachers opinions of music education methods course content. Contributions to Music Education, 31(1), 7188. Thornton, L., Murphy, P., & Hamilton, S. (2004). A case of faculty collaboration for music education curricular change. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 13(2), 3440. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/journals.html.
What Is the Role of MENC, NASM, or Other State or National Professional Organizations in Providing Leadership and Support for New Research and Models?
By Don P. Ester and David J. Brinkman
Don P. Ester is associate professor and coordinator of music education at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana. David J. Brinkman is area coordinator for music education at the University of Wyoming in Laramie. The question of leadership is perhaps the seminal issue related to the looming crisis in music teacher education. Jeffrey Kimpton grants that MENC and NASM are aware of the situation and have made at least some effort to address it over the past 20 years. He also suggests, however, that were still waiting for leadership from, and standing in, this organization [MENC], as well as recognition that there is a need for new models, sponsored research, or networks of colleges and districts, teachers and professors and students doing innovative work (Kimpton, 2005, p. 9). This fundamental question of leadership served as the focal point of the third breakout session following Kimptons keynote address at the 2004 Special Focus Session on Teacher Preparation. The group was charged with the following questions: What is the role of MENC, NASM, or other state or national professional organizations in providing leadership and support for new research and models? If not them, then who? The open forum included music teacher educators from throughout the nation, resulting in a lively and valuable brainstorming session. Suggestions covered the gamut from removing MENC from the process and having SMTE assume sole leadership to pushing for a permanent position in the MENC national office focused on teacher education issues and activities. All participants recognized the importance of facilitating the development of a more effective network that can share information related to innovative and effective curricular models, alternative licensing, and other current issues affecting music teacher education. Other significant discussion points focused on the importance of involving not only MENC but also the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) and The College Music Society (CMS). It is these three national organizations, in fact, that seem to be the primary players in the profession of music education. While a considerable number of content-specific and methodspecific organizations exist (e.g., ACDA, NBA, ASTA with NSOA, OAKE, AOSA), these three organizations are involved with the concerns of all music educators. As a result, they, along with SMTE, have the visibility, credibility, and potential authority to provide leadership and facilitate change in the area of music teacher education. Given this, it is perhaps wise to examine the selfproclaimed missions of each of these organizations before considering the roles each might play in addressing the critical issues at this crossroads of our profession.
Background and Mission of MENC, SMTE, NASM, and CMS

MENC: The National Association for Music Education. MENC was founded in 1907 as the Music Supervisors National Conference. The organization now boasts a membership of nearly 120,000 music educators throughout the United States and the European Union. Its stated mission is as follows: The mission of MENC: The National Association for Music Education is to advance music education by encouraging the study and making of music by all. (MENC, n.d.,a) As this mission statement indicates, the leadership of MENC views advocacy as a fundamental charge. MENC holds a biennial national conference in even-numbered years while each of the six regions hosts a conference in odd-numbered years. State organizations typically hold annual meetings as well. Further information about MENC can be found at http://www.menc.org SMTE: The Society for Music Teacher Education. SMTE functions under the auspices of MENC. Membership in SMTE is automatic for those members of MENC who are collegiate music teacher educators. At present there is no formal articulation between MENC and SMTE as indicated on the official MENC Organizational Chart (MENC, n.d.,b). Rather, the three societies associated with MENC are connected with each other but unconnected to the MENC leadership. This is interesting given the formal connections indicated for a variety of other affiliated organizations, including instrument-specific associations and a professional fraternity. Nevertheless, SMTE is clearly part of the MENC organization. The present mission statement for SMTE is as follows: The Society for Music Teacher Educations (SMTE) primary function is to improve the quality of teaching and research in music teacher education. Equally important are its efforts to provide leadership in the establishment of standards for certification of music teachers and to serve as an arm of MENC to influence developments in music teacher education and certification. (Van Rysselberghe, 1998, p. 3) NASM: The National Association for Schools of Music. NASM, founded in 1924, is an association of approximately 600 schools of music, primarily at the collegiate level but also including precollegiate and community schools of music. It is the national accrediting agency for music and music-related disciplines (NASM, n.d.,a). The present purpose statement for NASM is as follows: The National Association of Schools of Music was founded in 1924 for the
purpose of securing a better understanding among institutions of higher education engaged in work in music; of establishing a more uniform method of granting credit; and of developing and maintaining basic, threshold standards for the granting of degrees and other credentials.(NASM, n.d.,b) As a result of NASMs accreditation function, it has tremendous power and authority over music curricula in higher education. NASMs Web site is at http://nasm.arts-accredit.org/index.jsp. CMS: The College Music Society. The College Music Society is a consortium of college, conservatory, university, and independent musicians and scholars interested in all disciplines of music. Its mission is to promote music teaching and learning, musical creativity and expression, research and dialogue, and diversity and interdisciplinary interaction (College Music Society, n.d.). CMS holds an annual national meeting and the 10 regional chapters host annual assemblies, as well. One of the unique aspects of CMS conferences is the breadth of presentations and performances, facilitating discussion across disciplinary lines within the field of music. The society maintains several different databases that include listings of international music organizations, organizations that offer support to the music field, companies within the music business and industry, and current festivals, competitions, events, and scholarships within the field of music. Clearly, CMS considers networking an important part of its mission. CMS can be found on the Web at http://www.music.org.
Recommended Roles for Facilitating Change

Each of these four organizations plays an important role in the music education profession, and each seems presently dedicated to rather unique tasks within the profession. Stated from a business management point of view, they each have a niche. It is worth noting that the unique roles represented by each organization are necessary functions if we are to accomplish significant change in the field of music teacher education. Consider that for any transformation to occur each of the following roles must be filled: leadership/vision, communication/ networking, public relations/advocacy, and implementation/assessment. A careful examination of the missions and current strengths of the four organizations appears to indicate that, for the purposes of facilitating positive change with respect to the recruitment, preparation, and retention of music educators, the roles might be designated as follows. Leadership/Vision: The Society for Music Teacher Education. SMTE members are on the front lines of music teacher education issues: they are the teacher educators who are involved in the recruiting and preparation of the nations music teachers; they are primary presenters of inservice sessions to practicing teachers at national, state, and local teacher conferences; they are the primary producers of current research on music teaching and learning. Simply stated, they, more than the members of any other group, understand the challenges and have the aggregate knowledge and experience to develop the solutions. As a result, SMTE must eagerly accept the
responsibility of developing the all-important vision and facilitating the cooperation and action of the other professional organizations to transform the vision into real change. Communication/Networking: The College Music Society. CMS includes members from all collegiate-level music disciplines and, as such, offers a vital forum for presentation and discussion of music teacher education issues that relate to recruitment and preparation of future music teachers. Studio and ensemble faculty play important and frequently primary roles in the recruitment of all music majors, including future teachers. Further, they guide the performanceskill development of aspiring educators. Music theorists and historians are intimately involved in the development of foundational musical knowledge and skills and have significant interest in and influence on college music curricula. These faculty members and others must come to recognize the reality and the corollary impacts of the music teacher shortage. Their support is crucial to the implementation of any significant changes in the academy. Public Relations/Advocacy: MENC: The National Association for Music Education. MENC is the most visible and connected organization of the four. Over the years, it has established relationships with a spectrum of professional musicians from classical to pop, politicians representing a variety of perspectives, and a broad range of businesses. Further, MENC serves as the de facto umbrella organization for the music education profession. Therefore, it is MENC that has the clout to spread the word once a coherent message has been developed. Implementation/Assessment: The National Association of Schools of Music. NASM accreditation standards are the most recognized and honored in the profession. Because NASM is involved in the assessment and accreditation of over 600 schools and departments of music, it must be involved if significant policy or curriculum changes are to be implemented in any meaningful way. If NASM determines that changes in the accreditation standards are worthy, it has the troops on the ground to ensure the implementation of and compliance with these new standards.
Conclusion
It seems that MENC, SMTE, CMS, and NASM might work extremely well together to accomplish a worthy goal if that goal can be clearly articulated and specific objectives can be identified and agreed upon. It is reasonable to conclude that each of these organizations is aware of the problem but waiting for clearer guidance, perhaps feeling unsure of which direction to go and what changes to make. Given that the pertinent issues are most observably music teacher education issues (although their roots may run deep and wide), it follows that SMTE is most appropriately positioned to provide informed leadership. In fact, SMTE must take the lead before it is too late. Where might we start (or, perhaps more accurately stated, start again)? That, of course, was the purpose of the Preconference Session at the 2004 MENC Convention and is the purpose of this issue of the Journal of Music Teacher Education. The other articles in the special
focus section of this issue provide a variety of important recommendations; some are new, while others are familiar and draw on previous research and publication. The crisis is not one of limited ideas but rather of collective action. SMTE must provide the leadership to initiate this collective action. Here are a few basic objectives that might serve as starting points. Few are new, and some are already in progress. Clarify the relationship between MENC and SMTE, formally recognizing SMTE as the arm of MENC responsible for issues in music teacher education and establishing clear links in the official organizational structure. The flow of any and all information to and from MENC related to music teacher education should be channeled through SMTE. Be more proactive and assertive, working to inform and recommend action plans to MENC, NASM, CMS, and other organizations as appropriate. Create formal connections with NASM and CMS, establishing a liaison on each national board to facilitate communication. Collect and effectively disseminate current research on topics related to music teacher recruitment, preparation, retention, and professional development. The dissemination must be much more visible than simply professional research and trade journals; the word must be spread in ways that reach professionals and the general public alike in an understandable manner with specific suggestions for action. This should include an SMTE Web site that is linked from the MENC site but managed independently, allowing for more appropriate and timely content and much more efficient updates. Encourage new research focused on evaluating the effectiveness of various music teacher education models as measured by the percentage of qualified graduates entering the profession, longevity in the field, etc. This should be done in cooperation with the Society for Research in Music Education and as a potential expansion of the present sponsored research project. Facilitate the sharing of innovative and effective music teacher education models, including traditional licensure and alternative licensure approaches. Sponsor state, regional, and national symposia that focus on developing and communicating recommended action plans to practicing music teacher educators and other appropriate constituents. This might include regular teleconference meetings of representatives from each of the four organizations boards. Develop and recommend to NASM revised policies and/or curriculum modifications that will positively impact the recruitment, preparation, and retention of music educators. While SMTE can and should take the lead, it cannot make profound changes alone. SMTE can push the agenda, however, helping MENC, NASM, and CMS to not only understand the significance of the problem but also work together to implement recommended solutions. SMTE can no longer wait for other organizations to lead; it must be proactive and assertive, convincing
others that action is required and enlisting each organization to take advantage of its unique niche to bring about the necessary change.
Acknowledgments
The following professionals contributed to the conference session and thus to this article. Bill Bauer Case Western Reserve University John Zschunke Rosemont Middle School (Minnesota) Maribeth Yoder-White Appalachian State University Dick Disharoon Pikesville High School (Maryland) Fran Page Meredith College John Taylor Friends University Ed Asmus University of MiamiCoral Gables Dale Bazan University of Northern Iowa Jenn Mishra University of Northern Iowa Kim Walls Auburn University Randi LHommedieu Central Michigan University Cecilia Wang University of Kentucky Nancy Barry University of Oklahoma Roger Rideout University of MassachusettsAmherst Darlene Fett University of South Dakota Don Crowe South Dakota State University Connie McKoy University of North Carolina at Greensboro Paul K. Garrison Southwest Missouri State University George DeGraffenreid California State University at Fresno Norma McClellan Southwest Missouri State University Victor Fung Bowling Green State University Margaret Schmidt Arizona State University Mark Campbell Crane School of Music Linda Thompson University of Minnesota Glenn Nierman University of NebraskaLincoln Ed Duling University of Toledo Liz Wing CCM, University of Cincinnati David Brinkman University of Wyoming, Session facilitator Don Ester Ball State University, Session facilitator
References
College Music Society. (2004). About The College Music Society. Retrieved October 18, 2004, from http://www.music.org
Kimpton, J. (2005). What to do about music teacher education: Our profession at a crossroads. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 14(2), 821. MENC: The National Association for Music Education. (n.d.a). Mission statement. Retrieved October 18, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/information/mission.htm MENC: The National Association for Music Education. (n.d.b). Organizational chart. Retrieved October 18, 2004, from http://www.menc.org/guides/menctour/orgchart.pdf National Association of Schools of Music. (n.d.a). About NASM. Retrieved October 18, 2004, from http://nasm.arts-accredit.org/index.jsp?page=About+NASM National Association of Schools of Music. (n.d.b). Purposes. Retrieved October 18, 2004, from http://nasm.arts-accredit.org/index.jsp?page=Purposes Van Rysselberghe, M. (1998). Generating excellence. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 7(2), 3.
Editors Commentary Assumptions

