<%BANNER%>

The Impact of High-Stakes Testing on Curriculum, Funding, Instructional Time, and Student Participation in Music Programs

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021419/00001

Material Information

Title: The Impact of High-Stakes Testing on Curriculum, Funding, Instructional Time, and Student Participation in Music Programs
Physical Description: 1 online resource (94 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Heffner, Christopher J
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: curriculum, funding, high, impact, music, participation, stakes, students, testing, time
Music -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Music Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Since the enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (H. Res. 1, 2002), school administrators have felt the pressure of accountability. NCLB mandates that 100% of students reach the proficient level in reading and math on the state high-stakes test by 2013-2014. Almost all of the state tests that are used to measure school accountability do not have a section devoted to the fine arts. The lack of fine arts inclusion has caused schools to emphasize reading and math during the school day to the detriment of fine arts. To determine the degree of that impact, an online survey was created examining: How has the music curriculum been impacted since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? How has funding for music education been impacted since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? How has instructional time been impacted in music education since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? How have students been impacted in music education since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? The survey was sent to 2,011 district and state arts supervisors in the United States. The survey remained online for ten days. Two hundred fourteen supervisors participated in the study representing 14,293 music educators from 38 States. Supervisors indicated that since 2001, high-stakes testing has negatively impacted the number and variety of music classes, funding for music programs, the amount or instructional time allotted for music programs, and the number of students participating in music classes.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Christopher J Heffner.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Brophy, Timothy S.
Local: Co-adviser: Waybright, David A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021419:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021419/00001

Material Information

Title: The Impact of High-Stakes Testing on Curriculum, Funding, Instructional Time, and Student Participation in Music Programs
Physical Description: 1 online resource (94 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Heffner, Christopher J
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: curriculum, funding, high, impact, music, participation, stakes, students, testing, time
Music -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Music Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Since the enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (H. Res. 1, 2002), school administrators have felt the pressure of accountability. NCLB mandates that 100% of students reach the proficient level in reading and math on the state high-stakes test by 2013-2014. Almost all of the state tests that are used to measure school accountability do not have a section devoted to the fine arts. The lack of fine arts inclusion has caused schools to emphasize reading and math during the school day to the detriment of fine arts. To determine the degree of that impact, an online survey was created examining: How has the music curriculum been impacted since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? How has funding for music education been impacted since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? How has instructional time been impacted in music education since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? How have students been impacted in music education since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? The survey was sent to 2,011 district and state arts supervisors in the United States. The survey remained online for ten days. Two hundred fourteen supervisors participated in the study representing 14,293 music educators from 38 States. Supervisors indicated that since 2001, high-stakes testing has negatively impacted the number and variety of music classes, funding for music programs, the amount or instructional time allotted for music programs, and the number of students participating in music classes.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Christopher J Heffner.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Brophy, Timothy S.
Local: Co-adviser: Waybright, David A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021419:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101206_AAAADI INGEST_TIME 2010-12-06T16:37:35Z PACKAGE UFE0021419_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 1053954 DFID F20101206_AABREX ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH heffner_c_Page_43.tif GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
13e70da85be3aa207c711dd0c6aa8ef1
SHA-1
6da455a04710137f66cbb5b5e162e5a52730784a
36601 F20101206_AABQZR heffner_c_Page_85.jpg
0f08a4b57e0aabda7b6926490f845bc0
5c87efe712d320ae246a4cc0a5c3ec2dc2aafb3f
F20101206_AABRGA heffner_c_Page_74.tif
ed524ee56b344ac67f594d61ec3b5155
44b76fb66105eb1a815195eb4f5030aaaeec504b
25271604 F20101206_AABRFL heffner_c_Page_59.tif
a3684c58af4c232713b0ac2198e6c4b3
01220a050aee8dd061c7761b2f113eb5f11619da
F20101206_AABREY heffner_c_Page_44.tif
1d9977a1391d9e884ba6e9984ae6477f
726ca853c643713a449122d250d7b186f5b30f1a
38568 F20101206_AABQZS heffner_c_Page_86.jpg
95a767e1e9488865141b3162d649c918
5cfb78c6501032c66eda6952143eb31a32bccc63
F20101206_AABRFM heffner_c_Page_60.tif
ba045d0c9eb2c11b463f2f734c84e1ec
a8b83f2b5d1e91be0c851c76847c0ac968277401
F20101206_AABREZ heffner_c_Page_45.tif
cab9f7ca0adfe6b945a005781996a265
de6e008563f36ff2e6fb97f3e9886a2ee5f33517
38187 F20101206_AABQZT heffner_c_Page_87.jpg
0ea0bd43668a915c32beb85f78b9148c
34012601db2c5637dffd227eb7bffd6039bad5f9
F20101206_AABRGB heffner_c_Page_75.tif
c5ba1c52c5e462cfdaf5f6c73d9db508
f4518e7e69423c277919470e654e3ab8b7d7b166
F20101206_AABRFN heffner_c_Page_61.tif
efa53327fe1cb383f7e5d65e7be59013
