The Purpose and Use of This Publication

The content and achievement standards for music contained in National Standards for Arts Education have quickly become accepted as the basis for most state and local music standards and frameworks. They provide a common foundation for music curricula throughout the nation. These voluntary national standards for music give the music teacher considerable freedom of choice not only in selecting learning materials and teaching strategies but also in setting the performance standards by which student achievement is assessed. How does one determine whether or not a student's response has met the standard? How good is good enough? This publication seeks to help answer those questions.

The existence of content standards inevitably brings issues of assessment³ to the forefront. Ways must be found to determine whether or not the content standards have been met; otherwise, the standards are meaningless. Standards and assessment inescapably go hand-in-hand. That is true in every discipline. Because music is sometimes not seen as a basic discipline, music educators may have to do an even better job of assessment than their colleagues in math, science, and history in order to preserve and enhance music's foothold in the curriculum.

Because there are no widely used standardized tests in music, as there are in most other basic disciplines, music educators lack a solid and uniform basis for making reliable, valid, and fair assessments of student achievement that are consistent from one setting to another and from one time to another. On the other hand, by beginning without the preconceptions imposed by tradition, music educators can develop assessment strategies that avoid some of the widely criticized pitfalls of standardized testing and ensure that their assessments directly address their teaching objectives.

The purpose of this publication is to assist teachers, schools, school districts, and states in assessing the extent to which the music standards they have established for students are being met. The specific guidance this publication provides will help state education agencies or their contractors working with state music educators' associations to develop state assessments in music that are consistent with the voluntary national content standards and with state and local standards based on the national standards.⁴

In this publication, "performance standards" comprise model assessment strategies and descriptions of student responses. They also help to interpret and illustrate the meaning of the content standards. One sample assessment strategy is provided for each of the achievement standards in music specified in National Standards for Arts Education.⁵ For each sample assessment strategy, descriptions of student responses at the basic, proficient, and advanced levels are offered. These descriptions constitute benchmarks for judging student achievement. While based on the voluntary national content and achievement standards, the performance standards presented here are easily adaptable for use with most state or local standards.

In the past, music educators have tended to think of "performance" as referring exclusively to singing and playing instruments. Educators in other disciplines, however, use the term more broadly, including the various ways that students can demonstrate what they have learned. In this publication, therefore, "performance" refers not only to singing and playing but also to producing compositions, writing essays and other prose, completing objective examination papers, giving oral presentations, and any other evidence of students' skills and knowledge.

Performance standards will never relieve teachers of having to make judgments, but they represent an important step toward establishing a context in which assessments can be carried out with greater consistency than has been possible previously. Until performance standards are established, the task of developing standards in music is unfinished.

The Basic, Proficient, and Advanced Levels of Achievement

Descriptions of basic, proficient, and advanced performance for each assessment strategy constitute the core of this publication. The proficient level represents the level of achievement expected of every student, according to National Standards for Arts Education. This level should be achievable by most students, given good teaching, adequate time, and the other necessary opportunity-to-learn conditions identified by MENC: the National Association for Music Education⁶. The goal of every school should be to provide a learning environment in which students achieve at least at the proficient level.

The basic level represents achievement that shows distinct progress but has not yet reached the proficient level called for in National Standards for Arts Education. The basic level may be thought of as a meaningful intermediate point or a significant way station en route to the proficient level. It serves to distinguish achievement that is provisional or marginal from a response that is clearly unacceptable.

The advanced level is intended to represent achievement significantly above the proficient level recommended in National Standards for Arts Education. Especially at grades 8 and 12 achievement at the advanced level normally requires either unusual talent or time for learning beyond that available to the average student.

Beliefs and Assumptions

The performance standards presented in this publication are based on the following beliefs and assumptions:

1. Every student can learn music. Every student is capable of singing, playing instruments, and learning about music. Every student has the potential to meet the voluntary national standards for music instruction if given the opportunity.

2. Music instruction should begin in the preschool years. Students are seriously disadvantaged when school districts fail to begin a systematic program of music instruction before grade one. However, prekindergarten children should not be encumbered with the need to meet performance goals. The attainment of a predetermined performance level by each child at that level is neither essential nor appropriate.