William E. Fredrickson
Editor, Journal of Music Teacher Education Sometimes I worry about the assumptions we make. I dont necessarily mean the formal assumptions that we put in research articles, theses, and dissertations, although sometimes I do worry about whether or not some of those stretch our credibility as researchers. I worry more about some of the assumptions we make as a profession, or a subgroup of a profession, about who we are and what we do. The buzzwords in business (and sometimes higher education), like silo mentality, that are popular today seem to be the latest manifestation of something that has been with us for a long time. I see it as the natural tendency of human beings to want to neatly compartmentalize things. One might think that in society today the opposite is trueespecially when we see so many opportunities springing up in daily life or touted through popular culture focused on helping us become better organized. There are television shows about how to be better at putting our stuff away into closets, cupboards, and oversized armoires (and buying lots of gadgets to help us do it). There are entire retail store chains built upon the premise that we need more help organizing our lives (and buying lots of gadgets to help us do it). Finally there are folks who are recommending that we get various portions of our lives, from our daily schedule to our financial future, organized in a more productive way (and offering to sell us their services to help us do it). The impression is that the fast pace of daily life is such that the fabric of society is unraveling at the edges and there is great need to restore order. I tend to think that the hectic nature of our daily lives actually pushes us to seek out the familiarity of order and structure. Whether or not we need structure has to do with our individual tolerance for ambiguity and probably varies by situation. For example, ambiguity in our professional lives may prompt us to feel the need for more structure at home. Those things out of our control can swirl so violently as to make us yearn for stability in some way. The downside of this might be that the ebb and flow of uncontrollable events may push us to eschew changing the way we look at something so that we can maintain that delicate balance of our lives. In spite of that, and probably against my own better judgment, I have what appears to be a popular assumption that I am working to try to get some of my colleagues at home and around the country to reconsider. I believe that for the majority of musicians, music education means teaching music to students in K12 settings, primarily in fairly large groups, or the training of musicians who are focused on those activities. I think the same is true of the phrases music teacher preparation, teaching music, and music teacher. Then by extension research related to music education,
music teacher preparation, teaching music, and music teachers often tends to be the same thing. The good news is that I do not think this is universally true. I just completed a review of literature for a paper related to college music performance majors preparation for teaching music in one-on-one settings. In the United States the popular terms for this activity include studio teaching and applied music. (I felt the need to qualify that statement with a country of origin, since I discovered that in the United Kingdom the same thing is routinely referred to as vocal or instrumental tuition, which serves to exclude material in online searches when your keywords are exclusively American.) But while I found many interesting journal articles, it seems to me that the extant research related to systematic inquiry and discovery in this area is a much smaller body or work than the research dedicated to the traditional definitions that combine the words music and education. Ive been thinking about our assumptions related to this topic for some time. When I was an undergraduate music education major, I studied my primary performance instrument with a wonderful teacher. I qualified for and played my senior recital early enough in the whole process that I had an extra semester of lessons coming to me before graduation. My teacher offered to do a weekly topic approach in which he and I would decide on a series of topics and then spend the semester working through the issues, many of which involved teaching the instrument. It was a great way to spend a semester of lessons. But one day I happened to mention that we had not spent any time in my memory talking about vibrato. His response was that it hadnt come up because my vibrato was fine. To which I replied that I wanted to know more about how he taught vibrato to a student who had difficulty with the concept. He proceeded to give me a very detailed lesson in teaching vibrato. Since that time, I have been interested in how we teach musicians to teach in the private studio. Sandwiched between my bachelors and doctoral degrees in music education I did a masters degree in performance. My teacher for that degree was also a wonderful teacher. He always had a topic of the week for the studio, such as embouchure or tonguing, and everyone in the studio worked on that topic for some portion of the lesson and in studio class. For some it was about simply having a good embouchure or being able to tongue well, for me as a graduate student the lessons were also about teaching the concepts to others. Some would suggest, and I would not necessarily argue, that the apprenticeship model we use for becoming applied teachers works just fine. It might be too big an assumption to say we couldnt do better and that research need not play a role. I also think it might be an inappropriate assumption when we say that the research in this area is not related to music education, music teacher preparation, teaching music, and becoming a music teacher. In his role as chair of music education for the College Music Society, Victor Fung recently wrote in the societys newsletter about Music Teaching as a Component of Musicianship.
Victor suggested that we in higher education consider skills in music teaching be included in the training of musicians early on, just like the orthodox musicianship skills. He goes on to say that all musicians should view music teaching as a requisite proficiency, just like analyzing, composing, playing, and critiquing music. I think this is an important step toward overcoming some of the assumptions that are still a part of the way we confine ourselves to the many little boxes that so comfortably make up most music departments and schools of music. For my part I am doing two things. The first was to devise a graduate course. Our graduate students have always had access to pedagogy classes, but they were primarily focused on the very specific pedagogy of a particular instrument. I developed a class that looks at teaching in more general terms. The course description reads, An overview of basic pedagogical practice including modes of instruction, feedback, reinforcement, and assessment. Students will review current literature in this area and develop a project related to their own teaching. Prerequisite: none. Ive had a great deal of fun teaching this class, and it is a tribute to my colleagues flexibility that they allowed one of the music education guys to teach a class with the word pedagogy in the title. The other thing I would like to do is state publicly, in this official forum, that I think research related to applied music instruction is appropriate for submission to the Journal of Music Teacher Education. That has been true for some time in the pages of important journals such as Journal of Research in Music Education, UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education, and Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education. So if you or one of your colleagues is doing a project related to teaching music in the studio setting, I invite you not to assume that I would not be interested just because I am a music education faculty member or that JMTE would not consider a well-written piece of scholarship because it does not apply to groups of students in a K12 setting. One of my personal goals is to continue to develop a tolerance for ambiguity in my silo.
An Analysis of Certification Practices for Music Educators in the Fifty States

By Michele Henry
Michele Henry is assistant professor of choral education at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. Bruner (1977) observed that Americans are a changing people; their geographical mobility makes imperative some degree of uniformity among high school and primary schools. Yet the diversity of American communities and of American life in general makes equally imperative some degree of variety (p. 9). These observations also pertain to teacher credentialing practices in the United States. A mobile society will see not only students relocating from state to state, but teachers as well. While uniform teacher certification procedures, as called for by the Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession (1986), the Holmes Group (1986), and Gallegos (1978), may seem accommodating to teachers, the diversity of school settings and student populations among the states necessitates variety in certification practices. Each state determines its own standards for certifying teachers. Consequently, certification practices among states vary significantly. Differences in standards appear even more varied when looking at a single certification area, such as music. For those involved in music teacher education, knowledge of the various certification practices is an important tool in providing quality, relevant preparation for future music educators. While it is expected that those involved with music educator training be familiar with certification practices for the state in which their college or university is located, an awareness of requirements in other states is also valuable, particularly for private schools and programs serving a large number of out-of-state students. Knowledge of certification practices can shape assignments and activities within methods courses. While students planning to reside and teach in the same state as the college or university may use state goals and standards when planning lessons and identifying lesson objectives, students planning to teach in other states may benefit from citing standards or criteria from other states or the National Standards for Music Education (Coalition of National Arts Education Asoociations, 1994). In addition, those serving as advisors to students can offer accurate and helpful information to students interested in teaching in other states, particularly in terms of testing and additional course requirements.
Previous Reviews of Certification Practices