d6e75a221b2cf1c21cda624da099f886914f4b21
62898 F20101206_AABQZU heffner_c_Page_88.jpg
09c21cd549de39dd989307c21684a853
1abfab8e970d7b0e03f72b5df7c66585dd0bdd25
F20101206_AABRGC heffner_c_Page_76.tif
2d8f0f23a467a100aa7c31e9fc62102b
8d838ed5365bde9ef27c1db278ba2c0b7862ac27
F20101206_AABRFO heffner_c_Page_62.tif
ace66843c6add91d5022aa8371d6b1ef
b5bd6c941133fc95b8b6a6ca63fd0ffdbcd24092
F20101206_AABRGD heffner_c_Page_77.tif
f821cbd42f171fac2062b13929315069
77fa07ddef3b1b56f77a4cc9f25507968da5f569
F20101206_AABRFP heffner_c_Page_63.tif
f47f094ff0c266805e039df4ba05b56d
3ec871867829fa8ec0880f672781cb67c3911801
29641 F20101206_AABQZV heffner_c_Page_89.jpg
61b7542f844b9dfc0f1711b81a7fac28
01ff0af7c084cbc231c255a92e2b0fa16a57b6d8
F20101206_AABRGE heffner_c_Page_78.tif
4e1f148c676b4664fc16fc269a537233
6a0b1e6a6fd67d777f9e3c0bad7a4aedbdd35644
F20101206_AABRFQ heffner_c_Page_64.tif
086de6c7f1c5d68d8ead1873ca2c34af
080693a17a071e14dcde078f789c28c132c9d041
88005 F20101206_AABQZW heffner_c_Page_90.jpg
1525dcd2b14d534be50f3b54d1c6f554
ed49c367b0f83a96fe541f719a0be93dfc66d913
F20101206_AABRGF heffner_c_Page_79.tif
d03c216ef0fb6e9d1bb8a01f27b2b397
d5e9ace4b259f9a870c85ad4eedf139f5b0ee124
F20101206_AABRFR heffner_c_Page_65.tif
44ffc298d562933737729fa85c7a9c66
e5e1bfd90c06397258a2bdbb5a0c9b20d933e79c
85956 F20101206_AABQZX heffner_c_Page_91.jpg
9060a92cfd0d14eac54598f28c9545d7
a9d2287b195251bda34501f52698acf5faecb9de
F20101206_AABRGG heffner_c_Page_80.tif
f35f58bbfbcf9fafdff26620ded15c58
fd20976d2fba3f6902d7a5bbd67e34325e18bc1a
F20101206_AABRFS heffner_c_Page_66.tif
3ec8959053e1e6e1f06fe81c2bbf5274
deadea871c4d4859cd8cc2832e87a68985a6080c
50140 F20101206_AABQZY heffner_c_Page_92.jpg
93d298e92457d96e088e28675a170da6
f24c01ea2654e3f3afd68a1cbd5dbb0fdbed0de0
F20101206_AABRGH heffner_c_Page_81.tif
be6980273dc530ba84368d50f8449b84
ddcde9ace8d03e5dbe6a0f1b01d3842fa5c77491
F20101206_AABRFT heffner_c_Page_67.tif
13ad79bc9ce35818bcbceadebd66cce7
ddeafda2c30d212d19f0a4a56b30f97519ff9cf7
90321 F20101206_AABQZZ heffner_c_Page_93.jpg
9e0b9c196895be7d5de0f4982eb15303
493c62619b2c768461f774b6d2e53cc65bd850a8
F20101206_AABRGI heffner_c_Page_82.tif
262ba47bef284dad4f8e4fdb92a82edf
ee876374a35b5affa83611c8f44276b2f6c54ad1
F20101206_AABRFU heffner_c_Page_68.tif
44dfaccfe99a9b1c6381119a9f0dfe76
3ed0242a1db2429de515112170a7871ad570b4dc
F20101206_AABRGJ heffner_c_Page_83.tif
ef3bd11d32fda381c54a1c01a6970ad6
328945f3631d168e320430025f8c3f374ee6411b
F20101206_AABRFV heffner_c_Page_69.tif
d588a145cffa2bcdb49a5cb6687cd20d
42354adf84c2aa12a14705f1836a5c26323728c0
F20101206_AABRGK heffner_c_Page_85.tif
d35669dc8d0661b6d9882b0fe69e1353
3bdc01f992b13548eb203f02badbbd1d64e3c8d8
F20101206_AABRFW heffner_c_Page_70.tif
01ce24bd9f5b9c9bcd4f8ee712c96d6b
b0e7e85e020d3aff44360a30576bb59b6037ff8a
55821 F20101206_AABRHA heffner_c_Page_08.pro
9f2162c03b95dd0b63f52a9cb63e7da0
0380e450264dee7442b28cbde92556613018d280
F20101206_AABRGL heffner_c_Page_86.tif
892dc1046c95f09976b522b1f41d4da3
f91747de11a3f67492e2ef63d86b32c248302557
F20101206_AABRFX heffner_c_Page_71.tif
cdd24aeef7b08a88328c405fd3bafc5c
fc68cd15e6d4fab78b831a854bb90fc671142d02
61144 F20101206_AABRHB heffner_c_Page_09.pro
7880f9cf26a1050655f6155143be4d97
c67548d4061eaf64037299762e2dfca618e00d0c
F20101206_AABRGM heffner_c_Page_87.tif
452a1b7019dab9c4c3fece2f0c6131ad
c10d3b915fedcc5c22d84c45671e6e93c79a9e50
F20101206_AABRFY heffner_c_Page_72.tif
2d9c21ddcbffdad31e1858f028c25d5c
ab4643f82b0897e4b6f347af99fbd08f2955489a
F20101206_AABRGN heffner_c_Page_88.tif
866d5cdf7767a7a6ef37237efa7270fb
737230f678839a2a04775463987b7b53bef91461
F20101206_AABRFZ heffner_c_Page_73.tif
95376efc3f799c821a2e4ba053bd927a
e88b795f291eff00c37b0ff9baa8bea22d53f838
38874 F20101206_AABRHC heffner_c_Page_10.pro
a95bb8f50cd28283451dd69869fb1c66
cb2b12e2f8ba5e33bcb98217114d592a397a62c8
F20101206_AABRGO heffner_c_Page_89.tif
166209d1ba77a371ec11f94eeaec45b4
d8694b874716b213926d39bf229232d730e73438
13645 F20101206_AABRHD heffner_c_Page_11.pro
b9adb464e9de5c8826e41d324405e102
fad6734170687ccdf1e11408b99676f97150d33f
F20101206_AABRGP heffner_c_Page_90.tif
36a11c0505dae43689f09dc353f76f87
f21a5bd4eb6c3d46af0bde7f18953c9e6ff7fb0c
48253 F20101206_AABRHE heffner_c_Page_12.pro
c2b176d78116e21f41b60fd625b2c5cf
5dad7ce9977adbf52a138dbd9f3e9907edab0cbe
F20101206_AABRGQ heffner_c_Page_91.tif
417c76c6c5eb3ce1b7e51ca6a3f963ee
503615d144c2f0d23bb22682f99678c5d3d2a2e5
53920 F20101206_AABRHF heffner_c_Page_13.pro
9bcf76f7d0fe3654d2b719527dfd4b46
23db252504dd67bad5b33e5a1f1e924d3093ae64
F20101206_AABRGR heffner_c_Page_92.tif
daca40e73dabc7837246159df11f4492
03a48b0712f8dce1f7ffc78a08a4d27a28b53343
50091 F20101206_AABRHG heffner_c_Page_14.pro
4326c27b99dac9ae23bcf685e68303f8
f26c83d9ea69164f3788cf0451b35a53efeee649
F20101206_AABRGS heffner_c_Page_93.tif
b5e68335c41ab4529a98c724d8528ce9
3db7d192526c80be39b0dd89cf89451697a01c51
42287 F20101206_AABRHH heffner_c_Page_15.pro
2355a9bdcef2022f1f73b3a4ebe9a168
7b859a3c784d9147b668ae3cd3dd68c015743d48
F20101206_AABRGT heffner_c_Page_94.tif
55fefa9ab4200374b8a2cf763183749e
0a28a4055f01f6b283a185ea03c9c1a21e849e68
23912 F20101206_AABRHI heffner_c_Page_16.pro
04161d7594001edc1a48aa0990896cf2
2ed397c4adb60beadfe45973397434709bc95f26
9274 F20101206_AABRGU heffner_c_Page_01.pro
cbcb6649e4120f2be2e5b274121a0eec
7b838d1816e0c8a59dbb1f89a9726e19b9f54c60
51770 F20101206_AABRHJ heffner_c_Page_17.pro
f708a94b3957a7ccf0df1b0e10ec2f6c
d1f137dc1f848ea156626062190ae86706320138
1038 F20101206_AABRGV heffner_c_Page_02.pro
acc24f4dc80d985be5a3f97c04b8b3fc
015c453c7b0467378ea413a04ee2647c5c386397
56022 F20101206_AABRHK heffner_c_Page_18.pro
ed6ae406f8a52e3909673a7e938a8997
6831dd21a4a07921a22d6acdccee4f17c9961e7a
544 F20101206_AABRGW heffner_c_Page_03.pro
2f6b2b177a67fce0b53484539cf93b76
22e3f89171221974c8134044db22a11d0b4e7237
70206 F20101206_AABRHL heffner_c_Page_19.pro
5c1c2db02a77cc633b1c7055898463ad
4545069f31a9b7786888571bea9e26fa424de5bb
8258 F20101206_AABRGX heffner_c_Page_05.pro
cc38e130f69aeb7e356e83afac916cfd
107eabbf857bee663a85beb0bd4fca16f3c0ed8d
58541 F20101206_AABRIA heffner_c_Page_35.pro
cbe247b2c9e00875a0034346e84e7fff
eb7af2693fe693284e242be59d7129dea5e23c94
50514 F20101206_AABRHM heffner_c_Page_20.pro
754eb19b3896b300441cd91c19464741
2b42780fd0401abf8bf5ef5b8dd18255ea9f4018
71363 F20101206_AABRGY heffner_c_Page_06.pro
404090576beee02230e4ca7122f5243a
0c6e296335f82f2dea25015fc65fd28bbf1776d6
3471 F20101206_AABRIB heffner_c_Page_37.pro
9e9b06cdd23e41451b6f9038a7f01b25