3. Assessment in music is not only possible but necessary. Every school district should develop reliable, valid, and useful techniques for assessing student learning in music. Assessment should be based on explicit objectives that identify clearly the skills and knowledge expected of students. Many of the problems traditionally associated with assessment in music have arisen from objectives that are vague, ill-defined, or extravagant and, consequently, are sometimes incomprehensible to students, parents, and teachers.

Assessment of learning, particularly in music, is sometimes difficult and time-consuming, but it can be done. If instruction is effective, then the student will in some way behave differently as a result. If that happens, a basis for assessment exists.

Some music teachers reject the idea of assessment on the grounds that much music learning is highly subjective. It is likely that no single measure can fully define a student's creative ability, perceptual skills, or love of music, but it is possible to assess most of the behaviors that are associated with those traits. It is difficult or impossible to assess the most intangible and exalted qualities of musicianship, but it is possible to assess the practical, everyday skills and knowledge called for in the music standards. Those skills and knowledge are necessary-but-not-sufficient prerequisites for reaching the higher levels of music achievement. Music educators cannot refuse to do what is possible on the grounds that some things are not possible. As the beginning of the twenty-first century approaches, effective assessment is essential for music to remain among the basics of the curriculum.

4. The purpose of assessment is to improve learning. It does this by:

• Informing students, parents, and teachers of individual and group progress toward meeting the standards of the school
• Demonstrating to students, parents, and the community the types of learning and levels of achievement sought by the school
• Furnishing teachers with information on the effectiveness of instruction and thereby providing a basis for improvement
• Making possible comparisons involving student achievement across time and, when desired, among school districts or states
• Motivating student learning
• Providing information to policy-makers at all levels to aid in decision-making

5. Assessment of student learning is not synonymous with evaluation of teaching or evaluation of instructional programs. The quality of teaching naturally affects the quality of student learning. Similarly, the quality of the school's instructional programs affects student learning. Both of these variables can be evaluated, but for purposes of assessment, both may be thought of as separate from student learning.

Poor learning may be caused by poor teaching, by a poor instructional program, or by other factors. If learning has been satisfactory, there may be little need for further investigation. If learning has not been satisfactory, it is then important to identify why this is so and to improve the situation. Assessment of teaching or assessment of the school program may be useful at this point.

MENC has long emphasized the need for high-quality teaching⁷ and has recently begun discussions expected to lead to the development of standards for music teacher education.⁸ Also, MENC has published materials to assist in the evaluation of school music programs.⁹ Evaluation of a school's music program should be based not only on the quality of the school's performing groups but also on the quality and comprehensiveness of its general music program. A valid assessment of a music program would consider not only the extent to which the school provides all students with the opportunity to learn music, but would also reflect the variety of music offerings available, the percentage of students involved, and their success in achieving the diverse types of music learning called for in National Standards for Arts Education. Information concerning the necessary conditions for effective music learning with respect to (1) curriculum and scheduling, (2) staffing, (3) materials and equipment, and (4) facilities may be found in MENC's Opportunity-to-Learn Standards for Music Education: Grades PreK“12.

6. Assessment in music requires various techniques in various settings. Comprehensive assessment takes place in a wide variety of contexts and settings, and each assessment context requires different assessment techniques:

• When a student performs a passage in rehearsal or offers a comment in class, the teacher's response typically involves an explicit or implicit assessment.
• Teachers also assess their students' work in more structured ways over longer periods, ranging from a few days to several weeks, and they usually assign grades at regular intervals.
• Students assess their own work.
• Schools assess their instructional programs in order to report to the community on their effectiveness.
• External funding agencies seek to gauge the effectiveness of programs they have funded.
• States increasingly are creating programs of systematic assessment.

Some assessment techniques are useful in more than one instructional setting, but any discussion of assessment techniques is meaningful only when linked to clearly defined purposes. There is no general-purpose formula for assessment that is useful in every setting.

Insofar as is practical, assessment information should be gathered from various sources, using a variety of methods. Each source has its own biases, and each information-gathering technique has its own strengths and weaknesses. When information obtained by various means is combined or considered collectively, weaknesses in the various methodologies tend to cancel each other out, and the assessor can have greater confidence in the results.