In 1972, Wolfe compiled a detailed account of state certification practices for music educators. Erbes (1983) replicated this study, noting the changes that had occurred during the preceding decade. Among the changes in certification that had transpired since the 1972 report
was a decrease in the number of states offering K12 certification in music. While many states continued to grant an all-encompassing license for teaching music at any grade level, other states had begun to issue individual certifications for various grade-level groupings. Additionally, thirteen states implemented some form of required testing for certification in 1983, an increase of ten states from the 1972 study. In a subsequent report, Erbes (1987) identified 29 states that required testing to receive initial certification, with 13 of the states requiring testing of music content knowledge. Erbes (1984) also reported a decline in the number of states offering life certification, which coincided with the development of state-mandated continuing education programs and advanced certification requirements. Rowls and Hanes (1982) identified 27 states requiring recertification for teachers. Nine states reported no recertification requirements, either renewing certificates automatically after a requisite number of teaching years or issuing lifetime certification. In his 1987 article, Erbes cited the development of alternate routes to teacher certification, primarily due to declining numbers in the profession. In 2001, Berry identified 41 states offering alternate certification; 14 of these developed their alternative certification requirements from 1999 to 2001. Although these programs have many advocates (Finn & Madigan, 2001), there are also vocal opponents to the idea of so-called shortcuts to teacher certification (Berry, 2000; Etheridge, 20002001). Regardless of ones opinion on the relative merits of such programs, their increasing commonality has tremendous implications for music education and teacher training at large. Access to state teacher certification information is an important necessity for hundreds of thousands of educators each year. While increasing access to information concerning teacher certification is available through Web sites, phone, e-mail, and postal correspondence, a comparison of practices among states still remains very difficult and time-consuming.
Method
The purpose of this study was to compile relevant information for music educators about the certification practices of each state in the United States as of fall 2001 and to examine the commonalities and differences among the states policies. While the results of such an analysis may reveal trends in certification procedures, it was not the intention of this study to recommend particular certification structures or requirements. Although states terms for their teaching credentials varythe use of certificate, license, and credential are not interchangeable in many statesfor the purposes of clarity in this study, the terms certificate and certification are used to designate the legally sanctioned document permitting employment in education, regardless of the term designated by each state.
Research Questions
This study sought to provide information concerning certification of music educators in each of the fifty states. In order to gather comparable information, answers to the following questions were sought for each state: (a) What content areas are included under certification in music teaching? (b) What are the age-level designations for certification in music teaching? (c) How recent are the current certification practices in the state? (d) What tests, if any, are required for certification in music teaching? (e) Does the state have reciprocity for certification with any other states? (f) What are the types of certificates available and length of validity for the various certificates? (g) Is there an alternative certification program available for those without education degrees? (h) What fees, if any, are required for certification in the state? (I) Are application forms and instructions available online? A further goal of this study was to provide an overall analysis of the certification practices identified through the data-gathering process. After gathering the above information for each jurisdiction, the following questions were considered: (a) Is there a trend among the various states regarding age-level designations and/or content areas? (b) Is there a trend among the various states regarding levels of certification and/or length of certificate validity? (c) Is there a trend among the various states in requiring certain kinds of tests for certification? (d) What is the level of cooperation among the states in acknowledging teaching certification from other states (reciprocity)? (e) Is there a trend among the various states regarding alternative certification? (f) What is the range of certification fees among the various states? (g) How accessible is information concerning certification in each of the states? Data collection procedures. Data for the current analysis was gathered using a variety ofmeans. Initially an online search engine was used to find a listing of state departments of education (or comparable agencies). Using the links identified by the search engine, Web sites for the appropriate credentialing agencies in all 50 states were found. Therefore, data concerning each question was gathered initially using only information provided through these Web sites. After obtaining all information available online, each of the agencies was contacted by phone. All data found online was verified by an official representative of the state credentialing agency. At this time, a request was made for any information needed for the study not found on the states certification Web site.
Results
Information obtained in response to the initial series of research questions is reported in Table 1. Information for each state is treated individually. Data reported in Table 1 is paraphrased for the sake of clarity and brevity, but information provided in the table is an accurate reflection of the actual information gained through specified data-collection procedures.
Age-level and subject area. Forty-three states offer all-level certification for music teachers. The lowest age range included in all-level certification varies from preschool (or nursery), kindergarten, or first grade among states. Twenty-nine states offer only all-level certification in music. Of the 21 states that provide restricted age-level certification, all but four states offer music certification separately at the elementary level. The grade levels included in the elementary range vary, but they include combinations from preschool through ninth grade, with K6 and K8 being the most common. Twenty of the 21 age-restricted certification states offer music teaching at the secondary level as an option. Only Alabama specifies an elementary-only music teaching credential without also offering a secondary-only music credential. Two states have designations specifically geared toward middle school, although many states have overlapping certification ranges that include middle school with either elementary certification or secondary certification (see Figure 1). Thirty-one states consider music a single subject area for certification purposes. Five additional states offer a composite certification for all music areas. Fifteen states differentiate between vocal and instrumental music for certification purposes. In most of these states, either certificate enables teaching of general or classroom music. Three states separate certification between vocal, instrumental, and general music. Finally, South Carolina has certification areas for choral, instrumental, piano, violin, and voice. The age ranges and subject areas for music certification vary greatly among the states. Nineteen states offer only one certification for music, encompassing all grades and disciplines within music. States such as Kentucky explain their rationale behind broader certification as an attempt to reduce and streamline the credential system to allow greater flexibility in staffing local schools while maintaining standards for teach competence (KRS 161.028[g]). These broader certifications also imply more responsibility for schools at the local level. In contrast to states offering broad credentials for music teaching, other states have chosen to segment their credentials to reflect specific age levels or disciplines. The developmental levels, for licensing purposes, need a P12 connection and should respect school configurations at the local level, while ensuring that educators will be thoroughly prepared for the developmental level which they will teach (www.in.gov/psb/licensing). States such as Indiana also separate music teaching licensure into vocal/general and instrumental/general. The standards clearly define each of the fine arts as a discrete discipline (www.in.gov/psb/licensing). Although manifesting itself in very different forms, the motivation when constructing their credentialing categories seems to place an emphasis on local control and appropriate matches for educators and classrooms. Levels of certification and certificate length. Thirty-four states require some type of provisional certification for entry-level teachers. Some states also use this initial certification document for out-of-state teachers with deficiencies to address before full certification is
granted. Sixteen states do not distinguish between levels of certification, using only a single credentialing designation. The validity length of initial certificates varies from two years to six years. The validity length for standard certificates varies from three years to lifetime certification. Currently, only five states grant lifetime certification. The perceptible trend in certificate structure is toward encouraging continuing education for teachers by requiring certificate renewal. Many states indicated a departure from previous structures that included lifetime certification, although teachers with lifetime certification under previous structures do not have to apply for renewal certificates. Many states have also instituted mentor or entry-year programs for beginning teachers, mandating satisfaction of these requirements before full certification status is granted. In almost all states with a tiered certification structure, some type of continuing education is required. Several states offer advanced certification for teachers who have earned graduate degrees. Still other states, including Massachusetts and Oregon, specify the attainment of a graduate degree in order to have a teaching certificate renewed. Testing requirements. Currently, seven states require no standardized test for certification. The remaining 43 states utilize a combination of basic skills and general knowledge, professional teaching knowledge, and content area knowledge tests, assessed through a variety of national and state-administered examinations in basic skills, professional knowledge, and content knowledge (see Figure 2). Of these 43 states, eleven assess applicants in all three areas. Eighteen states require two tests, either in basic skills and professional knowledge (1), basic skills and content area (9), or professional knowledge and content area (8). Fourteen states use a single test in basic skills (8), professional knowledge (2), or content area (4). Of the standardized tests that are used for certification, the PRAXIS series exams (Educational Testing Service, 2001) are by far the most frequent, used by 21 states. There are also 15 state-administered tests, from 11 different states, that were identified in this study (see Table 2). Several states also have additional requirements such as course work in state and national constitution, Native American studies, or human relations. Most of these requirements are not waived for out-of-state applicants. The concept of assessing qualification for teaching through standardized testing is firmly established in the requirements set forth by state certification agencies. Of the seven states currently without testing requirements, three indicated plans to implement testing requirements within the next two years. While some testing is considered necessary by almost every state, the type of tests employed by these states varies greatly. The most frequently used tests are content area tests. Many states that do not require basic skills tests rely on the colleges and universities to determine basic skill levels before admitting students into teacher preparation programs. Reciprocity. Most states offer some level of reciprocity for individuals desiring certification
who hold valid teaching credentials in other states. Forty-five states claim some kind of reciprocity with other states, but the level of cooperation among these states is not at all similar. Seven states claim a nonrestrictive or enhanced reciprocity, in which no additional qualifications are required to obtain certification with a valid out-of-state certificate. Conversely, five states acknowledge having no reciprocity of any kind. Individuals seeking certification in these states must submit their full credentials and fulfill all requirements in the new state to obtain certification. In its strictest sense, reciprocity applies only to the mutual acknowledgment of regionally accredited education programs. It does not exempt applicants from additional requirements such as testing or specialized course work specified by the new state. Often, states issue a temporary credential to out-of-state teachers, allowing them time to complete these requirements during this probationary period. In many of these states, experienced teachers can be exempted from testing requirements with a minimum number of service years. In most cases, out-of-state teachers are not exempted from course work requirements. Almost all states make exceptions for national board certified teachers, offering this elite group automatic certification. Alternate certification programs. Thirty-nine states currently accommodate individuals who desire teaching certification but have non-education baccalaureate degrees by providing an alternative route to certification. The structure of these programs varies greatly. Some require that all education course work be completed prior to teaching, while others allow for certification training while individuals are employed as autonomous teachers. These programs are typically accelerated to allow completion in one or two years. Eleven states do not provide any alternative routes to certification beyond completing approved traditional education programs. Alternate certificate programs are a relatively new addition to the certification landscape. In many cases, these programs were developed to address growing teacher shortages. In some states, such as Washington and Delaware, these programs are available only in certain subject areas. Other states actively encourage individuals to consider teaching as a second career. Fee structures. Fees assessed during the application process vary greatly among states. North Dakota assesses a $25.00 fee to obtain application materials, and it is the only state to do so. Some states assess fees for evaluation of materials. Others charge an application fee regardless of the success of the applicant in obtaining certification. Most fees are for the actual certification document. While the majority of states assess a flat fee for the certificate, some base their fee on the number of certification areas or grade levels requested. Others charge by the number of years that certification will be granted. Fees for initial certification range from zero to $175.00. Four states charge no fee for certification services. Three additional states charge no fees for in-state applicants, while out-of-state applicants are assessed $10.00$25.00. Nine other states charge a different fee for in-state and out-of-state applicants. The fee amounts identified in Figure 3 are
those assessed to initial in-state applicants. Fees for certification renewal also vary greatly. Many states have identical charges for initial and renewal certificates, while others decrease the amount required for renewal. A few states increase the amount of renewal certificates, though the number of years of certification typically increases as well. Seventeen states require a fee for fingerprinting and background checks in addition to application or certificate fees. These fees range from $22.00 to $66.00. Accessibility. Finally, accessibility to certification information and materials also varies tremendously among the states. Thirty-six states have all application materials available to download and print. Ten states do not. Four states have online forms available only for renewal or supporting documents. While all states maintain certification Web sites, many are difficult to access, lack necessary information, or present information in a confusing or contradictory manner. Unfortunately, access to information by telephone is no less accommodating. The researcher spent approximately 27 hours on the phone trying to reach a live person at state certification offices to verify information.
Conclusions
Trends in music teacher certification detected by Wolfe (1972) and Erbes (1984, 1987) have continued into the 21st century. Over 40% of states offer multiple age-level certification; more than 66% of states have a tiered system for recertification; 43 states require some form of testing for certification. Questions regarding reciprocity, alternate certification programs, testing fees, and online availability of information highlight additional facets of the teacher certification process. State certification practices are as varied as the 50 states themselves. Specificity of age level and content area is dependent upon individual states needs for flexibility or matching desirability between teacher and classroom. More than two-thirds of states implement a tiered certification structure, in which teachers advance through levels of certification with added experience and continuing education. To encourage continuing education, most states have abandoned lifetime certificates. Testing of basic skills, professional knowledge, or content area knowledge is required in all but seven states. Most states acknowledge some level of reciprocity with other states, officially extending only to approved teacher preparation programs. Alternate routes to certification are available in approximately three-fourths of the states. Fees for certification also vary greatly. Certification charges range from zero to $175.00, with up to $66.00 in additional fees for fingerprinting in a limited number of states. Access to information is as varied as the information itself. Although increasingly available online, some information is not immediately accessible or downloadable. University or college education departments should be considered as viable options for obtaining certification information.
Like similar studies before it, information contained in the study will become outdated as states continue to refine certification policies and to consider other models for certification. Future research should include a periodic revisitation of state certification practices, in an effort to detect policy trends within individual states as well as overall certification trends. Because of the changing nature of certification standards, it is imperative for those involved in music education certification in any context to commit to an occasional review of current certification practices in their state. Knowledge of avenues for investigation of other states certification practices is also important, although not always of immediate significance. An understanding of issues involved in certifying teachers can provide insight into the development of teacher preparation program curricula, individual choices in educational preparation, and potential certification models for future consideration by state credentialing agencies. By providing access to this information and highlighting relevant issues in certification standards, this study is intended to ensure that music educators will not be intimidated by the certification process but will be encouraged to take ownership of the process.
References
Berry, B. (2001). No shortcuts to preparing good teachers. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 3236. Bruner, J. (1977). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. Hyattsville, MD: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1994). National standards for arts education. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Educational Testing Service. (2001). PRAXIS series: Professional assessments for beginning teachers. Princeton, NJ: Author. Erbes, R. (1983). Certification practices and trends in music teacher education. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Erbes, R. (1984). Entrance into the profession: The revolution in teacher certification. Music Educators Journal, 71(3), 3439. Erbes, R. (1987). A new era in teacher certification. Music Educators Journal, 73(6), 4246. Etheridge, E. (20002001). Alternative certification: A threat to quality. Childhood Education, 77(2), 94K. Finn, C., Jr. & Madigan, K. Removing the barriers for teacher candidates. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 2931, 40. Gallegos, A. (1978). A call for universal accreditation. Journal of Teacher Education, 29, 2427. Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrows teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Author. Rowls, M., & Hanes, M. (1982). Teacher recertification: The shift toward local control and governance. Journal of Teacher Education, 33(4), 2428. Wolfe, I. (1972). State certification of music teachers. Washington D.C.: Music Educators National Conference.
Table 1. Certification Practices for Music Educators in the 50 States

