REPORT TO THE MENC NATIONAL EXECUTIVE BOARD

October 1, 2007

By the MENC Task Force on National Standards:
Charles Hoffer, Carolynn Lindeman, Bennett Reimer, Scott Shuler,
Dorothy Straub, Paul Lehman (Chair)

Background

In 1994 the National Committee for Standards in the Arts published a set of National Voluntary Standards for K-12 instruction in dance, music, theater, and visual arts. The Standards called for students to be able to communicate at a basic level in all four arts disciplines and to be able to communicate proficiently in at least one discipline. The Standards in music, which also included Standards for prekindergarten, sought to (1) set forth a coherent vision of what it means to be educated in music, (2) provide a foundation for building a balanced, comprehensive, and sequential curriculum in music, and (3) offer a model to states and local school districts as they design their own standards. The National Standards were developed by a process of unprecedented breadth and depth that sought to produce a national consensus of artists, educators, the public, and other stakeholders in education. The preparation of the Standards in music was overseen by the MENC Task Force on National Standards.

The core of the music Standards is summarized in nine Content Standards that encompass the major ways in which people interact with music in our culture:

1. Singing, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music
2. Performing on instruments, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music
3. Improvising melodies, variations, and accompaniments
4. Composing and arranging music within specified guidelines
5. Reading and notating music
6. Listening to, analyzing, and describing music
7. Evaluating music and music performances
8. Understanding relationships between music, the other arts, and disciplines outside the arts
9. Understanding music in relation to history and culture

In 2006, the MENC Task Force on National Standards was asked by the National Executive Board of MENC to review the 1994 Standards and to consider (1) whether they should be revised to reflect current conditions and, (2) if so, how. This document constitutes the report of the Task Force to the Board.

The Review Process

The review process included a three-step program of data-gathering and consultation. First, Eureka Facts, LLC, of Rockville, Maryland, was commissioned with funds from the U. S. Department of Education to conduct an online and mail survey of teachers throughout the nation to gather data concerning their familiarity with the National Standards, the extent to which the skills and knowledge called for in the National Standards are emphasized in their teaching, and the extent to which the National Standards have exerted influence and been effective. E-mail invitations were sent to 33,090 teachers, and three reminders were sent to those not responding. The response rate was 17.8%. Despite extensive and continuing discussions between Eureka and the Task Force during the development of the survey instrument, the Task Force had serious reservations concerning the ultimate design of the instrument and concerning the usefulness of the results it yielded. Nevertheless, those results were carefully considered by the Task Force in developing this report.

Because the group felt the need for more data, the Task Force also conducted its own online survey in which it invited teachers to express their opinions concerning whether the National Standards should be revised and, if so, how. This was done through the "Question-of-the-Month," a regular feature on the MENC website. A total of 757 responses were received.

In addition, the same question was asked of members of the 2007 MENC National Assembly, the past national presidents, and a sampling of other thoughtful and knowledgeable leaders in music education. A total of 249 responses were received to this request.

Finally, in developing this report the members of the Task Force, which coincidentally is composed largely of past MENC presidents, have drawn on their observations and interactions with teachers throughout the nation concerning the implementation of the National Standards during the past fourteen years.

We recognized in 1994 that the development the National Standards placed a particularly heavy burden of responsibility upon each of us. We have approached the present assignment with the same sense of responsibility.

Observations

In general the data gathered confirm that the National Standards are believed by music educators to represent highly desirable goals, and they are considered to have had a significant positive influence on music education. In our decentralized system of education standards are controlled by the states, and virtually every state has developed standards in music or in the arts. As evidence that the National Standards have had a positive impact, we offer the following observations:

1. Twenty-one states have based their standards directly on the National Standards, or very nearly so. In many cases the modifications made by states consist essentially of categorizing the nine Content Standards within a few broad headings. Twenty-nine states have organized their standards differently, but the skills and knowledge called for in the National Standards figure prominently in the standards of almost all of the states. Even in those states whose standards are not directly modeled on the National Standards the content tends to be entirely consistent with the Standards, and there are no apparent contradictions.
    
2. State standards frequently describe in detail how they are aligned with the relevant National Standards.
    
3. Many publishers of educational materials have worked hard to develop instructional materials that reflect and promote the National Standards.
    