Technology can play an important role in assessment as well as in instruction. This is especially true in music because of the large size of many ensembles in secondary schools and the high student-to-teacher ratios in many elementary music programs. Technology is also important because much of what musicians do is multimedia in nature and therefore cannot be adequately represented on paper. Using technology, student performances can be recorded, evaluated, and revised. Elaborate and effective computer-based instructional programs have been developed for ear-training and other music skills.

The teaching of composition can be greatly facilitated by giving students access to technology such as MIDI keyboards and sequencing software. Technology can be used in administering assessment exercises to individuals and groups, as well as in pacing assessment according to student readiness, in compiling results, and in charting student progress.

7. Reports to parents should be based on standards. One of the most common uses of assessment has traditionally been reporting to parents on student progress, or grading. Elementary music teachers and directors of large ensembles often have trouble assigning grades because they have so many students that it is difficult to become familiar with the work of each individual. Nevertheless, assessment in large groups, as in smaller classes, should be based on content standards translated into objectives that are expressed in terms of specific skills and knowledge. Despite the time required, standards-based objectives provide the only justifiable basis for assigning grades.¹⁰

Some music teachers have placed undue emphasis on noncurricular factors, such as attendance, when assigning grades. This practice is sharply at odds with the usual procedures in other disciplines and may be seen by fellow educators as evidence that music lacks curricular substance. One result of this practice is that grades in music courses are often disregarded by college admissions officials.

The mere fact that grades tend to be high in music courses is not in itself evidence of a lack of serious evaluation. The students in bands and orchestras, for example, are often highly selected, most having studied their instruments for a number of years, and the general level of achievement is often very high. It would be unreasonable to expect a grade distribution similar to that in a typical math or English class.

Some teachers profess to grade heavily on effort as distinguished from achievement. They ask why a student should be "penalized" because of a lack of innate talent, a lack of good previous instruction, or a lack of exposure to music at an early age. Anyone reading a student's transcript, however, has a right to assume that a good grade indicates knowledge and skill in the course content. It is misleading to use a good grade merely to indicate that a student has tried hard--or has managed to give the appearance of trying hard. The school curriculum is diverse, and every student should expect to be more successful in some courses than in others. A student who does poorly in math cannot expect an "A" on the grounds that he or she tried hard but lacked talent.

Some teachers use grades to recognize progress rather than achievement, at least on occasion, and thereby distinguish between, for example, a student who began at a low level of achievement and made great progress and a student who began at a high level and made little progress. In fact, progress is inevitably reflected in achievement. Progress is a legitimate consideration, but an overemphasis on progress distorts the grading process.

A single letter grade, though sometimes necessary, cannot reflect all of the many aspects of a student's learning in music. A profile reporting achievement with respect to each standard, or with respect to separate skills within a standard, would provide a more helpful portrait of the individual's learning.

8. Caution is needed in interpreting assessment results. Assessment results are only approximations of the complete truth and should be interpreted with caution, especially when the stakes are high. If more information were available, the result might be somewhat different. The larger the sample of evidence, the more confidence the teacher can place in any conclusion reached. The degree of error that can be tolerated depends on the consequences of the inferences to be drawn. For example, if the stakes are high--as when a student's promotion or admission to a select group hangs in the balance--then highly reliable measures are required and a broad sampling of student learning must be considered.

Care should be taken to draw from assessment data only those inferences that are justified. In order to generalize from assessment results, it is necessary to sample as widely and randomly as possible from the universe of relevant behaviors. Drawing unwarranted conclusions is a frequent mistake in assessment that typically results from using inappropriate assessment strategies or making erroneous assumptions.

As more and more information purporting to reflect outcomes of education has become available, educators have expressed increasing concern about how this information is reported in the press and how it is interpreted by the public. It is a mistake, for example, to accept at face value an allegation that students' proficiency has declined when the decline is so small or the number of students assessed so limited that the difference is not statistically significant. It is an overgeneralization to conclude that students understand the historical and cultural context of music merely because they can perform one or two narrowly defined tasks involving historical or cultural context. It is wrong to believe that a school's music program is good because one or two specific aspects of it are good.

Assessment results may be useful tools in public relations, but it is important that educators do not become captives of their own data. Some information is less important or less trustworthy than other information. Assessment results are sometimes misused by the news media, and the ways in which decision-makers use information may be unduly influenced by the media. An overabundance of incomplete or trivial assessment results makes it easy for the rhetoric of education reform to triumph over the reality. Educators should seek to ensure that the primary use of educational information is to make intelligent decisions concerning education.