State Certificate Age Levels and Subject Areas K6, 19 General K12 Chorus K12 Band K6, K8, 712, K12 Music Levels and Length of Certification 5-year certificate Testing Requirements None Reciprocity Alternative Fees Degree Program $20 application $49 fingerprinting $90 certificate $66 fingerprinting Online Forms Yes
Alabama
Yes, for comparable Yes certificates Yes; 3-year certificate issued while testing and course work is completed Yes; 1-year certificate issued while testing and course work is completed Yes; Exams can be waived with equivalent tests Yes
Alaska
5-year Type A
PPST or CBT Alaskan Studies Course Multicultural education AEPA (professional and content area) U.S. and Arizona constitution PRAXIS I (basic skills) PLT (professional) PRAXIS II (content area)
Yes
Arizona
K6, 712 Music All-level endorsement available PreK-8, 7-12 Vocal PreK-8, 7-12 Instrumental PreK12 Music
2-year Provisional 6-year Standard
Yes, but not $30 certificate available $20 renewal
Yes
Arkansas
3-year Initial 5-year License
Yes
$39 fingerprinting
Yes
California
5-year Preliminary 5-year Professional Clear 3-year Provisional 5-year Professional 3-year Initial 8-year Provisional 5-year Professional
CBEST (basic skills) No; CBEST is PRAXIS II (content required; subject area) area waived w/ 3+ years experience PLACE (content area) CBT (basic skills) PRAXIS II (content area) Yes; Exam waived w/ 3+ years experience Yes, but exams are required
Yes
$55 credential $56 fingerprinting
Yes
Colorado
K12 Music
Yes
$48 license $36 fingerprinting $50 application $100 Initial ($50 credit) $200 Provisional $300 Professional No charge in-state $10 out-of-state $56 per subject
Yes (10/01) Suppor t Materi als Yes Yes
Connecticut
PreK12 Music
Yes
Delaware Florida
K8, 512, K12 Music K12 Music
5-year Standard 5-year Professional 5-year Professional
PPST or CBT
Yes, but requires testing
No Yes
CLAST (basic skills) Yes; Exams can be FPET (professional) waived with FSAE (content equivalent tests area)
Georgia
PreK12 Music
1-year Conditional (out- PPST or CBT (basic Yes; Other state Yes of-state) skills) content exams 5-year Clear Renewable PRAXIS II (content accepted if required area) 5-year Provisional PPST or CBT (basic Yes, but testing is skills) required PLT (professional) PRAXIS II (content area) None ILCTS (basic skills and content area) Yes, within the last 5 years Yes, but test is required Yes
No charge in-state $20 out-of-state
Yes
Hawaii
K6, 712, K12 Music
No charge
Yes
Idaho Illinois
612, K12 Music K-9, K12 Music 512 Vocal 512 Instrumental Vocal/General or Instrumental/ General available for: Preschool/Element ary Primary/Elementar y Intermediate Middle School/Jr High High School K8, 712 Music
5-year Standard Secondary 4-year Initial 5-year Standard 5-year Initial Practitioner 10-year Proficient Practitioner 5-year Accomplished Practitioner
Yes Yes
$35 application $40 fingerprinting $30 certificate
Yes Yes
Indiana
PPST or CBT (basic No; Full review of skills) credentials is PRAXIS II (content required area)
Yes
$5 for each school setting
Yes
Iowa
2-year Initial 5-year Standard
PLT (professional) PRAXIS II (content area) PLT (professional)
Yes; 2-year regional No exchange license
$50 transcript evaluation $50 license $37 fingerprinting $24 application
Yes
Kansas
712, K12 Music
3-year Standard 5-year Standard 5-year Statement of Eligibility 5-year Provisional
Yes; Valid out-ofstate receives a 2year license Yes; Exam waived w/ 2+ years experience
Yes
No
Kentucky
K12 Music
PLT (professional) PRAXIS II (content area)
Yes
$35 Statement fee $50 Provisional
No
State
Certificate Age Levels and Subject Areas 112 Vocal 112 Instrumental
Levels and Length of Certification 3-year Type C Lifetime Type B Lifetime Type A 2-year Provisional 5-year Professional 3-year Standard I 7-year Standard II 5-year Advanced 5-year Provisional w/ Adv. Standing 5-year Standard (masters required)
Testing Requirements CBT (basic skills) PLT (professional) PRAXIS II (content area)
Reciprocity
Alternative Fees Degree Program $55 certificate
Online Forms Yes
Louisiana
3-year provisional Yes while PRAXIS testing is completed No Yes
Maine Maryland
K12 Music Nursery12 Music
PPST or CBT (basic Yes skills) PPST or CBT (basic Yes; PPST waived skills) w/ 3+ years PRAXIS II (content experience area) MET (basic skills and content area) Yes, but test is required; 3-year certificate issued while deficiencies are met
$50 certificate $10 certificate
No No
Massachusett s
PreK-9 Vocal, Instrumental, or Composite 5-12 Vocal, Instrumental, or Composite K5, K8, 712 Music
No
$100 for first certificate $25 for endorsement (for all level music) $175 provisional $125 professional
Yes
Michigan
6-year Provisional 5-year Professional
MTTC (basic skills, professional, content area if secondary)
Yes; Testing is Yes required but full certification may exempt from testing No
Yes
Minnesota
K12 Vocal/Class 5-year Professional K12 Instrumental/Class
PPST or CBT (basic No skills) PLT (professional) PRAXIS II (content area) Human Relations Program PLT (professional) PRAXIS II (content area) PRAXIS II (content area) Yes; 2+ years experience Full; -2 years Special Not full; Testing is required unless 2+ years experience with other content area test
$47 application $26 fingerprinting
Yes
Mississippi
K12 Vocal 5-year Class A K12 Instrumental 5-year Class AA K12 Vocal 3-year PC I K12 Instrumental 7-year PC II endorsement 10-year CPC available K8, 512, 712, K12 Music
Yes but ending Yes
None
Yes
Missouri
No charge in-state $25 out-of-state $22 fingerprinting
Out-ofstate only
Montana
Provisional PPST or CBT (basic Yes; Other state 5-year Class 2 Standard skills) basic skills tests 5-year Class 1 accepted Professional 5-year Initial 7-year Standard 5-year Standard 6, 7, or 10-year Professional PPST or CBT (basic Yes; Other state skills) basic skills tests accepted
Yes
$6 initial application Yes $6 per year of certificate $45 certificate $40 fingerprinting $100 initial application Yes
Nebraska
K12 Music
No
Nevada
712 Choral 712 Instrumental 712, K12 Composite K12 Music
PPST or CBT (basic Yes; Requires No skills) courses in U.S. and PLT (professional) Nevada constitution PRAXIS II (content area) PPST or CBT (basic Yes; Other state skills) basic skills tests accepted PRAXIS II (content area) Yes; Test and 2.75 g.p.a. required Yes
Yes
New Hampshire
3-year Beginning Educator 3-year Experienced Educator Standard Lifetime
$80 beginning or renewal
Yes
New Jersey
Nursery12 Music
Yes
$10 Cert. of Eligibility $50 Lifetime Certificate $50 licensure $34 fingerprinting
No
New Mexico
K8, 712, K12 Music
3-year Level 1 9-year Level 2 9-year Level 3 w/ masters 5-year Provisional Lifetime Permanent 5-year Continuing
NMTA (basic skills and professional)
Yes; Other state basic skills and professional tests accepted Yes, but tests required Yes, but tests required
Yes
Yes
New York
PreK12 Music
NYSTCE (basic skills, professional, content area) PRAXIS II (content area)
Yes
$100 certification
Yes
North Carolina K12 Music North Dakota
Yes No
$85 processing $25 application packet $60 application $175 out-of-state review $42 fingerprinting
Yes Renew al forms
K12 Vocal 2-year Initial K12 Instrumental 5-year Professional K12 Composite
North Dakota Native All credentials must American Studies be submitted for Course review; Native American course is required
State
Certificate Age Levels and Subject Areas PreK12 Music
Levels and Length of Certification 2-year Provisional 5-year Professional
Testing Requirements PLT (professional) PRAXIS II (content area) OGET (basic skills) OPTE (professional) OSAT (content area)
Reciprocity
Alternative Fees Degree Program Yes $24 provisional $60 professional $50 out-of-state evaluation $30 certificate $10 out-of-state license $41 fingerprinting $60 in-state $90 out-of-state $42 fingerprinting
Online Forms No
Ohio
Yes; Tests may be required depending on original certification date
Oklahoma
PreK12 Vocal PreK12 Instrumental
Optional 1-year Provisional 5-year certificate
Yes; 1-year license Yes issued while OK tests are completed
Yes
Oregon
Early Child/Elementary, Middle/High School Music K12 Music
3-year Initial 5-year Continuing
PPST or CBT (basic Yes; Tests may be skills) waived with PRAXIS II (content experience area) PPST (basic skills) PLT (professional) PRAXIS II (content area) PLT (professional) PLT (professional) PRAXIS II (content area)
Yes
Yes
Pennsylvania
6-year Instructional I Permanent Instructional II available after 3 years 3-year Certificate
Yes, but all tests are Yes, but not $15 certificate required in use
Yes
Rhode Island
K12 Music
Yes; Enhanced Reciprocity Yes; Texts waived with 3 years experience
No Yes
$25 application $49 application
Yes Yes
3-year Initial South Carolina K12 Choral K12 Instrumental 5-year Professional K12 Piano K12 Violin K12 Voice South Dakota K12 Vocal 5-year Certificate K12 Instrumental K12 Composite K12 Vocal 5-year Apprentice K12 Instrumental 10-year Professional PreK12 Music 5-year Standard
Human Relations and South Dakota Indian Studies courses PLT (professional) PRAXIS II (content area) ExCET (professional and content area)
Yes, but human Yes relations and Indian courses are required Yes; Exemption from testing for experience Yes
$30 certificate $20 out-of-state review fee None
Yes
Tennessee
Yes
Texas
Yes; 1-year Yes certificate to complete testing for states w/o reciprocity Yes, with equivalent Yes course work
$75 in-state $175 out-of-state (1/1/02)
No
Utah
612, K12 Music
3-year Level I Basic None Type 5-year Level II Standard Type 2-year Beginning Level I PPST or CBT 7-year Professional Level II
$15 certificate $15 out-of-state filing $25 letter of eligibility $35 filing fee $35 per year of license
Renew al forms No
Vermont
K6, 712, K12 Music Out-of-state specific areas PreK12 Vocal PreK12 Instrumental PreK-12 General PreK-12 Choral PreK-12 Instrumental PreK-12 Music
Yes, but test is required
Yes
Virginia
5-year License
PPST or CBT (basic Yes; Testing waived Yes skills) with 2+ years PRAXIS II (content experience area) None Complete application is required Yes as intern
$50 in-state license Yes $75 out-of-state license $25 renewal fee $25 certificate $20 initial processing $59 fingerprinting $15 license $40 fingerprinting (1/1/02) Yes
Washington
5-year Residency 5-year Professional
West Virginia
3-year Provisional Professional 5-year Professional Permanent
PPST or CBT (basic Yes; 1-year license skills) to complete testing PLT (professional) PRAXIS II (content area) PPST or CBT (basic skills) Native American Tribes course None U.S. and Wyoming Constitution course Accepts other states basic skills tests; 2-year to complete Native Am. course Yes, but may have renewal requirements
No
No
Wisconsin
K6, 712, K12 5-year Initial General 5-year Renewal 712 Choral K12 Instrumental K6, 58, 712, K12 Vocal/General, Instrumental, or Composite 5-year Standard
No
$100 in-state license $150 out-of-state license $125 evaluation $45 fingerprinting
No
Wyoming
Yes
Yes
Figure 1. Certification Age Levels for Music
35 30 Number of States 25 20 15 10 5 0 1-9 1-12 5-8 5-12 6-12 PreK-12 PreK-9 K-12 7-12 K-5 K-6 K-8 K-9
All-Level
Elementary
Secondary
Figure 2. Types of Required Tests for Certification
35 30 Number of States 25 20 15 10 5 0 Basic Professional Content None Testing Area
Table 2. State-Administered Certification Tests and Their Categorization