37639f8fb744ea199ea0e45d83936abed080f31d
56344 F20101206_AABRHN heffner_c_Page_21.pro
afa6f6135ec47eb793b76c9ec2d4a3c9
f625b7de5b2cb6d243b5a65bf964e87e151cc451
67025 F20101206_AABRGZ heffner_c_Page_07.pro
1aef78f28433de6a809ef805dccd37e6
47051c4cb6703714c8dea8320a65744be310a7c1
52095 F20101206_AABRIC heffner_c_Page_38.pro
42fe4b9334220036556e23c4613f39e4
af5e1ebd439f78543ca82d21fa572d089792e52d
55225 F20101206_AABRHO heffner_c_Page_22.pro
edbed3a029730fd541365ea6a0a022ef
b9a9a3daf49c1acf0cac69da9fdbaf8b9f84fc89
58434 F20101206_AABRHP heffner_c_Page_23.pro
31bf26041fd7e63c422b658936846ebd
377cd446ee616db08e754060fa2e8b77a23b1d4a
54414 F20101206_AABRID heffner_c_Page_39.pro
7b7529cc7e32b20395371a0949a2fad2
f2801e535ec5042ec7ecaef897d04f347073c705
53663 F20101206_AABRHQ heffner_c_Page_24.pro
f1a9151bb8d90d8517b450190f0e7baa
7ef938b253a03e58e617f2200ad0a7c59f83db8e
52517 F20101206_AABRIE heffner_c_Page_40.pro
8edb1ede470d873c716fc665b2b41323
7931c7f21ebd677fec502c7aa489b9aaf8b3fc46
58166 F20101206_AABRHR heffner_c_Page_25.pro
0abd0505194c569f3f515437983e7ade
e6c4a559f02bc1d1705af1e8994c75c22ab89df9
40879 F20101206_AABRIF heffner_c_Page_41.pro
c00fdab15f818195065f90e5627039be
f528e85689c108c39023c9e1eef4e2446666dc4d
55211 F20101206_AABRHS heffner_c_Page_26.pro
8c9c919b0ab85b145ba0a8760daaa15f
f90f9ff055b58428636eba95b419f811e30eb437
48024 F20101206_AABRIG heffner_c_Page_43.pro
26f86bc3792c44430af03ab54bb0a39f
2140e305fa3cb43e69123c19517888639ffaf21f
55709 F20101206_AABRHT heffner_c_Page_28.pro
0c9cff3a716536474b6d20b219d85541
1aa1ab5e8272cb02ad30ab8c85a4036b00e1cdc9
28154 F20101206_AABRIH heffner_c_Page_44.pro
11c52cbd420940fbae0c31d72e4f5027
98cae8d8595b9459dfc343c8d67e1d903cc7ec7b
50602 F20101206_AABRHU heffner_c_Page_29.pro
842a87c28815d6b97a253221b5692091
9f0f817a45728a5e1064becd5482e967d287b715
47627 F20101206_AABRII heffner_c_Page_45.pro
cd609f70c1389db803c20dfb10b0c405
291e819cc9465f72b03bdd431abb09d385542d00
56970 F20101206_AABRHV heffner_c_Page_30.pro
885be4b63791494bbce94e2d9b7bd360
263441634d86c99705526cf106b5656b96aa1918
51109 F20101206_AABRIJ heffner_c_Page_46.pro
9570390010aec7855942991fda98de06
faa40a31d344253912b7e3487ddabf0195ff5a53
53510 F20101206_AABRHW heffner_c_Page_31.pro
b61f6b2e25ce27e7f0c317fafdcdc437
e08ea165e0e3401cf3cae06d9ad6f68749668d23
49992 F20101206_AABRIK heffner_c_Page_47.pro
6c999f1d6de9aedd4b6fb405cd96637c
7963131d9e22311ccde1b10a521e88c6d7143e35
64263 F20101206_AABRHX heffner_c_Page_32.pro
425a8f785753320b4e44eabd45cc0e46
cf94117f93f8bbe60314bcb878100a2e44732669
13330 F20101206_AABRJA heffner_c_Page_65.pro
49cc4b5df2a0603eb768fd28acca3cb0
6bf19c6316ca985b11222fa926d0e42b089d663c
64625 F20101206_AABRIL heffner_c_Page_48.pro
1df681d69b11b9185ee680c23477547d
afbb62d1798ad5a447c849a3eddff57cd9d5bda8
54382 F20101206_AABRHY heffner_c_Page_33.pro
69a079f71b6a133f85cc053ee24cfb83
945d14b168aa07a54e6d7fe81040b8b3e1b2d0a5
27779 F20101206_AABRJB heffner_c_Page_66.pro
c3968909ebdf4421c4b00add97a3d2df
1d81c1559a712eef69cf7802712cddf25ae9785b
58617 F20101206_AABRIM heffner_c_Page_49.pro
b7cb2b291751ec4eef1d8b915cfc20c6
1acefca43b5b450337c836e799e8fce3c6e96b76
56874 F20101206_AABRHZ heffner_c_Page_34.pro
0a8bebbd59776c3aa39cce6d325babfc
24a0f369a62f01dbb0aaa0e4bb8c2cb76c9c1f77
21089 F20101206_AABRJC heffner_c_Page_67.pro
90c44f7c543f5ef0e062b01db03cf88c
7917c8d3b00a7e9dba8aa6b2946fb996434180a0
51535 F20101206_AABRIN heffner_c_Page_50.pro
9cec32a0e7673c1241d5419315433902
ab2f678681a7f16f59bbb25c7433821fb3911540
49638 F20101206_AABRJD heffner_c_Page_68.pro
3d25eb0c5171f4c3d5b13fff0f468bcb
9638b3ef1a907e764152b22fba8f08a8b411ab07
51684 F20101206_AABRIO heffner_c_Page_51.pro
1c17930c065103a83b3f813700afac71
f1b9e22688775b0e281234cc217fe709eda66374
85816 F20101206_AABRIP heffner_c_Page_52.pro
0bd7c5ba22f85e4e7462ff07a7179d5e
827a8387e8d3ace85d1817e39847bfcc96a7bab7
51749 F20101206_AABRJE heffner_c_Page_69.pro
4eaaa85351d2a7dc5ef0a08059f7bd53
b785e53964b428db8b196dad19aa0602c4e25876
61602 F20101206_AABRIQ heffner_c_Page_54.pro
90a45b8738b25e87c93d73199b6903d9
755c6121cd6d4c95dbb0b9e8952172ad77ab8ea0
57365 F20101206_AABRJF heffner_c_Page_70.pro
ff436e94cee0e0e394c07e5ef09e2538
4b962f9eb6505124383e1361912c2816d9ee6a7a
67811 F20101206_AABRIR heffner_c_Page_55.pro
133cbef3983303b30cbe5d901cbf0d18
5c3d1daa7dd9c7f331074027ea4be5e5fd4f84f3
52961 F20101206_AABRJG heffner_c_Page_71.pro
460df4db02ffb3c643c8b445ca716d71
781fb06ad277ce20330485c0fc43aab78cb1357e
42555 F20101206_AABRIS heffner_c_Page_56.pro
add6ab03fb659bc651d5766d2478318c
1e3ce7509d1ef64ea562f199b9a5d724ffd75829
56609 F20101206_AABRJH heffner_c_Page_72.pro
46975f73a30e2c08d629d51c997ddf57
da661ff3ffae6af926b6043c9cc4c97b805ecea3
12751 F20101206_AABRIT heffner_c_Page_57.pro
b5b526e30efb98f427716c5498e0cb94
31bc0cf630827d674788b9cddd77432a1a89c57b
53972 F20101206_AABRJI heffner_c_Page_73.pro
78e75d7b5998233ccee4b114f1f770b9
f4495ea1594d17d29a3097dafe3a03c344a2de59
14243 F20101206_AABRIU heffner_c_Page_58.pro
e1a8fd8a0acd87560bd640fd1303bc2e
4bed8c516e8b5b81abb6a9a69a6dc1aa134aa612
50069 F20101206_AABRJJ heffner_c_Page_74.pro
113c8be1583f41c8a0043415ccf01411
fbe91b65353deccb401ddd2ac267dc6f4c718de0
16169 F20101206_AABRIV heffner_c_Page_59.pro
d59ee6f90d6517cb95a27ed902ff2430
c0a4cfc8cc4fa6879abede0a94670c6c391cf89a
53137 F20101206_AABRJK heffner_c_Page_75.pro
a15e9cafd7bb2bf07cde978fa050e87d
41f4db8749157caa665266ce10016dd56708cf3f
14259 F20101206_AABRIW heffner_c_Page_60.pro
c04c5de0b347a3a9041e5aff974da492
7a5279e6ad746ab3fa72467fcde29e6f613ed185
51871 F20101206_AABRKA heffner_c_Page_91.pro
fe7f9adeee64c93b31c888b477a1f34d
90634c3359ee9160617468d84f88fbef932e2e4d
50541 F20101206_AABRJL heffner_c_Page_76.pro
2963a6b6149c869f4ec82aed93bec925
23e37b2940854e806238afa74ef71acff5b37d15
12643 F20101206_AABRIX heffner_c_Page_61.pro
28784745d2b840e84df64ad8ae1246b8
8797ee58c3441137a82e9706866247abe783de68
29070 F20101206_AABRKB heffner_c_Page_92.pro
54c175a7de4cb6c5d536e1a46426beec
4f8066657ab56c54896acfba8667eff4cec44bfb
48097 F20101206_AABRJM heffner_c_Page_77.pro
82e661ad20ce51dcfde6e3ea0f3b3841
86d676a9a6843244439d5887841173773729637c
12345 F20101206_AABRIY heffner_c_Page_62.pro
169d6e60f21ea38012f12ca08dd40692
054fc9116d2daad52ca09384457351df50882eb2
53603 F20101206_AABRKC heffner_c_Page_93.pro
55abd76da3d21d92b73779494001dead
3deaca450cd6019ee9c3637334321906ca37d9f8
54047 F20101206_AABRJN heffner_c_Page_78.pro
379d413d69b30e4694cd74e47f763918
85c7b4fdf1bebe8189014ced098dbf5400ddfa70