Guidelines for Assessment

Any materials or techniques used to assess student learning in music should satisfy the guidelines suggested below. Traditional practices that are flawed sometimes escape notice because they are familiar. Teachers, administrators, school districts, and state education agencies should review their music assessment practices to ensure that they are consistent with the following guidelines:

1. Assessment should be standards-based and should reflect the music skills and knowledge that are most important for students to learn. Assessment of student achievement should not be based on the skills and knowledge that are easiest to assess nor on those for which ready-made assessment devices are available. Instead, it should be based on the extent to which each student has met the standards established, and it should reflect the priorities of the instructional program.

Assessment should not be based primarily on where the student ranks relative to a particular class or group. It should be based on whether or not the student has met specific criteria. In these performance standards separate criteria have been established for basic, proficient, and advanced levels of achievement.

2. Assessment should support, enhance, and reinforce learning. Assessment should be viewed by both students and teachers as a continuing, integral part of instruction rather than as an intrusion into--or interruption of--the process of learning. The assessment process should itself be a learning experience, and it should not be conducted or viewed as separate from the learning process.

Students should regard assessment as a useful tool rather than as a source of fear or anxiety. They should use it as a means of further learning and as a means of measuring their own progress. When assessment tasks are designed to provide information concerning the extent to which students meet standards that have been established for them, teachers can adjust their instructional programs so as to be more effective.

3. Assessment should be reliable. Reliability refers to consistency. If an assessment is reliable, then another assessment of the same skills or knowledge will produce essentially the same results. For assessment to be reliable, every student must be assessed by identical procedures and the assessors must share the same levels of expectation so that a student's score does not depend on who is doing the scoring.

4. Assessment should be valid. Validity means that the assessment technique actually measures what it claims to measure. The mental processes represented by the scores correspond to the mental processes being assessed. No measurement instrument should be used to measure something that it was not designed to measure. If there is a mismatch between assessment strategies and the objectives of the curriculum, the assessment strategies are not valid for that curriculum.

5. Assessment should be authentic. Authentic assessment means that assessment tasks reflect the essential nature of the skill or knowledge being assessed. The student should actually demonstrate a music behavior in an authentic or realistic situation rather than merely answer written questions about it. For example, the ability to play the recorder should be assessed by having the student play the recorder, not by having the student answer test questions concerning fingerings, hand position, phrasing, and note-reading.

Assessment does not need to be based on multiple-choice tests or even on paper-and-pencil tests, though those techniques have their uses. Portfolios, performance-based assessment, and other techniques of authentic assessment have been used successfully by music educators for many years; however, these techniques cannot by themselves solve the assessment problems facing educators. A portfolio is simply a collection of samples of a student's work taken periodically for a specific purpose throughout the instructional process. Those samples must still be assessed, and the assessment requires not only careful thought about what should go into the portfolio but also great care in developing suitable assessment strategies and appropriate scoring procedures.¹¹

Assessment should take a holistic view of music learning. It should not concentrate on isolated facts and minutiae but should deal with broad concepts, "whole" performances, and complete works of music. Authenticity, like reliability, is a prerequisite to validity.

6. The process of assessment should be open to review by interested parties. Although assessment of music learning can best be carried out by qualified music teachers, it is important that students, parents, and the public be provided with sufficient information and help that they too can make judgments about the extent to which music learning is taking place in their schools. If their evaluations are faulty, it should be because of their lack of professional qualifications and not because of lack of information concerning the assessment process. It is especially important that students know what they are to be assessed on, how they are to be assessed, and what criteria will be used to judge their achievement. When appropriate, they should be allowed to participate in developing the criteria by which their work will be assessed.

Music exalts the human spirit. It enhances the quality of life. It brings joy, satisfaction, and fulfillment to every human being. It is one of the most powerful, compelling, and glorious manifestations of human culture. It is the essence of civilization itself. Music learning would deserve to be included in the curriculum even if it could not be assessed. But music learning based on explicit standards can be assessed. Music should never be neglected in the school merely because its assessment may be difficult, time-consuming, or costly.