Test category State Test name Basic skills Professional Content area
AZ CA CO
Arizona Educator Proficiency Assessment California Basic Educational Skills Test Program for Licensure Assessment for Colorado Educators College Level Academic Skills Test Florida Professional Educators Test Florida Subject Area Examination X X
FL
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
IL MA MI NM NY
Illinois Certification Testing System Massachusetts Educator Tests Michigan Test for Teacher Certification New Mexico Teacher Assessments New York State Teacher Certification Examinations Oklahoma General Education Test Oklahoma Professional Teacher Examination Oklahoma Subject Area Tests
OK
X X X X X
TX
Examination for the Certification of Educators in Texas
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
$180.00
$200.00
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
Figure 3. Certification Fee for In-State Applicants
$0.00
State
A rk D ans el as aw G are eo rg H ia M awa iss ii iss M ipp is i Te sou nn ri es s In ee d M ian Pe ary a nn la sy nd lv an ia W es t V Uta irg h A inia la ba m K a an sa s Rh od Oh e io W Isla as nd hi n D gto el n aw G are eo rg H ia M aw iss ai iss i M ippi iss Te ou nn ri e N ssee eb M ras in ka ne So Co sota ut lo h Ca rado ro K lina en tu ck y N Ma ew in N Je e ew rs M ey ex V ico ir Ca gin lif ia o Lo rni ui a sia n Fl a or i O da re N go ew T n N Ham exa or s th psh C N ar ire or ol th in D a ak ot a Co Al nn ask ec a tic ut M as Io sa w ch a us e N tts e N vad ew a W Yo isc rk on V sin er W mon yo t M min ic g hi ga n
The Effects of Field Experience on Music Education Majors Perceptions of Music Instruction for Secondary Students with Special Needs
By Kimberly VanWeelden and Jennifer Whipple
Kimberly VanWeelden is assistant professor of choral music education in the College of Music at The Florida State University in Tallahassee. Jennifer Whipple is a policy analyst in the Florida Legislatures Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. Teacher academic preparation is a key component of the successful inclusion of students with special needs in music classes. Music educators have expressed the feeling of being inadequately prepared to address the needs of special learners (Atterbury, 1986; Frisque, Niebur, & Humphreys, 1994; Gfeller, Darrow, & Hedden, 1990; Gilbert & Asmus, 1981; Sideridis & Chandler, 1995). Specifically, developing classroom management techniques (Hawkins, 1992), acquiring new skills and competencies to adapt instruction (Sideridis & Chandler, 1995), and creating a successful learning environment for all students (Gfeller, Darrow, & Hedden, 1990) are among the concerns music teachers have about their preparation when including special learners in their classrooms. These concerns have become the impetus for greater training within music education undergraduate curricula so as to prepare preservice teachers to meet the current challenges of the profession. Research examining institutions offering undergraduate degrees in music education have found many requiring course work to prepare students to work with special learners (Colwell & Thompson, 2000; Heller, 1995; Schmidt, 1989). For example, Colwell and Thompson (2000) randomly selected one Research Category I, one state-funded regional, and one private institution from each state as well as all institutions that offered a degree in music therapy, creating a total of 171 schools, to examine for the study. Results found 140 courses within these institutions available for music education majors (74%), with 30 containing content that was music specific and 110 made up of non-music specific content. While these results indicate that the majority of colleges and universities include mainstreaming course work within the curriculum, the authors recommend further investigation of the nature of this course work, including field-based experiences (Colwell & Thompson, 2000). To date, little research investigating field experiences for preservice music educators in working with students with special needs has been conducted. In a study closely related to the current paper, Kaiser and Johnson (2000) examined the effect of an interactive experience on music majors perceptions of music for students who are deaf. A pretest questionnaire was administered to all participants, followed by a 30-minute description of the experience and a
one-time interaction with the students. The interaction contained a performance by the university students; visual-tactile demonstrations of sound vibrations and pitch; and opportunities for the children to feel, play, and conduct the instruments. At the conclusion of the study, a posttest was administered for comparison analysis. Results revealed positive increases in music majors perceptions of music for students who are deaf and their preparedness to work with these children in music settings. The Kaiser and Johnson study gave music education and performance majors an experience interacting with students with special needs. However, the music majors were not given the opportunity to work with the children more than once or to practice planning and teaching the activities to the children. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to examine the effect of a long-term field experience, which included planning and teaching, on music education students perceptions of music for secondary students with special needs. Specifically, the study investigated music education students (a) personal comfort interacting with persons with physical, mental, and emotional disabilities; (b) perceptions of preparation in their educational training to work with students with special needs in music settings; (c) comfort working with students with special needs in music settings; (d) willingness to provide music for students with special needs; and (e) perceptions of behavior and learning of students with special needs.
Method
The subjects (N=28) were undergraduate music education majors at a large university enrolled during the fall (n=15) and spring (n=13) semesters in a course titled Teaching Secondary General Music. This course was a part of the undergraduate music education curriculum and included students specializing in choral, instrumental, or general music. The class consisted of 10 weeks of in-class instruction (which met Monday, Wednesday, and Friday every week) and 5 weeks of field-based secondary general music lab experience (working with secondary students with special needs on Monday and Friday) each semester. In-class Instruction. The in-class instruction included activities pertaining to various aspects of teaching general music within secondary schools. Specifically, five broad areas were covered: (1) microteaching, (2) music listening, (3) musical games, (4) issues within secondary schools, and (5) assessment and evaluation procedures. The first area gave all students the opportunity to practice planning and teaching to their peers song leading, Orff-Schulwerk instrumental orchestrations, world music and dance, and Western art-music lessons. The music listening assignment asked students to read three articles (Bibbins, 1998; Burns, 1995; Kerchner, 1996) and employ each technique to a set of music chosen by the teacher. The third area asked students to create a game that would teach a musical concept that was age appropriate for students in middle or high school. Articles related to a variety of issues when teaching in secondary schools,
including two about students with special needs (Darrow, 1998; Thompson, 1999), were read by students and discussed in class. The last area asked students to evaluate their teaching while watching videotapes of themselves during their microteaching lessons and to set individual teaching behavior goals to address for the next teaching assignment. Field-based Experience. The field-based secondary general music lab experience consisted of working with students with special needs at a local middle school. These students were primarily educated within a self-contained setting and were divided into two classrooms that were based upon the students disability(s). The first class consisted of students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders (EDBD) and the resulting academic delays that often accompany these disabilities. The second class contained students who exhibited acute cognitive delays (ACD), such as autism, Down syndrome, mental retardation, and extensive learning disabilities. Each classroom had 11 to 15 students and represented the same ages as all middle school children. The preservice music educators were divided into two groups: one to work with students in the EDBD classroom and the other to work with students in the ACD classroom. Both classes were taught during the same time but in separate locations. Therefore, it was necessary to divide the preservice teachers into two groups to facilitate the logistical constraints. Each class was supervised by one of the researchers. The division of the preservice teachers was based upon their gender and major emphasis (choral, instrumental, or general) so as to create roughly the same teacher demographics within each classroom. Teachers were further divided into teaching groups of three to four persons, creating two teaching groups per classroom, using the same demographics. All divisions were determined by the researchers prior to the field experience. Two secondary general music curricula, created by the researchers, were used as the foundation for the field-teaching experience: one for the fall semester and one for the spring semester. Both curricula contained the same types of activities found in the in-class portion of the course. Specifically, song leading, Orff instrumental orchestrations, world music and dance, Western Art music, music listening, and musical games were included. Because most of the students with special needs participated throughout the entire year, two curricula were needed to provide new variations of the activities for students. The only exceptions to this were the opening and closing songs that were sung by all students and preservice teachers during both semesters. The week immediately prior to the field experience was devoted to explaining the logistics of the field experience, dividing the undergraduates into teaching groups, discussing the curriculum, reading and discussing the special education articles, and giving the teaching groups time to plan and prepare for their first teaching experience. During the first week of the fieldbased experience, the preservice teachers introduced themselves, created name tags for each
student, sat interspersed with the students, and participated as teaching assistants as the researchers taught the lessons. The purpose of this first week was to give the preservice teachers time to acclimate to the experience and students without the additional responsibilities of teaching. Beginning in the second week, the teacher groups were given the responsibility of preparing and teaching all aspects of the lessons. Since there were two teaching groups per classroom, the groups alternated lesson responsibilities every other week. Each lesson contained four activities from the curriculum. This gave each member of one teaching group the opportunity to plan and lead the class during the lesson. Additionally, teachers were required to teach a different part of the curriculum every lesson. When groups were not actively involved in teaching the lesson they acted as teaching assistants to help students individually. During the last teaching experience for each group, teachers were given the responsibility of planning and preparing the lesson without guidelines provided by the researcher. Thus, at the end of the semester, each preservice teacher had taught four times in different general music curricular areas and assisted individual students with various musical tasks during 10 class periods. Classroom management techniques, consisting of rewards and consequences, were set by the researchers under the advisement of the special education teachers at the middle school. Students were rewarded individually for good behavior, participation, effort, and correct answers. Teachers were highly encouraged to reward students often throughout each lesson and were given the responsibility of determining what type of reward (verbal approval, sticker, pencil, or candy) and how the reward would be delivered (during an activity, between activities, or at the end of the lesson) to best meet the needs of the students while maintaining the greatest amount of lesson continuity. Likewise, students were individually given consequences if they became disruptive or disrespectful to their peers or teachers. Teachers were again responsible for determining what type of consequence (verbal disapproval, time-out, or no reward) and how the consequence would be delivered. Teaching assessments were conducted immediately following each lesson. All teachers from one classroom met with the supervising researcher to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the lesson taught. Individual teaching goals (i.e., talking slower, adjusting the teaching sequence) as well as teaching group goals (i.e., making better transitions from one activity to the next, keeping all students actively involved) were discussed and set. Teachers also met at the university every Wednesday during the experience with the researchers and their fellow classmates to discuss specific concerns and joys as well as plan and prepare for the next lesson. The Survey Instrument. The dependent variable was a survey made up of 17 questions regarding the students perceptions of music for secondary students with special needs, including
how prepared, comfortable, willing, and perceptive they were toward working with special learners. This questionnaire was fashioned after a similar survey instrument used by Kaiser and Johnson (2000) who investigated the effect of an interactive experience on music majors perceptions of music for students who are deaf. Prior to any in-class discussion relating to students with special needs or general music lab experience, each subject was asked to complete the pretest questionnaire. At the conclusion of the field experience, students were asked to complete the same questionnaire, creating a pretest-posttest design. All questions used a fivepoint Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree to ensure that all participants interpreted the rating scale in the same direction. Questions are listed in Figure 1.
Results