15033 F20101206_AABRIZ heffner_c_Page_63.pro
8359279b09ea8eb8ec33bcb697757fe8
1ee264a2ccf9bb89c02e017a4a6976a42d21e953
11082 F20101206_AABRKD heffner_c_Page_94.pro
c4a77395f7ce3555ad8a04f727a64f07
31a10bafa6ef7841d0e551e84bb340e09ef4207a
22286 F20101206_AABRJO heffner_c_Page_79.pro
9d53d679c0f2cda957c5efe1c7793911
822bcf11de78b8ee56a6ca84e848259915b524d6
29794 F20101206_AABRJP heffner_c_Page_80.pro
0aa3c6a6cbb8fc6aa2c91492c80fc628
cbe7fd48662dbd355e8e3f92208b18af7a652de5
514 F20101206_AABRKE heffner_c_Page_01.txt
2137139680d6f87419633e00a8898272
342ab5f19a9583ddcbd874e8e51f2e639d7262f4
33448 F20101206_AABRJQ heffner_c_Page_81.pro
2883a65ad40a62b8fde3bba63d9a5c1a
4562c50696e50722b089584267f7bbf4a3fe4f11
34167 F20101206_AABRJR heffner_c_Page_82.pro
12cd64234c7339722545b5d648cafbb9
88ce475c0b03128d995ac3f64c31773bee6d09f2
94 F20101206_AABRKF heffner_c_Page_02.txt
73bafaa82ccc0217a6888306665d8556
28b80a589d73a55ede39ff3f09b3e305a99d2f96
17893 F20101206_AABRJS heffner_c_Page_83.pro
5741a0b946ec12c2b2dad965b16da3b9
63e160a5087da26e0a2497f0cb6e97b9818c4bd1
75 F20101206_AABRKG heffner_c_Page_03.txt
8b79383b8439b0b3844f35592b07d90d
f3e6efcce2544ad2a658adda4586d632d3f5bf26
30880 F20101206_AABRJT heffner_c_Page_84.pro
c0f9620fdd8b5ddbb69274dccc887c1b
482f24221802f84b4883cde0e8be402d0c5d4089
2072 F20101206_AABRKH heffner_c_Page_04.txt
94f46cfee146f4c21ef91c7235963348
78edb3051b9fe5eb87ed985212175bdf118341e5
17428 F20101206_AABRJU heffner_c_Page_85.pro
30951550d72f8af6cb847e5f80c06b66
56d8e4d537e87d63b5bf9447527e945b8483b139
338 F20101206_AABRKI heffner_c_Page_05.txt
5b9d96fe4f55a0140a40735d0cfa6e09
7c1b8793da29b99c3721443646d03f5a26eb95fa
20816 F20101206_AABRJV heffner_c_Page_86.pro
a8b6c604bf1c790730d80f4826e78c7b
e354d4d3ea759842120b5c8e3e31f6f8caf68ab2
2992 F20101206_AABRKJ heffner_c_Page_06.txt
7ae4d95e1378a0a2e415299d1eaaab0f
5ef67771cec0eddf65ce619b9280d8dca0fa02bf
12877 F20101206_AABRJW heffner_c_Page_87.pro
6aba018bb92be114a50051bdd3884db4
18c8400c15d829a8c1edb2785de76ea82842f2f5
2968 F20101206_AABRKK heffner_c_Page_07.txt
04d7db90c35d45cfb508bb8f6c13a2c3
5931914a7c27a6ae20e7dd9e3d15f5fb709ab52b
27625 F20101206_AABRJX heffner_c_Page_88.pro
1ad56959bf64baac42a2416398ad2fe4
276566d4cc391a2d62d2f2c69df4d58a6da2ca78
2288 F20101206_AABRLA heffner_c_Page_23.txt
1dbbaa4f894a36c159638862a4161bde
e04f6cf38905353e771da4c74d3ef16f36441481
2271 F20101206_AABRKL heffner_c_Page_08.txt
8de156cdafef5b09a4f91e9f0217fac5
a2f936292305c9382280b84bbca73facacdef40a
13835 F20101206_AABRJY heffner_c_Page_89.pro
4e74ed81cdef7ee0b4d2bd4141e19e9e
51e2b3dbd98f1f3ef0db9fb0c1ef385e66898a82
2119 F20101206_AABRLB heffner_c_Page_24.txt
d607c43bb7c5dd0c8f9c9fe46fc9d9c5
9683b5f273dd0c125e944f69be3f33b45bc01a81
2536 F20101206_AABRKM heffner_c_Page_09.txt
5a92d38183048b36016987844a1b3170
4850f74e03574601c6b8891df5891b5dfb3afbd9
52761 F20101206_AABRJZ heffner_c_Page_90.pro
51bc5ed76643bc12b9f6aebebf88be05
52b94a352e44d283f92e6aaa873128da59347855
2274 F20101206_AABRLC heffner_c_Page_25.txt
45e684d9fda714e9c2081c2394ccf147
c51ee9cafd7e56ecdfae071bc8315497990f0870
1736 F20101206_AABRKN heffner_c_Page_10.txt
9db19d56e355968f9efd139a2daffc38
cb46738ad2c676417da789f0c679563837d2531b
2170 F20101206_AABRLD heffner_c_Page_26.txt
08b9fd64c2206cdbce6c4f497640fdc4
a02d1437e8802d1ee5c9cb429099e198f857b9c2
557 F20101206_AABRKO heffner_c_Page_11.txt
5f3a884afb8de91e9134b1181fd4e7f5
c3798062d765a50b6149a18fbbc39d37b7d67a85
2206 F20101206_AABRLE heffner_c_Page_27.txt
90e0af1ba0a6fc52215d1e408508854a
eb3417bc5ee5b0de422299b509af67ac81967e39
2018 F20101206_AABRKP heffner_c_Page_12.txt
2a0645258c7c6981c3152c2a5611005a
3116475083be21ea5247e28fbdb796d2d67a44a0
2205 F20101206_AABRLF heffner_c_Page_28.txt
a6db8cf40b5b1abedd6f1795ed6e5a7e
82cf9714574ab611a5f94ca15eb5e1a996450bcf
2128 F20101206_AABRKQ heffner_c_Page_13.txt
b830004b07a543c24ae708bdc7842533
dc8563270aac53c7a288d8a67e732fbd43c7cc48
2026 F20101206_AABRKR heffner_c_Page_14.txt
16b99db24b47db9fc9c3183727625532
de4b9f3b579ca947fc6a3354ac4791e52b640eaf
1995 F20101206_AABRLG heffner_c_Page_29.txt
34620c888223164702aa54d94b505ce3
254a01b3310d31ab2278263dc08d6366afd8f853
1818 F20101206_AABRKS heffner_c_Page_15.txt
9fa2b0e7f49e0b997ecb867b8116118b
91107fe484a19bc35b4ba673981cf193125460bd
2281 F20101206_AABRLH heffner_c_Page_30.txt
e0d19c86a05ef613879467408524c8b6
f1ffb11a1aaa6961a960c8f637c644224d15a02b
994 F20101206_AABRKT heffner_c_Page_16.txt
4dd5873b04bcc14aa07951e0103c145e
96b95376afd5a639d9f506950a04c179b6fba1e3
2129 F20101206_AABRLI heffner_c_Page_31.txt
c11149dc34b9a401e1b039af024d7b89
ef10a3dec35456b15cafcf4e8d42f118120a4ca7
2125 F20101206_AABRKU heffner_c_Page_17.txt
2038731afbecd7f4e6a5fb1ffc58470f
79201eea23c8cf7d26ee69a11d8990ad15729ec1
2151 F20101206_AABRLJ heffner_c_Page_33.txt
1db4dbbff1f0a2a194366b665797a2e5
afcbf44b7e650750ae8b5d5876d3c318802d6d6c
2214 F20101206_AABRKV heffner_c_Page_18.txt
c75bcd71c341924eabf060925707eaf0
be35a78bfe4ebfe5810ef910b21f222eff3c3870
2233 F20101206_AABRLK heffner_c_Page_34.txt
a82dd00d0304c457d4ceb25dd26a7544
71c03306f03d53f71873af8cc9ff24bb60a2040a
2831 F20101206_AABRKW heffner_c_Page_19.txt
67f841e455a0a4e80511e897b07b6f17
cefc6ee3feaecd9981895f571d1030bc5ae07da8
2041 F20101206_AABRMA heffner_c_Page_50.txt
7fbb05642f7e1e019d04e5b28228a5e7
3ddd09fb6c3a374d42ab856d77e0d37ef9ce6975
2333 F20101206_AABRLL heffner_c_Page_35.txt
487c67e71c5a9705ed3a92a972b3926a
ba9e36a1a4aa6ce2af1bc49085d5ae66dd703071
1990 F20101206_AABRKX heffner_c_Page_20.txt
fab2cf149af1988daa5aff31ff6c38c2
4fecb0d86916812488d748d89ad90b5f4d8ea4dc
2056 F20101206_AABRMB heffner_c_Page_51.txt
9ce5ee8b093185b8a5d616ad13347d9f
225d8f49de38773ed0905b3eba2986d6f753a265
2133 F20101206_AABRLM heffner_c_Page_36.txt
27ecc351f0906dfa60dbf09fb17986ff
1b5cf580ef02bde730126af0803f7bda21290d7c
2210 F20101206_AABRKY heffner_c_Page_21.txt
942fcb7bacede82a6e2f7d70decdcbcb
141de5d8b93c588a36284612ad8781f0b2b5836c
3288 F20101206_AABRMC heffner_c_Page_52.txt
4edd81ff9c432460c6f5c94af2463a7d
e134c6b0f3b164695e9fcf9cefb2d5bad37bb74d
144 F20101206_AABRLN heffner_c_Page_37.txt
7b4d7c61e27540112c5f00277700b431
51cd2d2e1319db1433b7368ac316c910b07eac52
2213 F20101206_AABRKZ heffner_c_Page_22.txt
c6bc6465878edb7cc6e84cbfb8973487
ee66708334cf5ece8abee8e7e9f0136ca0fbc64a
3097 F20101206_AABRMD heffner_c_Page_53.txt
a620525eaad917a530ad2e48114e7d29
917f904d0a6db5b9c548e0b77822b7a80c04ef11
2155 F20101206_AABRLO heffner_c_Page_38.txt
b563fb07c8baa1cc31e7eadf36515ea0
de5a464e414694785515c830bc109d972421140c