Commentary

At the same time the data reveal certain misunderstandings and concerns regarding the National Standards and the nature and role of standards in general. Because the Task Force takes seriously the thoughtful comments offered by many music teachers, it would like to comment on some of the issues that arose in the surveys:

1. The single most frequently expressed concern regarding the National Standards in the surveys was that they are unrealistically high and simply cannot be achieved in the limited instructional time available to many music teachers. This notion, however, reflects a misperception of what the National Standards were meant to be. The Standards were never intended to reflect the status quo but rather to provide a vision for the future. They seek to set forth the long-term goals of society for what music education ought to be. They are based on the best practices within our profession and are grounded in the collective judgment of our professional colleagues. Their aim is to make available in every school the kind of high-quality music programs currently available in only the best schools. Certainly this is an appropriate and reasonable goal in a democratic society.
   
   The Standards were intended to be challenging but attainable given adequate conditions for learning. It is evident that they are attainable inasmuch as there is nothing called for in the Standards that is not being achieved in good schools in virtually every state. However, it is also evident that they are challenging inasmuch as there is likely no single school anywhere that is presently achieving everything called for in the Standards.
   
   Every school has a responsibility to ensure that every student has an adequate opportunity to learn. It is obvious that the Standards cannot be met without a sufficient commitment of time, staff, materials, and equipment on the part of the school. The MENC publication Opportunity-To-Learn Standards for Music Instruction provides a set of recommendations concerning the types and levels of support necessary to achieve the National Standards in music. They specify, for example, that every student in the elementary school should receive instruction in general music for at least 90 minutes per week. Everyone knows that in some schools this expectation is not now being met and is unlikely to be met in the near future, but the long-term vision of society for its young people ought not be limited by such constraints. Rather, every effort should be directed toward removing those constraints. Those school districts that fall short should be encouraged to develop higher aspirations for their young people and to devise long-term plans to achieve the necessary conditions for learning.
   
   Some teachers suggested that a separate set of standards should be developed for elementary schools where the music teachers see their students for, say, 20 minutes a week or less. Some suggested that the standards should be flexible so that they can be adjusted to the level of support a school is able to provide. Those ideas too reflect a misunderstanding of the purpose of standards. If a school does not or cannot provide sufficient support to make possible the level of learning its students deserve, the solution is not to lower its expectations regarding learning but rather to find ways to increase the level of support.
    
2. The School Music Program: A New Vision, the publication that sets forth the National Standards in music, contains the statement that "every course in music, including performance courses, should provide instruction in creating, performing, listening to, and analyzing music, in addition to focusing on its specific subject matter." Some directors of performing groups expressed concern that this is neither feasible nor necessary in their ensembles. However, it is not the intention of the statement that there should be a major emphasis on each of these skills in every specialized elective.
   
   Everyone recognizes, for example, that the reason students enroll in band is to play in the band, and not to sing, compose, and so forth. The intent of the statement is merely that from time to time students in band, orchestra, and chorus should engage in some activity that would develop their ability to compose, arrange, or improvise to some degree, while students in a music composition or music literature class should perform a piece on recorders or sing it. Even modest attention to these ancillary skills can contribute in important ways to the over-all musical growth of students and to their enjoyment of music later in life. The fact that creative and imaginative teachers, including directors of performing groups, are finding ways to incorporate these various skills into their programs confirms that this is possible, and the positive reaction of students confirms that it is desirable. The categories of activities cited are intentionally broad, and there is no implication whatever that, for example, students in a choral ensemble should be expected to develop competence on an instrument. The intent is simply that even specialized electives should address most of the Standards in some way.
    
3. Other survey respondents suggested that the references to composing, arranging, and improvising in the Standards should be de-emphasized or deleted. There are no doubt many reasons for this point of view: (1) except for jazz band, there have traditionally been few courses emphasizing these skills in secondary schools; (2) composing, arranging, and improvising have not typically been emphasized in the precollege experience of the nation's music teachers; and (3) these skills are not generally an important component in the undergraduate or graduate training of music teachers. We cannot teach what we have not learned.
   
   Nevertheless, there is no better way to gain insight into the essence of music than by composing, arranging, and improvising, even if done at a very basic level. First, these efforts bring students into contact with music in an intimate and fundamental way that is entirely different from the acquaintance that comes from other forms of study. Second, these skills are widely recognized, developed, and valued in the musical experiences of many students outside school. And third, these skills are less difficult to incorporate into traditional music courses, including performing groups, than many teachers realize.
   