To begin the analysis process, questions were grouped according to the following categories: general interactions (questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5); preparation (questions 6, 7, 8); comfort (questions 9, 10, and 11); willingness (questions 12, 13, and 14); and perceptions (questions 15, 16, and 17). One-way ANOVAs using pretest and posttest scores for each grouping were completed. The preservice teachers scores significantly increased within the categories of general interactions (F{28,1}6.19, p = .016) from pretest (M = 15.07, SD = 3.10) to posttest (M = 16.78, SD =1.73); preparation (F{28,1}18.46, p = .001) from pretest (M = 9.89, SD = 2.42) to posttest (M = 12.29, SD = 1.67); and comfort (F{28,1}11.47, p = .001) from pretest (M = 10.79, SD = 2.21) to posttest (M = 12.64, SD = 1.87). Significant increases were also found when all categories, creating overall pretest (M = 65.36, SD = 9.23) and posttest (M = 71.52, SD = 5.74) scores, were combined (F{28,1}8.75, p = .005). One-way ANOVAs comparing pretest and posttest scores for each classroom assignment, EDBD or ACD, by category were completed to determine whether differences existed. The results found the EDBD teachers scores significantly increased in the categories of preparation (F{14,1}20.11, p = .001) from pretest (M = 9.14, SD = 0.54) to posttest (M = 12.69, SD = 0.56) and comfort (F{14,1}14.63, p = .001) from pretest (M = 10.14, SD = 0.54) to posttest (M = 13.00, SD = 0.56), as well as for all categories combined (F{14,1}8.61, p = .007) from pretest (M = 62.57, SD = 2.02) to posttest (M = 71.30, SD = 2.10). The ACD teachers scores increased in the categories of general interactions, preparations, comfort, and all categories combined, though not significantly. Several questions on the survey asked preservice teachers about working with secondary students with special needs in different music settings. These included secondary general music class (questions 5, 6, 9, and 12); performance ensemble (questions 5, 7, 10, and 13); and private studio (questions 5, 8, and 11). Comparative analyses of the teachers pretest and posttest scores for each setting were completed. One-way ANOVAs revealed significant increases in preservice
Figure 1. Survey Instrument Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. I am comfortable interacting with middle school students. I am comfortable interacting with people with physical disabilities. I am comfortable interacting with people with mental disabilities. I am comfortable interacting with people with emotional disabilities. I believe music education should be a part of the curriculum for students with special needs. I feel my educational training has prepared me to work with students with special needs in a secondary general music class setting. I feel my educational training has prepared me to work with students with special needs in a music ensemble setting. I feel my educational training has prepared me to work with students with special needs in a private music studio setting. I would be comfortable working with students with special needs in a secondary general music classroom. I would be comfortable working with students with special needs in a private studio for music lessons. I would be comfortable working with students with special needs in a music ensemble. I would be willing to provide music experiences to students with special needs in a secondary general music classroom. I would be willing to provide music experiences to students with special needs in a secondary performance ensemble. I would be willing to provide music experiences to students with special needs ina special education classroom. I believe students with special needs behave in class the same as other students their age. I believe students with special needs can learn the same musical material as other students their age. I believe lesson adaptations for students with special needs should be stated on the lesson plan.
teachers perceptions of music for special learners in all three settings: classroom (F{28,1}11.89, p = .001) from pretest (M = 17.00, SD = 1.84) to posttest (M = 18.50, SD = 1.37); ensemble (F{128,1}6.37, p = .015) from pretest (M = 16.50, SD = 2.33) to posttest (M = 17.86, SD = 1.62); and studio (F{28,1}13.46, p = .001) from pretest (M = 11.11, SD = 2.04) to posttest (M = 13.96, SD = 1.73). Additionally, individual classroom assignment differences within each music education setting were investigated using one-way ANOVAs. Significant differences were found within the EDBD class for all three settings: classroom (F{14,1}9.86, p = .004) from pretest (M = 16.64, SD = 1.73) to posttest (M = 18.57, SD = 1.50), ensemble (F{14,1}8.28, p = .008) from pretest (M = 15.79, SD = 2.54) to posttest (M = 18.14, SD = 1.70), and studio (F{14,1}19.66, p = .001) from pretest (M = 10.79, SD = 2.04) to posttest (M = 13.64, SD = 1.27). The ACD teachers scores also increased within each area, though not significantly.
Discussion
Some caution should be used in interpreting these data since they were obtained from a sample of only 28 music education majors. Still, the first category of survey questions examined the general comfort preservice teachers felt when interacting with persons with physical, mental,
and emotional disabilities. All preservice teachers comfort in interacting with persons with these disabilities increased after the field experience. Being comfortable interacting with persons with disabilities is a major step toward positive attitudes about people with disabilities. Sideridis and Chandler (1995) found that music educators expressed negative attitudes regarding the integration of students with mental retardation and emotional and behavioral disabilities in general music classrooms. Students within this study, however, became more comfortable interacting with these populations after the secondary general music lab experience. These results lend support to one of the goals of this experience, and a purpose for all field-based instructions, which was to facilitate positive attitudes about the populations served (Eyck, 1985). Educational preparation to work with students with special needs in music education settings was also rated significantly higher at the end of the experience. Specifically, preservice teachers rated their preparation to work in inclusive secondary general music classrooms and performance ensembles as well as individually with students with special needs in private studio lessons higher at the end of the experience. The great advantage of working in the field during preservice training is to practice and prepare for real life experiences. Since this field experience was designed to prepare students to successfully work with students with special needs in music, the students posttest scores indicate this goal was met. And, while the experience took place within a secondary general music class setting, the results indicate this situation transferred to the preservice teachers feelings of preparedness in other music education settings as well. Students were also asked about their comfort in working with students with special needs in music settings. Results indicated the field experience had a significantly positive effect in regard to students comfort in inclusive music education settings. Student posttest scores also showed positive increases in all three music settings, classroom, ensemble, and studio, with the largest increases found within the EDBD teachers. Since the field experience combined knowledge and teaching skills acquired in class with direct hands-on application, the positive results are important. During the in-class portion of the course, the teachers were never asked to design their microteaches, musical game, or listening assignments to meet the needs of special learners. Yet, during the field experience, teachers had to plan and prepare the activities in order to adapt to the students needs as well as modify rate of instruction and material covered during the actual lesson presentation. Thus, when the act of teaching was coupled with the myriad of challenges displayed by the needs of the special learners, the comfort of working with this population may have seemed difficult for beginners. Students within this study, however, ended with high levels of comfort in their abilities to work with students with special needs in different music education settings following their field experience.
Greater increases by the EDBD than the ACD classroom teachers from pretest to posttest may have been due to a variety of factors. The mean pre-experience survey scores for the EDBD teachers in the classroom, ensemble, and studio question groupings were lower than those of the ACD teachers. This difference may have predisposed the ACD teachers to less room for improvement. For the classroom and ensemble question groupings, the post means of the EDBD and ACD groups were more comparable than were the pre means of the two groups. The reason for the differences between groups in pre-experience survey response scores is unclear, though a larger sample size might provide a more even distribution of student perceptions. Differences in class dynamics, including student strengths and deficits, may have resulted in greater impact from the EDBD classroom experience, though additional research is needed to determine whether this is a consistent trend and, if so, what the specific cause may be. Willingness to work with students with special needs in the future showed positive, but not significant, gains. This was the only category of questions that asked students to predict future activities. While it may be unreasonable to ask and difficult for students to plan beyond their internship, it should be noted the students did rate their preparedness and comfort working with students with special needs in music significantly higher after the field experience. Comfort and preparation in dealing with special populations is necessary before additional opportunities to work in these areas are sought (Kaiser & Johnson, 2000; Stephens & Braun, 1980; Wilson & McCrary, 1996). Therefore, since the students responded positively to those categories and to the overall field experience, a longitudinal study during the students internship or after they are working within the profession should be used to investigate whether these students are willing to work with students with special needs in their specific music education setting. The preservice teachers perceptions of the behaviors of students with special needs and their capabilities to learn like other children their age did not change significantly after the field experience. This experience did not give the preservice teachers the opportunity to work with students with and without disabilities together in one classroom; only students who were primarily educated within the two self-contained settings were instructed. While all the music education students had worked with children in other field-based experiences in their major emphasis prior to this class, this was their first opportunity to work with students in a secondary general music setting. Thus, it may have been difficult for teachers to determine whether the students behavior and capabilities to learn were the same as their nondisabled peers in a secondary general music classroom since they had no frame of reference. Future research in this music education setting will ideally include larger sample sizes and examine how secondary students with and without disabilities behave and learn when in the same general music classroom as well as the teachers perceptions of all students behavior and capabilities to learn.
References
Atterbury, B. (1986). A survey of present mainstreaming practices in the southern United States. Journal of Music Therapy, 23(4), 2027. Bibbins, N. P. (1998). Listening with the whole mind. General Music Today, 11(3), 1113. Burns, K. (1995). Teaching music listening skills: How low can you go? General Music Today, 8(3), 3133. Colwell, C. M., & Thompson, L. K. (2000). Inclusion of information on mainstreaming in undergraduate music education curricula. Journal of Music Therapy, 37(3), 20521. Darrow, A. A. (1998). Sticks and stones and words can hurt: Eliminating handicapping language. Music Therapy Perspectives, 16(2), 8183. Eyck, S. G. T. (1985). The effect of simulation and observation training on the music teaching behaviors of undergraduate music therapy/music education majors in a field teaching experience. Journal of Music Therapy, 22(4), 16882. Frisque, J., Niebur, L., & Humphreys, J. T. (1994). Music mainstreaming: Practices in Arizona. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42(2), 94104. Gfeller, K., Darrow, A. A., & Hedden, S. K. (1990). Perceived effectiveness of mainstreaming in Iowa and Kansas schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38(2), 90101. Gilbert, J. P., & Asmus, E. P. (1981). Mainstreaming: Music educators participation and professional needs. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29(1), 3137. Hawkins, G. D. (1992). Attitudes toward mainstreaming students with disabilities among regular elementary music and physical educators. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 3245A. Heller, L. (1995). Undergraduate music teacher preparation for mainstreaming: A survey of music education teacher training institutions in the Great Lakes region of the United States. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 858A. Kaiser, K. A., & Johnson, K. E. (2000). The effect of an interactive experience on music majors perceptions of music for deaf students. Journal of Music Therapy, 37(3), 22234. Kerchner, J. L. (1996). Creative music listening. General Music Today, 10(1), 2830. Schmidt, C. P. (1989). An investigation of undergraduate music education curriculum content. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 99, 4256. Sideridis, G. D., & Chandler, J. P. (1995). Attitudes and characteristics of general music teachers toward integrating children with developmental disabilities. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 14(1), 1115. Stephens, T. M., & Braun, B. L. (1980). Measures of regular classroom teachers attitudes toward handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 46, 29294. Thompson, K. P. (1999). Challenges of inclusion for the general music teacher. General Music Today, 12(3), 79. Wilson, B., & McCrary, J. (1996). The effect of instruction on music educators attitudes toward students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(1), 2633.
Call for Submissions for Assessments in All Music Subject Areas and All Grade Levels for New MENC Assessment Publication
Music educators are invited to submit copies of assessments they use in their classrooms to be reviewed for inclusion in an upcoming assessment publication. Assessments that address the National Standards are especially sought. Many types of assessments including rubrics, written tests, and checklists are welcome. Assessments are sought for band, chorus, orchestra, general music, and specialized areas at all levels: elementary, middle school, and high school. Please submit assessments no later than August 30, 2005. Criteria for Evaluation of Assessments are as follows: Assessments should be standards-based and reflect the music skills and knowledge that are most important for students to learn. Assessments should support, enhance, and reinforce learning. Assessment should be reliable, valid, and authentic. Assessment is replicable in many classrooms and teaching situations. We ask that contributors please submit their assessments using the template found on the MENC Web site at www.menc.org/connect/assessment/call.html. Please submit a clean copy of each assessment, as well as an electronic copy to Beth Pontiff, MENC, 1806 Robert Fulton Dr, Reston, VA 20191-4348. Electronic copy can be on disk or emailed as a Word attachment or in the body of an e-mail. For further information, contact Tim S. Brophy, PhD, book editor, at University of Florida School of Music, PO Box 117900, Gainesville, FL 32611-7900 or Beth Pontiff, production editor, at 800-336-3768.
Call for Committee Members for New MENC Assessment Publication