2490 F20101206_AABRME heffner_c_Page_54.txt
fc9cb75c5f34f2f686535cb13efa42d9
1e9b2ee7d11c71f2c7e816d41640bfb3f51a11d7
2137 F20101206_AABRLP heffner_c_Page_39.txt
b0eea647ebf5bfa10b422b709c084841
030077803e530af0d906507687a4882099417fc0
1755 F20101206_AABRMF heffner_c_Page_56.txt
e825128702bf153b3478dfad17be387d
3b2ed5d3e83720defb2fc8ac5ef02528d3d93a6c
F20101206_AABRLQ heffner_c_Page_40.txt
338ab50d3726681d33ee828069faff8f
1d49616d095dae5ac29efeae04d8ddfc326b3a61
627 F20101206_AABRMG heffner_c_Page_57.txt
e2d29c8473ef6024143d7ee35a42eb58
b0cdd0794481d5a7be958e108a6724eaa4df5551
1681 F20101206_AABRLR heffner_c_Page_41.txt
2f64309d2687343074f107887bb854fa
8e9474c02013c64ad074a4fc8cfb1bb6f3773d11
F20101206_AABRLS heffner_c_Page_42.txt
409e7a43d5b382f70c3fad29960164d8
c401c2e279bb7455102621545144f4058ca8e18b
871 F20101206_AABRMH heffner_c_Page_58.txt
ff4174b0cd438ab2b86dda7c0826605b
62897890b3a577b2897889052e93a9b4e76a5e59
F20101206_AABRLT heffner_c_Page_43.txt
f6153f3009effd2eb0e797026bef4e12
9ab30eb8f1743d63cb1ad5bf0a3073e801ce2296
931 F20101206_AABRMI heffner_c_Page_60.txt
5bcf6d513287718cf38d4a8201b4bfc9
8f1f83e2aed106f12be5245b84446973ebb4fc23
1124 F20101206_AABRLU heffner_c_Page_44.txt
d2af58bbcf73b8676965aa7899df95b5
e29cfe68febacc3c454d18962086445ddb3b58cb
1192 F20101206_AABRMJ heffner_c_Page_61.txt
26f98955e5318ef37f740e1e050e37e0
a274fd15cda4e5f023402072e55cfb1ca30e27fa
2007 F20101206_AABRLV heffner_c_Page_45.txt
fabd0378617b1206d87c8800f8afd6cb
5a40463a9873940405134237b7e4619911227fee
1147 F20101206_AABRMK heffner_c_Page_62.txt
f13e803c30c44adcd540ff30419c6c68
1e03e9897413867e7556c18540f824c9f200964a
2082 F20101206_AABRLW heffner_c_Page_46.txt
25ed02729a2d82b5c606805fa3a274fe
6904daf848804f97d75509e8b71ce4186b695a9d
828 F20101206_AABRML heffner_c_Page_63.txt
5d8d3b0ae02dd28a41c6fa07c03eecbe
0e348431801a8eb1a31d76227bcf563bb684d62d
2013 F20101206_AABRLX heffner_c_Page_47.txt
7f52fcf87f7bce717a95f529738b1ea9
511382fded19bfd46f7c74a1707f254d1b57d7f8
2187 F20101206_AABRNA heffner_c_Page_78.txt
9486e72781a0e35c57349666a27b6744
a3b9483772f8e2ded850e821e355262724ad5841
517 F20101206_AABRMM heffner_c_Page_64.txt
a292c9cdb671fdb9228bee547e57718d
86f2360d5df94f82626d75449c343318993453e6
2626 F20101206_AABRLY heffner_c_Page_48.txt
29267b9200ab2642c92cb0072f4208a0
03e2b12528cba3b9fc6569a8ecc1931f14cb1f5d
887 F20101206_AABRNB heffner_c_Page_79.txt
1c2bbbe2ad569b5101c3ff6198e47655
c05a69e013d7d810360e844a057b2ae181e7e469
578 F20101206_AABRMN heffner_c_Page_65.txt
c3b1c854bddfc9283ec3da0956adff8e
9dd31532cdf0c37c555e57bcc150ef31159fbce4
2371 F20101206_AABRLZ heffner_c_Page_49.txt
d67d304357eaaa21b5819b9577876741
22f15ca7e6ed668f212034dcef7ca8cbc5ed0d71
1587 F20101206_AABRNC heffner_c_Page_80.txt
e624d37cbbeef3fa472250746b241de1
cd3284c52e2d457ecbd07863e79587a44719572d
1191 F20101206_AABRMO heffner_c_Page_66.txt
8b5efc3983e204805cb6d6d3cc22375a
b1dab528429ce6b3da999aab5cdf27210b7bfed0
1698 F20101206_AABRND heffner_c_Page_81.txt
d0f2a2ef193983c391a041659b4fa589
1622a1a7879c145fabc29bc480cd40a41c9fbd20
845 F20101206_AABRMP heffner_c_Page_67.txt
85f23f163d5692dea70341f47074e713
42eeaa2722a9ba757dcddd05dab885d19ebc3768
1534 F20101206_AABRNE heffner_c_Page_82.txt
5d0db6ab51aed09cce8ee1048d9a3947
e227059b351bcfdb670823fcf0cd2eabd0459c25
2120 F20101206_AABRMQ heffner_c_Page_68.txt
749cd4bcf1b5c718dfa353c4ab26cfe8
64dcf145d84afc880857e084bc03f7eea339f339
926 F20101206_AABRNF heffner_c_Page_83.txt
3b8369391039babb68653d740d774959
bdab489e5bf2207092b299e0a064b06b49f98e9a
2042 F20101206_AABRMR heffner_c_Page_69.txt
9eca732939df0a2798a5ecb169bcb81d
87ec9e92baef8b558cca12fb22a9b1e2300e021a
1234 F20101206_AABRNG heffner_c_Page_84.txt
a544e5a480f0deb20bc9de9b85b5d550
b1a6f1e33d5a0e9a6191638c3b94785900c4e521
2260 F20101206_AABRMS heffner_c_Page_70.txt
f2e1cd8061fbcd66a0b92beca177a6e5
76fead3e21fb748070f65b6cc8cb42fcc9dabb45
958 F20101206_AABRNH heffner_c_Page_85.txt
71d1a90131406e9641834beeb4cce116
f9d816c4e9e2e2cc0f1d6172799d806ecf0516d4
2103 F20101206_AABRMT heffner_c_Page_71.txt
1a3b7a80e063dbf01c49590cce27209a
606fee9e3db31cfd27992da899925aa92b940560
2246 F20101206_AABRMU heffner_c_Page_72.txt
3b0148dd3ee35b5bbad1d2851450a647
67ec2cf1964f7e6d0c3f8f0d1d71590ce4e7d305
840 F20101206_AABRNI heffner_c_Page_86.txt
a63cc85514150bf775c26a5b8316b22e
92aa328bb7f349994fba8c5cc11af09164352e16
2157 F20101206_AABRMV heffner_c_Page_73.txt
1b6626b6d050e5f88013c50b91450266
90d75fbb5fb43af0656b9f70e6f08103aff05759
531 F20101206_AABRNJ heffner_c_Page_87.txt
ef5d0e5ee686e756cd5bf55323035de7
fe61e48ee29adf91a5360e0fe191272d3d7b5155
2019 F20101206_AABRMW heffner_c_Page_74.txt
2babf9017f8d6eff0d5ba008e0239f59
2fb27ad7801fda7ea1179c71fd1c53ffcf2258d9
1157 F20101206_AABRNK heffner_c_Page_88.txt
720b0a7852bee348a49129f2a43493aa
434355158497e047d8be92dac5a30576505862ce
F20101206_AABRMX heffner_c_Page_75.txt
89e35445d6a8d0dc66730f2348c0054c
4b453025b53faf1ea99b850aae8ba09f984dc5a0
27461 F20101206_AABROA heffner_c_Page_40.QC.jpg
f298d14df282995b70e2a17535efd9fb
4aca7d097f3bdd2c182f6ad5a90a3e976fbf0c78
F20101206_AABRNL heffner_c_Page_90.txt
c4b6304bb76dc25f9e14cadea0f77aeb
d80d947a068732bed489f6b0d08450f5790f277d
F20101206_AABRMY heffner_c_Page_76.txt
404f568497f537ff6d00f1abb806e95b
4347305bf81929ec19158780b97216ac1a515c64
6303 F20101206_AABROB heffner_c_Page_20thm.jpg
9612c089f995beb47294135a4c4ae355
665ba108fc273a09686dfd9623f196315cedf34c
2117 F20101206_AABRNM heffner_c_Page_91.txt
ede9e11fdb3a2a3b31eba2de352c6d88
a4b73384354df267c8bd3c438d488b21eccd8239
1973 F20101206_AABRMZ heffner_c_Page_77.txt
045317de4fa2bf97fd523fa21b595caa
e7e0734aefe8689a0c543558d039ce5280bd2428
24569 F20101206_AABROC heffner_c_Page_76.QC.jpg
c1bb2644c391288c1087711c2844bcd4
9a8aa96afd9e56d97b70ed6ecdb7cc84ed5bf09d
1210 F20101206_AABRNN heffner_c_Page_92.txt
39bd52bfba287bb83464713c92908acd
de5efd8c8580443a597bf969231c1a647f39ae74
8411 F20101206_AABROD heffner_c_Page_11.QC.jpg
ce211d9deb8b2c4e2335b4407e9e2915
72eed286dd85ce9f77d488ede1d9ea14394d0841
2138 F20101206_AABRNO heffner_c_Page_93.txt
d0502adbf32b1dcf42c7bbb8ede12824
4e86252d7bdc76b08d5af131fe876ec19d81ce20
28867 F20101206_AABROE heffner_c_Page_34.QC.jpg
71d4e7542de4aab52c653f02dcafccb9
3df7cf737d13c357032cd0cbca948f69f4c753c6
447 F20101206_AABRNP heffner_c_Page_94.txt
fbe75a759148d6512dd5573bee611e1f
bdd5ff4cf7c051527886dc02870ff348c204f759
5079 F20101206_AABROF heffner_c_Page_88thm.jpg
c18ba1dcdcea4f473f7166d652041fe5
dfc124c453a5d3b9051649ab718524a340f9bc6b