   Since the publication of the National Standards many innovative directors have found imaginative ways to incorporate composing, arranging, and improvising into their curricula, and the response of students has usually been enthusiastic and appreciative. MIDI keyboards and other technology have made this work far less difficult and made these skills much easier to teach than in the past. In addition to the creative opportunities available in general music classes, specialized electives in composing, arranging, and improvising, beginning at appropriate grade levels, would likely attract a wide array of students who choose these activities as their preferred way to be engaged with music.
    
4. If we music educators are to succeed in our efforts to make music education universal for all students, it will be necessary to become more comprehensive, not only in our general music classes but also in our specialized electives. In the words of the Centennial Declaration of MENC, "We seek contexts and modes of instruction that will provide students with more inclusive experiences of the styles and genres of music and the many musical roles that are practiced in our society and that are represented in the national content standards." One obvious implication of this acknowledgement is that the typical array of elective courses at the secondary level should be expanded so as to meet the needs and interests of the broader student population. It may be necessary to begin modestly because of limited staff time, but once there is clear evidence of demand, resources will follow.
   
   Course offerings in music at the secondary level have historically emphasized singing and playing instruments. These are certainly important and valuable offerings. They should be continued and supported to the fullest. But the other musical roles outlined in the Content Standards are also legitimate avenues of music learning. These various roles similarly provide the basis for appealing and engaging elective courses that would attract students if offered.
   
   According to the Centennial Declaration, "Our curriculum must reflect more than our own desires; it must reflect the needs and desires of the students we serve." A student population diverse in its musical interests and talents requires a music curriculum diverse in its offerings. In a comprehensive and balanced program, each student should be able to exert his or her individuality in making musical choices that are tailored to his or her desires and needs.
   
   The P-12 music curriculum should consist of a comprehensive and balanced array of general music instruction and specialized electives. General music and specialized electives serve different yet related functions. General music embraces all of the ways in which humans interact with music so that these possibilities become part of the experience of every student. Specialized electives allow students, on the basis of their general music experiences and their music experiences outside school, to select whatever further music involvements they choose to pursue, reflecting their individual interests and proclivities.
   
   Each specialized elective naturally concentrates on its own unique ways to practice and understand music. These practices and understandings are enriched as the student learns how the various specializations relate to one another. The specialized electives are not general music, and they are elected by students to learn more about a particular specialized musical role. At the same time it is important to avoid excessive narrowness and to place each specialization within the larger domain of music by occasionally including activities that demonstrate connections to other specializations.
    
5. The National Standards were developed by seeking a broad national consensus, but it is primarily to their state standards that many teachers are expected to look for guidance. Sometimes the National Standards can exert influence only insofar as the skills and knowledge they call for are reflected in the relevant state standards. Therefore, one goal of MENC should be to encourage the development of state standards that parallel the National Standards. When we speak of implementing the National Standards, we recognize that this is often accomplished by implementing state standards that are based on the National Standards. At present the state standards vary widely in their organization, their scope, and their degree of specificity. Of these sources of variety, none causes significant problems except an insufficient degree of specificity.
   
   Standards must be sufficiently explicit and detailed to provide a basis for constructing curricula, writing lesson plans, and assessing learning. By these criteria, some of the current state standards are not adequate. State standards should be more specific than National Standards, but some are less specific. Some are characterized by vague language and meaningless obfuscation. In those cases where state standards are not helpful, or where they do not exist, teachers are urged to look to the National Standards for guidance.
    
6. Some colleagues have contended that the expectations implied in the Standards are too high. But any of the activities called for can be carried out at any level of complexity. Composition does not mean writing a symphony; it can mean writing a short, simple melody. Performing on an instrument does not mean playing a Beethoven sonata; it can mean playing "Amazing Grace" on a recorder. Improvising does not mean playing an extended riff in a jazz band; it can mean playing a simple accompaniment to a folk song on resonator bars or a conga drum.
   
   More important, the Standards merely list the types of skills and knowledge desired; they do not specify how good is good enough. That critical task is left to those who write the benchmarks and assessment instruments at the state and local levels. MENC has sought to help, with Benchmarks in Action and other publications, and the National Standards propose specific levels of difficulty in performance in grades 5-8 and 9-12, but ultimately specifying how good is good enough is a state or local responsibility.
    
7. Some respondents recommended that Achievement Standards should be made available for each grade level in the elementary school and for each elective course offering in the secondary school. The Task Force agrees, and the development of these Standards will be discussed among the recommendations below.
    
8. Some respondents suggested the addition of standards for movement and technology. The Task Force recognizes the importance of movement in the music classroom and agrees that this issue should be dealt with either in the Content Standards or in the grade-by-grade Achievement Standards discussed below.
   