Committee members to review classroom assessments for a new MENC publication on assessment are now being sought. This book will be a collection of assessments that working teachers are using in their classrooms. Committee members will need to be available to review assessments in summer and fall 2005. Applicants should have a strong academic or practical background in both assessment and their subject area. Please send an abbreviated Curriculum Vitae or resume (12 pages) highlighting your experience with assessment and complete contact information by May 1 to Tim S. Brophy, PhD, book editor, at University of Florida School of Music, PO Box 117900, Gainesville, FL 326117900. For further information contact Beth Pontiff, production editor, at 800-336-3768.
Symposium on Music Teacher Education

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATION: RETHINKING, RESEARCHING, REVITALIZING
September 15-17, 2005 University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Sponsored By Society for Music Teacher Education School of Music at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG) Music Research Institute at the UNCG School of Music Music Educators National Conference: The National Association for Music Education The College Music Society Purpose The purpose of this symposium is to initiate a sustained exploration of current critical issues in music teacher education. Three broad areas of critical need are (a) finding future music educators, (b) preparing future music educators, and (c) supporting the professional development of music educators. These areas correspond to major themes of the MENC Task Force on Music Teacher Education that resulted in the publication of Music Teacher Education: Partnership and Process. In this symposium, we will examine the charges presented in that 1987 document, discuss the current challenges, and explore current research and models of effective practice. A distinguishing feature of this symposium is that the agenda will be pursued beyond the conclusion of the meeting. The symposium will culminate with the development of specific plans for action and research in the effort to advance coordinated and sustained work on the critical issues. The first of several opportunities to review progress will be at the SMTE preconference session during the MENC biennial conference in Salt Lake City in 2006. Target Audience Anyone who is interested in music teacher education is welcome to attend the symposium and submit a proposal. Music teacher educators, deans/directors of schools of music, state and local fine arts supervisors, state policy officials associated with certification, licensure, and school improvement, K12 educators, and graduate students in music education are especially encouraged to participate. Presentation Formats Research Papers Presentations on Best Practices Position Papers Research Posters Graduate Research Posters of In-progress or Completed Work Topics Those submitting research papers, presentations on best practices, or position papers are asked to address one of the three areas of critical need: (a) finding future music educators; (b) preparing future music educators; or (c) supporting the professional development of music educators Those submitting research posters or graduate research posters of in-progress or completed work may explore any area of music education in addition to the three areas of critical need mentioned above. Submission Format and Procedures Research Papers addressing an area of critical need (see Topics) will be considered for presentation at one of the primary working sessions of the symposium. Papers may utilize quantitative or qualitative paradigms as well as philosophical or historical research methodologies. Please submit four copies of an abstract of no more than 500 JMTE, Spring 2005, 72
words describing your study. If your paper is accepted, you will be asked to submit a completed full version to be included in the symposium proceedings. Presentations on Best Practices will be considered for one of the primary working sessions of the symposium. Sessions should describe programs or practices that are effectively meeting one or more of the areas of critical need (see Topics). Sessions may be presented utilizing PowerPoint. Please submit four copies of an abstract of no more than 500 words describing the session that you plan to present. If your session is accepted, you will be asked to submit a completed version either as a PowerPoint file or as a paper by July 1, 2005, to be included in the symposium proceedings. Position Papers will be considered for presentation at one of the primary working sessions of the symposium. Authors should present a unique viewpoint capable of generating thoughtful discussion about one or more of the areas of critical need (see Topics). Please submit four copies of an abstract of no more than 500 words. If your paper is accepted, you will be asked to submit a completed full version by July 1, 2005, to be included in the symposium proceedings. Research Posters proposals exploring any area of music education will be considered for presentation at the Symposium Research Poster Session. Posters may utilize quantitative or qualitative paradigms as well as philosophical or historical research methodologies. Please submit four copies of an abstract of no more than 500 words describing the study that you plan to present. If your poster proposal is accepted, you will be asked to submit an updated abstract by July 1, 2005, to be included in the symposium proceedings. Also, participants will be required to furnish 10 copies of the completed report and 50 copies of a one- to two-page report summary at the poster session. Graduate Research Posters of In-Progress or Completed Work exploring any area of music education will be considered for presentation at the Graduate Research Forum during which members of the JMTE Editorial Board will provide encouragement and feedback to members of the next generation of music education researchers. Please submit four copies of an abstract of no more than 500 words describing the study that you plan to present. Posters may utilize quantitative or qualitative paradigms as well as philosophical or historical research methodologies. If your poster proposal is accepted, you will be asked to submit an updated abstract by July 1, 2005, to be included in the symposium proceedings. General Submission Information All submissions should not have been published prior to the symposium and should comply with the Code of Ethics published in the Journal of Research in Music Education Proposals that represent collaborationseither cross-institutional or cross-departmental within a single institutionof research and/or practice are especially welcome. All submissions should include a cover letter (indicating name of the author(s), institutional affiliations, email addresses/contact information, and presentation format) and four copies of a 500-word abstract. Submissions must be postmarked by April 15, 2005, and sent to: David J. Teachout, Chair Symposium on Music Teacher Education School of Music P.O. Box 26170 UNC Greensboro Greensboro, NC 27402-6170 April 15, 2005: Submission postmark deadline for proposals June 1, 2005: Notification of acceptance for proposals July 1, 2005: Deadline to submit materials for publication in the symposium proceedings. All proposals will be subject to blind review by an advisory panel. If accepted, the primary or a listed co-author must register for and attend the symposium. Registration information will be posted on the SMTE Web site in late spring 2005 (www.menc.org/smte).
Sounds of Learning Study