1700 F20101206_AABRNQ heffner_c_Page_01thm.jpg
45e3b5dd9a2b1364f945f202a93dd4dc
faef88ecbc09ec1a3a12df87d90d94a64be4f2b6
5222 F20101206_AABROG heffner_c_Page_56thm.jpg
6988174ba61e2e0d061a9045c194769b
204101fc3e8d4a47febe53920d01e66cf1693012
389052 F20101206_AABRNR heffner_c.pdf
d7a3fc6439150aae10541bfea273cc91
0cbe879e44d987b87cd53587d4764332f4eeb2fa
1108 F20101206_AABROH heffner_c_Page_02.QC.jpg
2365d3f0ccc42f5960f171a0412fd135
99d84828a0efd879099a44ea27838723bce5259e
25308 F20101206_AABRNS heffner_c_Page_12.QC.jpg
5cef1450ee54e2bc9d26bdba3889ca26
94374abf295c45afdea98126d0aac72490d28b08
6895 F20101206_AABROI heffner_c_Page_78thm.jpg
d33184d7795e68e1a11be153dcea9164
76ceef84f47eebd64872ec7348ecc52d36392e0e
27792 F20101206_AABRNT heffner_c_Page_24.QC.jpg
05a478449a66da50cb255d2c2a8d6a9b
6058ec80868a77543817e0a1ff6186c1178af6c4
24187 F20101206_AABRNU heffner_c_Page_43.QC.jpg
91de37562312628318f81f10e9746883
d7e94bf6a644ea7f2e6d6e700b1371731b16e60c
6596 F20101206_AABROJ heffner_c_Page_13thm.jpg
4975340270cfaad4eedab51d4d27101d
2b310f2822a6293a07a2e3b09c4cf092ade18db0
16745 F20101206_AABRNV heffner_c_Page_81.QC.jpg
4ed14e7dfe4835fea427a3b7b820ea18
cbdb2bc00028cc11855e1da92714d4e838ff4db1
6264 F20101206_AABROK heffner_c_Page_36thm.jpg
4074eca64bd2bbe3266c2416b499252d
a0c279d6a151a5cbd590a96b11116c3b3dce5eec
5119 F20101206_AABRNW heffner_c_Page_10thm.jpg
c66ded308b1a0d20bd6ff88541e0be59
6ced89df89a95f8f61eb7c89688898e891bdc359
6535 F20101206_AABRPA heffner_c_Page_42thm.jpg
d94ec987f8be709a4e84e2c374d2b2f7
bcc02b2aa49536bbfd45a54eb37123eca13b5c92
6008 F20101206_AABROL heffner_c_Page_76thm.jpg
eb276687156eb7ead42e764368883d80
77c217692aa331c8aa725c5aa2f1e2ba0d9edfa1
11892 F20101206_AABRNX heffner_c_Page_59.QC.jpg
8ebdb02d0db9fde769392c8ad6bd2bb4
348a3cec520300d1b3c479d17dc58faa5e546385
26574 F20101206_AABROM heffner_c_Page_17.QC.jpg
6da8590fb7ec19b3d95dde43fef5fa57
e1ed791c1fcef46781daa9195d903340a24a0949
28211 F20101206_AABRNY heffner_c_Page_73.QC.jpg
9530ca19e3fbdb7cd1568719f820b1db
ca3df47ef0d0c9c4a68ac9a94fe9242810af3a27
5186 F20101206_AABRPB heffner_c_Page_07thm.jpg
fe31c66023d74295afbb83cea3b609d3
3ab1721414d3b8d02d1ad289ed598f3bbe1a0bef
6395 F20101206_AABRON heffner_c_Page_14thm.jpg
80ea3ea4eff7c80232566d71091d04ab
2b0f8e43f0be63e695ae1f2a5199fc56ea6cf498
6737 F20101206_AABRNZ heffner_c_Page_93thm.jpg
2a52ff7ca2524d2d26ed1eac90d21313
fe4adb9a736c8411c973dc51620d50c6a8d7a985
26962 F20101206_AABRPC heffner_c_Page_09.QC.jpg
0457f64e4d8cac68bf31b28fa6557707
176dde7eaa7829d9e39e55011b7a8682458721f6
10992 F20101206_AABROO heffner_c_Page_65.QC.jpg
c80368c47392d3e60d63b934da2cb5c2
d557911755022d5dc62105e760bd99a453c61b44
32581 F20101206_AABRPD heffner_c_Page_53.QC.jpg
db0f1099d9ee10a4254a2f55fadc1587
049438fc5279e7e89c69b7e6b8cbc0cea6294331
6797 F20101206_AABROP heffner_c_Page_21thm.jpg
1ffc1c95749184278f890d14f0b597cb
8125a4e329f01d19c14345de786aa2b1ff4d26fa
29955 F20101206_AABRPE heffner_c_Page_23.QC.jpg
f85de626e913e19eae079f06f2b4d5c1
c9ce21e802a25dfaa0bcad3d7115d0cabde0e131
27104 F20101206_AABROQ heffner_c_Page_04.QC.jpg
f70a75dd3545b3625cd78ad2fc7ea00a
052d3c129368142a4e40fc79f4bd40fdcfbae0e7
3767 F20101206_AABRPF heffner_c_Page_44thm.jpg
72011c521cf90b863ac66bf9d876c184
0015ae9b201db3d3f933ac1108e71f3c4303a714
21904 F20101206_AABROR heffner_c_Page_07.QC.jpg
a042a09918efbc2ebed6938e791925d3
d3af455fab787dda958d3210f0dfd1d863ae04e3
2824 F20101206_AABRPG heffner_c_Page_37.QC.jpg
752c25d5c0d2826255347a7c7bdd50ec
785dfabe22a5bcaaf45c06c3b86a8901e330e9e7
28542 F20101206_AABROS heffner_c_Page_35.QC.jpg
4c2c2feaed25ad3ec06364aeb24c164c
d33950a950638983093002c03a5272e618b2d4fe
6471 F20101206_AABRPH heffner_c_Page_47thm.jpg
c98575c55c5119659eb1b8a4d9b5e2ee
3fb5c0f84a9c5fec1a8869f6a86e874289e9bb5a
6297 F20101206_AABROT heffner_c_Page_38thm.jpg
0569dd02d616fd80bd0a19d1244a89f5
4a1516e68e9e26cae450769bcbc71f38549f24ac
6653 F20101206_AABRPI heffner_c_Page_71thm.jpg
9ee9b3a8075bee2aba03b147a4abe2a6
4be1ef74a35b29eeca55b8704d1ef864b0dd82e5
27947 F20101206_AABROU heffner_c_Page_49.QC.jpg
05d468c1c32f609e71532f9aa6945d53
116196aca10d1cf0d722f34fcf67cb120eae25bf
3557 F20101206_AABRPJ heffner_c_Page_62thm.jpg
91e4767cacdbd82665570461d3509b2c
f61fefd02bd82989eb863b99b7c099db722b6eae
31576 F20101206_AABROV heffner_c_Page_19.QC.jpg
0fcfee3df93b400d0cebb712dfe4838f
19ba169292ceae229944fe9bca19f12b7c9ca906
3438 F20101206_AABROW heffner_c_Page_57thm.jpg
7752093a3201f6acf8019dd8217a27b5
28bd576d56fd4cd2d580fe250af4b97e1f6b627d
12450 F20101206_AABRPK heffner_c_Page_86.QC.jpg
c30e93ce4763b2379134011db18f4179
684dc8b8232e0e80641fb082bc7e982851f6027d
6660 F20101206_AABROX heffner_c_Page_18thm.jpg
2ebf149b1feb0ada86813b7301409c93
458612cc85bc482be8667b01f6e6a8c428972410
3157 F20101206_AABRQA heffner_c_Page_85thm.jpg
880e8acc7e9ea471f8b62abfa316c5ca
806a0db8627d00a002bc2c5bc2de22fa40035f58
18567 F20101206_AABRPL heffner_c_Page_84.QC.jpg
e677178e8df7e79ba8b679fe2226ae68
f0da32a284cc4a7df75e0b7330d20ca8e8883c35
12295 F20101206_AABROY heffner_c_Page_63.QC.jpg
c79ee7a523f187b16802ce67d917973b
7c2db95cea0f49e168a96668b99959a4479a9917
6088 F20101206_AABRQB heffner_c_Page_74thm.jpg
dedc9e6d6167c3d3c8ecc2275127272f
992f4344ec54657d9d766bf05ab387057b9201aa
6397 F20101206_AABRPM heffner_c_Page_28thm.jpg
eb13e2dce97af84ab8d19cb54b46dc28
ea8d7f53deb07ba34fb3c48f5ba60ec53f8ef71d
2719 F20101206_AABROZ heffner_c_Page_83thm.jpg
8b9727bf85db2144279f87f3c2455046
36c33f6e665378eecba5a171281bbdb02a765507
F20101206_AABRQC heffner_c_Page_48thm.jpg
a348688c59a335171fca3ffb4bbc0c29
2077bc1b47426024db40f46e1092560d0900e022
20156 F20101206_AABRPN heffner_c_Page_56.QC.jpg
3141f1223f66495db2b5d3d3a9ada09e
2df1eb716266e63dacffe649c1efca99250c04b8
28067 F20101206_AABRQD heffner_c_Page_72.QC.jpg
29ec5084269119dee9424bbddff4dc1c
165efc69993a416fa97dab9939ad16000c172902
26035 F20101206_AABRPO heffner_c_Page_68.QC.jpg
1559bcf72146c29e8a22d6fad29ad631
0e0128027b5da2338b267924404ecb6287ba91ee
6442 F20101206_AABRQE heffner_c_Page_50thm.jpg
c82ce5daec31ad8397efb9ae1437c1fc
b9cb094ebe118be8efe7dee008f5dea73a4d122e
5876 F20101206_AABRPP heffner_c_Page_45thm.jpg
8dd725b263f45b72e51b777bbbb37582
5d2584f3ee3556702c658d45084df6a0c8d74317
27793 F20101206_AABRQF heffner_c_Page_18.QC.jpg
0aa4f3cd0dcdf4aa047d37431c178b29
0b632ae12d01f56a3cc045dba081b0b07d55d379
10243 F20101206_AABRPQ heffner_c_Page_83.QC.jpg
15cdc960202f7f76adb665d31f309f79
704cbc70c7bf159eaa9f2a89b739873d31ee9a69
27283 F20101206_AABRQG heffner_c_Page_13.QC.jpg