   Technology is both a means and an end in the music classroom. It is a useful and valuable means to facilitate music learning and also a basic component in various contemporary musical genres, which depend on it for their artistic authenticity. Technology must be specified as an important element in any Opportunity-To-Learn Standards in music. This issue too will be discussed in the recommendations below.
    
9. It should be emphasized that the purpose of the National Standards is only to summarize what students should know and be able to do as a result of instruction. The Standards say nothing about what curricular materials or what repertoire should be used. They say nothing about methodology. They say nothing about how the instruction should be organized. These matters are up to the states, local school districts, and individual teachers. Many communities have a wide array of local resources that can be utilized effectively in support of a standards-based music curriculum. In achieving the skills and knowledge called for in the Standards, teachers are encouraged to adapt their methods and materials according to the characteristics and needs of the local community and according to the expertise available locally.
    
10. Some respondents suggested that there should be something in the Standards about developing in every student a lifelong love of music, or incorporating music into the student's everyday life. Certainly these are important objectives of music educators, and they are essential characteristics of a civilized and enlightened society. But they are not standards because they are not specific skills or knowledge that exist apart from the skills and knowledge called for in the 1994 Standards. They are not traits that can be isolated in a course of study or a lesson plan. Their acquisition cannot be readily and validly assessed. Instead, they are personal attributes that can be best developed through the skills and knowledge called for in the Standards. They are the ultimate, long-term goals of music instruction. They are the very reasons why it is so urgent that music be made a part of the curriculum for every young American.
     
11. One of the most notable features of our survey results was the spectacular lack of unanimity among respondents regarding what sort of changes should be made in the Standards. Although many of the respondents would like to tweak the Standards in one way or another, the only specific suggestions offered by as many as two per cent of the respondents were those described above. All were regarded by the Task Force as either ill-advised or as belonging among the Achievement Standards or the Opportunity-To-Learn Standards. Similarly, a review of the state standards identified no major themes or strands or concepts that have found favor at the state level but have been omitted at the national level.
     
12. It should be noted that the kinds of changes called for in the National Standards require perhaps decades to accomplish. Some of these changes can be fully accomplished only as a result of fundamental changes in music teacher education, which require at least one generation. We agree that the National Standards should be reviewed from time to time in order to be certain that they remain responsive to current conditions. At the same time, we believe that a particularly persuasive case must be made for any proposed revisions in order to ensure that they are entirely justified and do indeed represent needed improvements. Moving the goalposts in the middle of the game makes success less likely. Some of the state standards appear to have been revised with every change of administration, or sometimes even more often. Too-frequent changes destroy the usefulness of standards. If it is not possible to anchor a curriculum to standards on a long-term basis, no one will take them seriously. Achieving the Standards will require a long-term commitment and a sustained effort over many years. 

Conclusions

As a result of its review of the available data and the responses from colleagues throughout the nation, the MENC Task Force on National Standards makes these recommendations to the National Executive Board:

1. The 1994 Achievement Standards should be replaced by a set of recommended Achievement Standards developed by MENC for each grade level in the general music program through grade 8 and for each elective course offering in the secondary school. This proposal addresses a need identified by a number of respondents in the surveys, and it is possible that external funding might be available.
   
   The revised Achievement Standards should reflect the spirit of the 1994 National Content Standards. They should identify those aspects of the skills and knowledge called for in the Content Standards that should be achieved at that level or in that course. They should be as specific as possible with respect to the desired skills and knowledge while allowing teachers broad flexibility with respect to methods and materials. They should include the prekindergarten and kindergarten levels. For elective course offerings there should be standards at the proficient level for students who have completed one to two years of relevant study and standards at the advanced level for students who have completed three to four years of relevant study. These Achievement Standards may help to make obvious some of the shortcomings of the state standards that we consider flawed and provide models that might lead to improvement.
   
   Revising the Achievement Standards in this manner is not a task that can be accomplished by our Task Force. It will require the participation of teams of specialist teachers for the various levels and courses. It will require careful coordination and oversight. It will demand considerable time and effort but, when completed, it may prove to have been the most important contribution MENC has made to music education since the development of the Standards themselves.
    