The International Foundation for Music Research (IFMR), a nonprofit foundation funded in part by NAMM, the International Music Products Association, has launched a major research project designed to expand knowledge of the value music plays in a quality education. The organization is currently soliciting research proposals for this important undertaking. IFMR has contributed $150,000 toward projects that will be funded under Sounds of Learning: The Impact of Music Education, an authoritative examination of music educations influence on academic achievement, childrens growth and development, how music is used in peoples daily lives and how it impacts school, home and work environments. Additional funds available for contract research have been provided by the Fund for Improvement of Education at the U.S. Department of Education. By inaugurating the Sounds of Learning: The Impact of Music Education project, IFMR executives aim to assemble quantifiable, unimpeachable data on some of the finer points in the ongoing music education discussion. There has been an abundance of credible research showing the immediate as well as long-term value of music education, but this new project, which will comprise numerous research studies, delves deeper into specific areas of study as it relates to the benefits of teaching music and encouraging the playing of music in school-age children. As evidenced by the debates over the federal governments No Child Left Behind initiative and the continuing discussions in state houses across the country, key decision-makers and academics are hungry for the best research on music educations importance, said Mary Luehrsen, executive director of IFMR. Were soliciting proposals from the top researchers interested in conducting an authoritative, important study of this crucially important topic. Sounds of Learning will be an extended project that has been divided into two phases. For Phase I, research proposals are due April 1, 2005. Research requests for phase two of the Sounds of Learning project, which will give closer focus to how music education impacts peoples home and work lives, are due later this summer. For more information on the project, and to submit a proposal, interested parties can e-mail IFMR at info@music-research.org.
JMTE Yearbook!
If youre weary of searching online for new ideas and research in music teacher education, the new JMTE Yearbook is for you! This first edition is a hard copy publication of the fall 2004 and spring 2005 issues of the Journal of Music Teacher Education. Articles in this first edition of the JTME Yearbook will include:
A Tribute to a Founder of the Society for Music Teacher Education: George N. Heller Edward P. Asmus An Investigation of Second-Career Music Teaching Margaret H. Berg The Problem of Music Education Philosophy for Undergraduates Paul Broomhead Where Do We Begin with Inquiry-Based Degree Programs? Suzanne L. Burton Raising the Standards: Music Teacher Education in a Performance-Based World Don P. Ester Comparing Prospective Freshmen and Preservice Music Education Majors Reflections of Music Interactions Deborah A. Sheldon and Gregory DeNardo What to Do about Music Teacher Education: Our Profession at a Crossroads Jeffrey Kimpton What Partnerships Must We Create, Build, or Reenergize in K12 Higher and Professional Education for Music Teacher Education in the Future? Janet Robbins and Robin Stein Where Will the Supply of New Teachers Come From, Where Shall We Recruit, and Who Will Teach These Prospective Teachers? William E. Fredrickson and J. Bryan Burton What Is the Role of MENC, NASM, or Other State or National Professional Organizations in Providing Leadership and Support for New Research and Models? Don P. Ester and David J. Brinkman An Analysis of Certification Practices for Music Education in the Fifty States Michele L. Henry The Effects of Field Experience on Music Education Majors Perceptions of Music Instruction for Secondary Students with Special Needs Kimberly VanWeelden and Jennifer Whipple
Visit www.rowmaneducation.com after June 1 for price and availability information.

Teachout PD Article

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teachout PD Article

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J.M.T.E.

JOURNAL OF MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATION

Volume 14, Number 2

Volume 14, Number 2 CONTENTS

Special Issue: The Future of Music Teacher Education Introduction

JMTE, Spring 2005, 3

JMTE, Spring 2005, 4

Special Issue: The Future of Music Teacher Education

From the Chair A Call for Action in Music Teacher Education

JMTE, Spring 2005, 7

Special Issue: The Future of Music Teacher Education

What To Do About Music Teacher Education: Our Profession at a Crossroads

How Big Is the Problem?

Teachers and Preparation

Challenges within the Academy

Professional Development and Professional Organizations

Looking Outside the Box for New Models

JMTE, Spring 2005, 21

Special Issue: The Future of Music Teacher Education

Professional Development School Partnerships: Collaborative Teaching and Research

Partnership Networks for In-Service Teachers

JMTE, Spring 2005, 29

Special Issue: The Future of Music Teacher Education

Developing a Recruiting Pipeline

Retaining Good Teachers in the Profession

JMTE, Spring 2005, 36

Special Issue: The Future of Music Teacher Education

Background and Mission of MENC, SMTE, NASM, and CMS

Recommended Roles for Facilitating Change

JMTE, Spring 2005, 43

Editors Commentary Assumptions

JMTE, Spring 2005, 46

An Analysis of Certification Practices for Music Educators in the Fifty States

Previous Reviews of Certification Practices

JMTE, Spring 2005, 48

Table 1. Certification Practices for Music Educators in the 50 States

2-year Provisional 6-year Standard

Yes, but not $30 certificate available $20 renewal

3-year Initial 5-year License

$55 credential $56 fingerprinting

Yes (10/01) Suppor t Materi als Yes Yes

K8, 512, K12 Music K12 Music

5-year Standard 5-year Professional 5-year Professional

Yes, but requires testing

No charge in-state $20 out-of-state

K6, 712, K12 Music

$35 application $40 fingerprinting $30 certificate

$5 for each school setting

2-year Initial 5-year Standard

PLT (professional) PRAXIS II (content area) PLT (professional)

Yes; 2-year regional No exchange license

$50 transcript evaluation $50 license $37 fingerprinting $24 application

712, K12 Music

3-year Standard 5-year Standard 5-year Statement of Eligibility 5-year Provisional

PLT (professional) PRAXIS II (content area)

$35 Statement fee $50 Provisional

JMTE, Spring 2005, 55

Alternative Fees Degree Program $55 certificate

Online Forms Yes

3-year provisional Yes while PRAXIS testing is completed No Yes

K12 Music Nursery12 Music

$50 certificate $10 certificate

6-year Provisional 5-year Professional

MTTC (basic skills, professional, content area if secondary)