16cb5e961d461bbc6775de5e4adbc90f
3aed726b35a5420dcfcdc097836846f333fd2a18
16474 F20101206_AABRPR heffner_c_Page_66.QC.jpg
169c48dab20dbe3b82684d9bd09ad44d
766525497d942ae09a4c26955ea1224607d21fd3
6991 F20101206_AABRQH heffner_c_Page_32thm.jpg
23229b8ed34689de447c8dfc18145b3c
9ba1b5dabc3f37957bf02b2f0ecb15e4f90c4c37
1762 F20101206_AABRPS heffner_c_Page_94thm.jpg
bc94999a18bd93dcc89897e946a72b52
c5c1292597d2de097b65a8281a631d37411fdd45
9742 F20101206_AABRQI heffner_c_Page_89.QC.jpg
aba76651eb93d46c91a169377742359d
1713a1c3eaae4f65b80f52054f0cef5e4143ddf2
6920 F20101206_AABRPT heffner_c_Page_35thm.jpg
2b63bdf921c339a30ee2bb23a550a7dc
487f504fa733f5958f4f08e56077eec2a430db8c
11116 F20101206_AABRQJ heffner_c_Page_61.QC.jpg
68ef198371d968c492624aeb61d7a475
81156c007bbbad3f14833403a0fac081add44fb9
827 F20101206_AABRPU heffner_c_Page_37thm.jpg
ab2ba4526f0163c369752fcee0830126
facca3d0df82517bc2632bec9dc4f5fe42d74062
26774 F20101206_AABRQK heffner_c_Page_42.QC.jpg
e7dfbbfee571b2f702b323f4826e87c9
152325218d646e17b5a641e9358ab93b50bae704
20569 F20101206_AABRPV heffner_c_Page_41.QC.jpg
175159053d59b2f5b3df1ea1949758d5
511a81883c5cf59b3d2227dd5ca1319103521edd
3783 F20101206_AABRPW heffner_c_Page_92thm.jpg
58121cab250a2acabdebbf80ca0af736
d6ab43aeb577d2818ec42f5d90f1fe695ce17b35
19702 F20101206_AABRRA heffner_c_Page_88.QC.jpg
fc3d1ea82486c2e3d4fab5c44a3639df
8f6ba67234127efdc53f679f4bb79662f7a7a256
26759 F20101206_AABRQL heffner_c_Page_71.QC.jpg
7301ccb88c23cdfac66f1583729f8a58
15d52661a427329979a3db4441e11a6322ba920a
4478 F20101206_AABRPX heffner_c_Page_06thm.jpg
c8a3654b390a6661048c8793c6a291b3
3a313f8cd7d89ca9deb4b58566aac687477de9ce
28539 F20101206_AABRRB heffner_c_Page_21.QC.jpg
40dad0bc6f9461d5e137b509ddce2d2a
0bd9136eed72ba998e9d843b572733d86c958d8c
27544 F20101206_AABRQM heffner_c_Page_33.QC.jpg
b8a33bd111bcca305fe77f13dad53bbd
c996f36dc29aba2d630cd30eaec1739bf6292afa
5462 F20101206_AABRPY heffner_c_Page_05.QC.jpg
97b06cbfc7cc695a30070c009ca186eb
f98ee45c93d8054ffa218b4a7159e0a55690a8a3
27759 F20101206_AABRRC heffner_c_Page_39.QC.jpg
37ab5e318091b335986e9e633b3bf76d
c3e382aee90ef4101457295a7a96f4354ebabc69
17662 F20101206_AABRQN heffner_c_Page_06.QC.jpg
d8e1cb23bf38f4af7fa0cd2f75133a1a
fc1bbc65bdaa5f15f7c5ebb1ba23dea84aa656dc
28133 F20101206_AABRPZ heffner_c_Page_26.QC.jpg
a4fe8776560a97eb9aed470ec0ac44bf
54c8c67624958b4c53df6b45dd51dfb71eb424ca
6953 F20101206_AABRRD heffner_c_Page_25thm.jpg
4d341a2e9f8c80edfe453b3b9c94a330
c5deff73577eaaef07affffc0ead816c6eb66fe0
26265 F20101206_AABRQO heffner_c_Page_31.QC.jpg
d5804b68e0427f18f3d06908df13f1bb
954bace30700bc3dc138224f19c34e53dfc53caf
31111 F20101206_AABRRE heffner_c_Page_32.QC.jpg
c15104054a4bbfe7a52694e9c0f4213c
944c1bd13b09ccc33de19b35c8efbf1f3b66dbe6
25049 F20101206_AABRQP heffner_c_Page_91.QC.jpg
c4e1654d8dff67c42ed5c68bd1d9a27d
2f4897a2095e49933b6135b298223374b721aed4
10971 F20101206_AABRRF heffner_c_Page_60.QC.jpg
7631ef09c8f4e6ba58557463eb30df45
66c5c8f93039ad14bdb67bd1fe908af69bcac96b
4035 F20101206_AABRQQ heffner_c_Page_82thm.jpg
de700615e9c88a0837d202fee2e52bf3
5fb880aeea35d3012a4a80c405e5e8927dde935c
3770 F20101206_AABRRG heffner_c_Page_67thm.jpg
983d1c8eca013d9496010c373ae7f49a
19ccce982bb404aa22c23ef3d25528cb3bafea05
7476 F20101206_AABRQR heffner_c_Page_01.QC.jpg
1863aa41a847b1891b809ccac5ff73d8
14a36c2b2b147bc20b7f0e8b2f54711d659e3f14
3442 F20101206_AABRRH heffner_c_Page_65thm.jpg
68deb27ca9c8e954cf7bb6929e5a7ec7
a79fe03db6e6e378c50e75740edec8e8f107c045
26482 F20101206_AABRQS heffner_c_Page_90.QC.jpg
589f6ef65737b349cb376c6eec172314
c6ee24115423e6e66f24422dd5e16e7584991ccb
27936 F20101206_AABRRI heffner_c_Page_27.QC.jpg
9b06265eadc9b25b64933bc196f39705
c38c0172ab1e6e7f1cdbe825b6f0a23ffa07689d
1514 F20101206_AABRQT heffner_c_Page_05thm.jpg
e17c9ec6e085b2e8b2583da9518cc84b
67da79ed625c15898013eee444e0372c870841ac
5203 F20101206_AABRRJ heffner_c_Page_84thm.jpg
40f6f2a1293c7e014796926ee2c89149
b790da75ae7f6166bc156e2050d6058fc21b6b31
11114 F20101206_AABRQU heffner_c_Page_57.QC.jpg
e3a24dc1a8c396e3fb302f28152b17ae
ff881270d5688a45bd8ec3bc3133362c5fc14b12
15233 F20101206_AABRRK heffner_c_Page_44.QC.jpg
20e7f2b13f91bc8eb4a7d4c24440bb3d
27978098b6af0d54a256ba23a95ad61e1a43c029
24538 F20101206_AABRQV heffner_c_Page_77.QC.jpg
05b5a9a594f9b084bffa9442efc7efb6
31f271da20bfc25a0fc3d5765de4519d68ce4bd2
4160 F20101206_AABRRL heffner_c_Page_81thm.jpg
6929b1be62fe5174a92a5dd26478c48d
136a71763519e2b99a33bbcc83d1df972432d769
3538 F20101206_AABRQW heffner_c_Page_61thm.jpg
d96f94024dc2aeed7b7906edb4f1ad8d
60a2b5e0f96b2297ed45603365c802113c62f7dc
6788 F20101206_AABRQX heffner_c_Page_26thm.jpg
a0e45b1080f8332c98b1419822734ef8
486116f208d9a32a921d1a3a0166c7ccd6f6621b
6311 F20101206_AABRSA heffner_c_Page_09thm.jpg
607dc8387dafca0c16d7678cf736018a
4013a48fe4f9ea321c0d1cb60357db299adb4e01
6435 F20101206_AABRRM heffner_c_Page_75thm.jpg
52da790df890fb43237816c2cff15f5f
8997dde39f3f20d37310e9b677ea5bc0007eb6d0
3579 F20101206_AABRQY heffner_c_Page_86thm.jpg
e5ede823b0610506978046da0a2c7ede
1c643477405e0481303e6197279111ce6bee9d94
27174 F20101206_AABRSB heffner_c_Page_47.QC.jpg
40dbffa9976f7e48b86bc0749442ade8
ea22e035944f82125a4285282381075c5f195b41
3672 F20101206_AABRRN heffner_c_Page_58thm.jpg
3a132fbf1465793f8cd7fa6b1ae4dcd7
5138862e15be46b08101077385f0e2a6bab24fd8
26546 F20101206_AABRQZ heffner_c_Page_51.QC.jpg
08d2f854d01eaa7cb06c1333ccb9afde
db1eb47b976665b7e7adb847938d0531442788d1
7013 F20101206_AABRSC heffner_c_Page_19thm.jpg
bc5f80e569f605a7abd1d09a3622726e
d18e6177b71153ca7ec5e47c26ac47e0d93c4ae3
28086 F20101206_AABRRO heffner_c_Page_28.QC.jpg
287200c2101aa371ee988f984fe4b953
762776b86d3603ba1d45122904c48472acb9ffde
6860 F20101206_AABRSD heffner_c_Page_34thm.jpg
c7069b57851b5c709ebb1899cbaa8b0a
7f41805488c4ccabc6c38c341bf0e372c9aa2a1f
6572 F20101206_AABRRP heffner_c_Page_27thm.jpg
ed3b44345a8800cff0a97bd7ea679ad0
e2a5f987aa1ad5686f05555089ddf964f508c572
6140 F20101206_AABRSE heffner_c_Page_43thm.jpg
2637c82dd84028004eb4dbf949dfa6b5
b5a8636b60cb080267179baaefa673ac5a8912b9
25987 F20101206_AABRRQ heffner_c_Page_74.QC.jpg
b8c53c3cd9ee23b3ccf8b515a5c12c19
277cef74ca5cadc9e5232d198b13b3b6045439ac
26786 F20101206_AABRSF heffner_c_Page_36.QC.jpg
60c124ce256c5e82aa4428516b68916a
13d440fb82b6b3300f173f3862187f7acf6ea65e
4351 F20101206_AABRRR heffner_c_Page_66thm.jpg
6954547557120aa4a03532484183b6e2
d9db98c5b3723aecbf928c0154b76a38d749dca1
6423 F20101206_AABRSG heffner_c_Page_73thm.jpg
b7a76e2ae0f8ada79083e2f44f98e63d