2. The nine Content Standards that served as the basis for the 1994 National Standards still represent a valid and desirable vision for American music education today, and we recommend that no changes be made at this time. The members of the Task Force have carefully considered the issues surrounding the revision of the Content Standards and the ramifications of such revision. Although we have not yet reached a complete consensus, we are inclined to think that certain adjustments might be helpful in the future. However, we prefer to withhold our specific recommendations on this matter until the revision of the Achievement Standards has been completed so that the new Content Standards and Achievement Standards can be presented as a single package.
   
   Logically the Achievement Standards should flow from the Content Standards. But it is also appropriate to allow generalizations to be influenced by specifics. In any case, the contemplated adjustments in the Content Standards represent no significant change of direction. We believe that both sets of Standards will benefit if they are developed simultaneously and if the personnel involved are able to interact with one another. This will ensure that the two sets of Standards comprising the final product will be entirely parallel, compatible, and unified. 

Additional Recommendations

The education environment with respect to standards is different in 2007 than it was in 1994. The most obvious difference is the current existence of state standards. This means that the role of a national professional organization such as MENC will necessarily be different today than it was in 1994. The Task Force believes that the greatest service MENC can provide to music education and music educators in the current environment, beyond revising the Achievement Standards, is to provide services, materials, and advice that will help in the implementation of standards-based curricula. The inertia inherent in the education system makes top-down reform extraordinarily difficult. On the other hand, offering materials and services that assist teachers in implementing standards can have a direct and immediate effect on classroom instruction.

The Task Force offers the following recommendations concerning actions that MENC might take to promote this objective. Perhaps external funding might be found for some of these undertakings.

1. The Opportunity-To-Learn Standards for Music Instruction should be reviewed and updated. Although relatively few respondents mentioned the OTL Standards, some suggested that they be publicized far more vigorously than they have in the past, and many of the responses suggested a widespread ignorance of their existence. It was also apparent that many respondents see an urgent need for greater emphasis on technology, and the OTL Standards are obviously an important place for that.
    
2. Certainly one of the most urgent needs at present is for professional development opportunities for P-12 music educators. Tradition, coupled with community expectations rooted in tradition, exert a powerful barrier to change. The Standards dealing with improvising, composing, and arranging provide an excellent example. Since the Standards were published in 1994 we have seen a number of truly remarkable examples of teachers incorporating these activities into their curricula in ways that have never been done before. This is particularly noteworthy in the case of directors of performing ensembles. But looking at the broader picture the Standards have been generally unsuccessful thus far in bringing about change.
   
   Interestingly, one respondent reported that he would like to incorporate improvising and composing into his program but was unable to do so simply because he had never learned these skills. There is a massive need for leadership from the people who are successfully teaching these techniques. MENC could sponsor workshops, symposia, and single-focus conferences at which these individuals could describe and demonstrate what they have done and how they have done it. Suitable forums are needed to share these success stories. Publications of this sort would also be helpful. The MENC book Why and How To Teach Music Composition: A New Horizon for Music Education (Maud Hickey, ed.) was very helpful, but further efforts are needed. There are people in every part of the country who are doing an excellent job of teaching to the National Standards, and there are others who would do so if they knew how. MENC can bring these groups together. Web-based forums could be very useful, and video examples of exemplary teaching could be particularly powerful.
    
3. MENC's Strategies for Teaching publications, coordinated effectively by Carolynn Lindeman, made an invaluable contribution in helping teachers teach to the Standards. But more help is needed, especially with those strategies, subject matter, and school populations where teachers face the greatest difficulties. The flexibility provided by an online resource would be especially useful. The template used for the Strategies for Teaching could be used to provide consistency and completeness. A data bank in which teachers could share teaching strategies or lesson plans might find a large number of users. Minigrants might be made available from external funds to innovative teachers to document and share their standards-based practices, including video examples. Entire curricula could be shared. These efforts would greatly facilitate the collection, refinement, and dissemination of models.
   
   The usefulness of this resource, however, would depend on how it was organized. A huge amorphous and undifferentiated data bank would be essentially useless. The strategies or lesson plans should be peer-reviewed for completeness, consistency of format, and quality. They should be categorized according to the specific skills to be developed, the instructional setting, and the target student population. This resource would be difficult to develop, but if properly designed, and expanded as need dictates, it could turn out to be one of the most valuable benefits of MENC membership and a powerful incentive to join.
    
