Matthew Borek, University of Illinois
With the signing of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)[1], the era of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was ushered out and the music education community expressed overwhelming optimism for the future. NAfME’s ESSA page declared “You did it!” and the hashtag #MusicStandsAlone has been used since the announcement of the legislation as recognition of one of the law’s key components, a redefinition of what constitutes a well-rounded education. While it may be a bit premature to celebrate ESSA, the legislation does represent a step forward and a possible opportunity for music educators to expand their influence and status in the school curriculum. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the legislation and consider the implication for music educators.
Many structural components of ESSA – such as the consolidation of grant programs – will not directly affect music teachers, and other changes – such as language forbidding the federal government from dictating evaluation policy – are unlikely to change current practice. But, there are two significant changes in the legislation for music educators: changes in the content and oversight of accountability plans; and a redefinition of what constitutes a complete education. Under ESSA, states will have greater discretion in setting accountability goals than was possible with the federal oversight of accountability under NCLB. The (over-)reliance on standardized test scores in a narrow set of subject areas was the centerpiece of NCLB accountability systems. Although annual testing is still required in reading and math from grades 3 through 8 and once in high school, ESSA requires that accountability plans include additional data. Accountability systems must include four indicators – three academic indicators (proficiency on state tests; English-language proficiency; and an additional academic indicator that allows for sub-group analysis – for high schools this indicator must be graduation rates) plus one additional indicator that is outside the traditional realm of academic data.
As ESSA is implemented, music educators should consider how to include their voice in the conception of new accountability systems. The inclusion of a non-academic indicator represents a potential opportunity for music educators; possibilities include measures of student engagement, post-secondary readiness, school climate, etc. This is new terrain in accountability terms, and music educators should insist on participating in discussions at the school and district levels to ensure that the benefits of a music education to the overall school community are well-represented in accountability plans. Begin collecting data on parental and community engagement, if you are not already doing so. If your school uses a climate survey, work with members of your school community to analyze and interpret the results. In addition, continue to hone your assessment and analysis skills, as music educators will be expected to show concrete data on student learning and growth more than ever.
The second significant change for music education under ESSA is the removal of the term “core subject” and the introduction of a new term, “well-rounded education”, defined as:
courses, activities, and programming in subjects such as English, reading or language arts, writing, science, technology, engineering, mathematics, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, geography, computer science, music, career and technical education, health, physical education, and any other subject, as determined by the State or local educational agency, with the purpose of providing all students access to an enriched curriculum and educational experience.
Under ESSA, music is separated from the other arts as one part of a “well-rounded education” whereas under NCLB, “arts” (including music) were labeled a core subject. The definition of well-rounded education, and the explicit separation of music from the other arts, is being described as a victory for music education. Under the new definition, music qualifies for federal Title I funds, if a district decides to dedicate funds to music and if the State approves that plan. It is worth noting that federal funds accounted for less than 10% of Kansas district budgets in 2014.
Music educators should consider how the definition of “well-rounded education” might affect their programs. Specifically, music teachers should speak with other music teachers in your schools and districts to determine the reach of your programs; if an overall music program reaches a small percent of the student population, it may be challenging to claim that the school is providing a well-rounded education. Additionally, many music teachers may need to change how they describe the benefits of their programs. An advocacy movement has grown in the past couple of decades that makes some bold (and some would argue, irresponsible) claims about the impact of music education, typically emphasizing student gains in other academic areas due to participation in music. The core logic of the advocacy movement may have served a valuable purpose in the NCLB era, but it is incompatible with the ESSA’s definition of a “well-rounded education”. Music teachers should articulate why music is important a unique area of inquiry, because such a justification clearly indicates how music is an important part of a well-rounded education.
There are many questions that are yet to be answered about how the implementation of ESSA will affect school music programs. With over a dozen subjects listed in the definition of a well-rounded education – and the possibility of virtually any other subject being added in the future – will districts assume all subjects should be represented in accountability plans? Will eligibility for Title I funds lead to those funds being used in music? How much variation in accountability plans from district to district will be encouraged and/or tolerated by the state and federal governments? What we do know at this time is that some core definitions around accountability have changed, and that the restrictive and narrow requirements of NCLB will be expanded. We also know that a good deal of decision-making is moving from the federal to the state and local levels. These points alone are adequate reason for cautious optimism amongst music educators, but the true potential of the post-NCLB era will be realized only if teachers are vocal as implementation talks continue in the coming years.
[1] Full text may be found here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177/text