4. Similarly, there is evidence of widespread interest among music educators in sharing assessment strategies. MENC's Composing and Arranging: Standard 4 Benchmarks (Carroll Rinehart, ed.) was a particularly valuable beginning but, because it was so difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to produce, the projected series was not continued. Traditionally, meaningful assessment is something we have not done well, but today many of our colleagues are beginning to take this responsibility seriously, and many are being forced by their school districts to reform their assessment practices. The problems are especially difficult for elementary music teachers who see large numbers of students, often for only a few minutes a week, and for directors of large performing groups. Here too an online bank of useful assessment strategies would likely find a large and appreciative audience of users.
    
5. Because of the heavy hand of tradition, success in implementing the Standards may ultimately depend upon the extent to which changes can be brought about in the teacher education curricula of our colleges and universities. Here too we have seen successes in recent years, but we have not yet seen the massive change that is necessary for widespread reform. This effort should probably begin by reaching and persuading those who teach undergraduate methods classes. All of the usual tools and channels of communication are available. The Society for Music Teacher Education should be called upon to play a major role in this endeavor, and the cooperation of the Society for General Music, the Society for Research in Music Education, the National Association of Schools of Music, and other professional and accreditation organizations will also be needed.
    
6. MENC might consider developing a policy statement concerning the selection of music repertoire and teaching materials for instructional use. The teacher has near-complete discretion in this matter but, given the enormous scope and diversity of the materials available and the relatively tiny amount that can actually be used, some guidance concerning the principles that should govern the selection process would likely be welcomed by many teachers. This document would also help to ensure articulation between the various grades and levels of the school and give the teachers of upper-grade courses confidence that their students had learned certain core concepts and skills in the lower grades. It would also be of help to publishers seeking to make available materials promoting the standards-based curriculum.
    
7. Within MENC we have three Societies and several SRIGs that serve as means of communication among members who share specialized interests, but we have no similar groups for persons who are interested in issues related to teaching composition, improvisation, interdisciplinary relationships, or understanding music in relation to history and culture. Such groups as these would be helpful in promoting the relevant standards. Again, there are teachers across the country that are teaching this content very well, but there are no adequate channels for communication with or among them, and no mechanisms for them to share ideas with other potentially interested teachers. It's true that the current groups came into existence through bottom-up rather than top-down initiatives, but perhaps there is some way to encourage or stimulate potential leaders to band together to take such initiatives. It would also be helpful if there were a group or groups within MENC dedicated to promoting standards-based curricula in band, orchestra, and choral groups.
    
8. Future developments at the national level with respect to standards should be monitored continuously so that music education can remain in a leadership role. For example, some of the changes proposed in the pending reauthorization of NCLB contemplate an enhanced role for national standards developed by the National Assessment Governing Board in certain disciplines. If this should happen, we should seek to ensure that music is among the favored disciplines.
    
9. There remains another category of needed actions that are more difficult to define precisely. They arise from the issues raised at the Centennial Congress in Orlando in June. Since music education is seen as valuable by almost everyone, and since music is an integral part of the life of almost everyone, why is it that we have not yet been successful in making music a part of the core curriculum of every student in every school? One reason is that we are not yet prepared as a profession to implement the type of comprehensive and balanced music curriculum that we have long called for and that is envisioned in both the National Standards and in the Centennial Declaration. We cannot expect music education to be universal until we offer programs that are responsive to the varied music interests and needs of the entire student population. The National Standards provide an opening through which it may be possible to achieve that goal. A program that is truly balanced and comprehensive will recognize that there are many ways to behave musically. It will provide opportunities to pursue the diverse music roles that occupy a diverse citizenry. Until we do that, many students will have to look outside our classrooms to satisfy their music interests, and when this happens formal music education becomes irrelevant. It may seem too ambitious to advocate expanding our conception of general music and the array of specialized electives in the secondary school when many music programs are struggling merely to survive. But perhaps one reason some of us are struggling to survive is that our present offerings are too narrow, and we are not meeting the needs of a sufficiently large percentage of the school population. Finding ways to implement fully the National Standards may be one of the keys to achieving our goal of making music education universal.

The National Standards provide a useful framework for the more detailed work of constructing curricula. They identify the skills and knowledge that should be given the highest priority. The evidence assembled in this review suggests that considerable progress has been made since 1994, but it also suggests that there remains an enormous amount of work to be done if we are to achieve our goal of providing a balanced, comprehensive, and sequential program of music instruction for every student. We believe that the measures recommended here, beginning with the revision of the Achievement Standards, and continuing with the other actions suggested, constitute the logical steps that will take us to the next level in implementing curricula based on the skills and knowledge called for in the National Standards in every elementary and secondary school in America.