c7d27935ed495a347fbfe2f19803d147bd1c0ac7
2046 F20101206_AABRRS heffner_c_Page_11thm.jpg
696740bf1f84dd3c67b681c60a00610a
df2c0cb1a13d9421772a49de79afea849efae204
26181 F20101206_AABRSH heffner_c_Page_20.QC.jpg
f961bd4c7c620dc89cefc807d7fdd204
3748ae44718554d7564fd711d1880a52d2663369
3551 F20101206_AABRRT heffner_c_Page_87thm.jpg
5da8c3592be66526f65c73f34fa1f808
427a49d92bc836caead2fb57992b199f6eac20c0
6803 F20101206_AABRSI heffner_c_Page_24thm.jpg
f768f1088ef26aada073d12a19abb3be
37946ec3238bf6698e9bf4860b3e4fc11cb617c7
10925 F20101206_AABRRU heffner_c_Page_58.QC.jpg
08685a74232f385758a268c85ee99f67
7984cdb170298d730f595b6849cefb64b61d6df6
28280 F20101206_AABRSJ heffner_c_Page_55.QC.jpg
afb30e968d10705da4b9f166a258ee38
1d77469235b497d99a237566175c17ba861f9de3
28879 F20101206_AABRRV heffner_c_Page_25.QC.jpg
47342397b41edcb818950dc12b88604f
1c12668f8879389120b0cc39e9537054a1b45cf3
27529 F20101206_AABRSK heffner_c_Page_38.QC.jpg
a52d37eb5bfd47545091b0d6a09db4b0
a7f20f70712763ed90140512df83aeb531fa2191
5561 F20101206_AABRRW heffner_c_Page_15thm.jpg
35b303cb9b105b5f9a8125272fd80725
e1e8d45ff3e16b35e21956f8fb0dd6213d3051ab
26873 F20101206_AABRSL heffner_c_Page_75.QC.jpg
e0ea55341c1154b5c0a31d6173956494
dd8aaa2c2363581e7c607c455e177f88c55723db
6324 F20101206_AABRRX heffner_c_Page_30thm.jpg
f44e3b124b599740ac947de01e692828
760a792c68b05fde6871be030839b7ad6bd6a891
13089 F20101206_AABRTA heffner_c_Page_16.QC.jpg
162ad5f5a69debf8f1c52f422ae28b7f
91ca4532c1003a1c4029d0a5d0842cd5059ba89b
6220 F20101206_AABRSM heffner_c_Page_46thm.jpg
93009c1218ba2260ca01f08a35bad1d6
1980aa12b74421ae5bfae1ffbc2768d8b0423cab
3193 F20101206_AABRRY heffner_c_Page_16thm.jpg
956ff706bef574e60057983e03c183c4
9503d3b90fcc3111d4fe9efd67f1bd58ded17c34
6569 F20101206_AABRTB heffner_c_Page_40thm.jpg
b64bd480cf71ffd76d94792f8ec65710
1c61946fb17936bd45d9ded9a5db17e0e07fa4df
908 F20101206_AABRTC heffner_c_Page_03.QC.jpg
6cbc8bdcb918a61c5ffb85205a4b8f01
25c22dc2c52fb1e2cb2862c46166e779df8849d8
5683 F20101206_AABRSN heffner_c_Page_77thm.jpg
f1d2a8e4cf0590bb1ec3f888ef07e345
8486bac757664c2887884b9c119789601f16d6e7
6551 F20101206_AABRRZ heffner_c_Page_04thm.jpg
91c9292e41ab0cb2f40ce1e19d4e45a4
fbffc5e949cc576011bb667d4051360557e7019b
6411 F20101206_AABRTD heffner_c_Page_17thm.jpg
825b496e4ff43875ec0512c23623fa7d
2fe5384b0b89c0f57cc4632a997e5addd9610693
6963 F20101206_AABRSO heffner_c_Page_94.QC.jpg
64bd13fc0b728f832227886de2f13bf7
fb2c29b205d9b690702090d82149d8f99d047f41
25028 F20101206_AABRTE heffner_c_Page_14.QC.jpg
19cc6becf58d1c32109376a83896c377
0473fcf2540bc88abcd7ed69aef67744e1719fde
6819 F20101206_AABRSP heffner_c_Page_49thm.jpg
ed425b7e98f38374a2c3fe2a5ca52ac0
2f1b6fe3a28e3191632a4b176fa180d3abf38a6b
6358 F20101206_AABRTF heffner_c_Page_91thm.jpg
29afa14c48caab81618e241450b1084e
2a311d2d9d40c5c00e4e35d5766f5efca78fb487
6234 F20101206_AABRSQ heffner_c_Page_69thm.jpg
c861e69fc4e180691ce88aceab1bc520
029a8b04d3870da3d43438d68bbc45c0c868ef31
142053 F20101206_AABRTG UFE0021419_00001.xml FULL
9dd183fd148634a3f130cd1892de9568
63e60666e2d74fa09e0f68f2e4c2baa903481ac7
6637 F20101206_AABRSR heffner_c_Page_39thm.jpg
ff989d2c5ee3537b2a24f1dbe7640976
d3c9dbbd06caeb9b95a562f93d747d3c76e2269d
20863 F20101206_AABRTH heffner_c_Page_10.QC.jpg
d04e27629f610c396c6b3b3d40362677
5ce73d9ae6a2bf009b982c93edd462093b4ed1d0
3076 F20101206_AABRSS heffner_c_Page_79thm.jpg
57160060d2b1533d0453f83319190b11
67fd7b691950104d3543196dc86bed2e23a2e6eb
6018 F20101206_AABRTI heffner_c_Page_12thm.jpg
d10c3520fd9c76189960ab2ea54756a9
d2c866c389c51f5e9b9c877462899ae0c1280970
7101 F20101206_AABRST heffner_c_Page_70thm.jpg
e045b1d54c4539d5b8ea857e2b950822
a169c636a7c5048468f0c46137d18622afe7b15b
21162 F20101206_AABRTJ heffner_c_Page_15.QC.jpg
aa1c4dee455c3237ca35d721ff6357fd
abb96a88f67d01e50bdc7994ac44c33272224b7e
26194 F20101206_AABRSU heffner_c_Page_29.QC.jpg
a0d35967945aabe5b1b5e479b1efd909
2601c57fa5bb69617871322fd0713833c7afa789
6449 F20101206_AABRTK heffner_c_Page_22thm.jpg
d70b21c8df1c40f6b9e5c41d978f34c0
cb1cf09993d7cdfb2c093cdc2579a4dff3bd60a6
22014 F20101206_AABRSV heffner_c_Page_08.QC.jpg
799e85b02fb9e1629e1099612981b992
80565f97db32329f490fb0edf5d0ef32a0612042
28795 F20101206_AABRTL heffner_c_Page_22.QC.jpg
c04b81a5595b8d311a4192cb9094cedc
67eb13ef7159215a27ce6586563f861769a58c77
F20101206_AABRSW heffner_c_Page_60thm.jpg
e8d70e1cfb5adf0e59cfc17adc450ef8
ecccc3a70ae2da28ec59278a9fb10781467bfd22
6278 F20101206_AABRTM heffner_c_Page_29thm.jpg
31898bde116c4e32aa8c9c6423fb8623
6f93f0837cdaecbd30fde71988e250cbde2f078f
455 F20101206_AABRSX heffner_c_Page_02thm.jpg
10954f59c7804c3a7492af1f3f8ee946
b1d5784b0744a7ea17e52924c78b6de1e648af82
3622 F20101206_AABRUA heffner_c_Page_63thm.jpg
d83e9ae2c01328f6b658b81a882b4279
be33875d122ec577e63aa3b138b9067d2c4ef3b5
6095 F20101206_AABRTN heffner_c_Page_31thm.jpg
6f49084b2f28222d98d45998aeef8a73
bdcb4f195da7aa7e19ccf4e96c6e9a9a70a7383a
12223 F20101206_AABRSY heffner_c_Page_79.QC.jpg
704e611f200b3078d9ae4d01e0593aff
c9c5af0c3b9e370152bcb341e0d9e240f892ba6b
11286 F20101206_AABRUB heffner_c_Page_64.QC.jpg
6326d603e623a753607e45d636a98118
480db237536592485a040347aa009a1a3fa404f5
3428 F20101206_AABRSZ heffner_c_Page_64thm.jpg
60f074d89056de7ee0d62ef87f0a2c21
b90f84105095582fbed6711eece57622cdca4495
14466 F20101206_AABRUC heffner_c_Page_67.QC.jpg
b89fe1bd927ab0eed21b01e64ef554b7
2905d2c0eda15917af3630920186d3118cef9d97
6742 F20101206_AABRTO heffner_c_Page_33thm.jpg
ab05da798de4fafa9d79e3bee792fe07
58c02de36f0a7566c2a7bb7ee952fb9a4e3d7e2b
6186 F20101206_AABRUD heffner_c_Page_68thm.jpg
825f8c25ab347962bd820b02e4f392ea
8f29a1313b62bf99e919ea61268ab12b8c7a5a80
5471 F20101206_AABRTP heffner_c_Page_41thm.jpg
ed497f98f44e4add1aeec76da3bb3599
078d91852b0ba55451afe5166ee2d7cc47996eea
27225 F20101206_AABRUE heffner_c_Page_69.QC.jpg
57f34f848b22423e513c96082b2d9e5a
cd6415f6e3418d72cd1d79a47c0968c35cc575a0
24470 F20101206_AABRTQ heffner_c_Page_45.QC.jpg
0a38b13c53d807d55545c6644b64d20c
b0b5660707e8d0096b994f1e9b02167e8c125169
30309 F20101206_AABRUF heffner_c_Page_70.QC.jpg
53e2c91763721ef015be18e9ac639acd
2349cbcc14782427a858dad8e29662a3384ccc40
6367 F20101206_AABRTR heffner_c_Page_51thm.jpg
db3cf8e319c2f5fb21fcd3f1fd74c5fc
f6edc7b6d2320de0f0a3fb92e22151dde0a97683
6599 F20101206_AABRUG heffner_c_Page_72thm.jpg
9749f4ce088717e0fc9023300ad52fb7
335f4d5ff617f6295f712fff447cec3d75d8a161
7152 F20101206_AABRTS heffner_c_Page_52thm.jpg
bf4ed46c453541c83e32093392784a45
5b006515cfe038e6a51c5f0b2c5cb81ce4382b05
27520 F20101206_AABRUH heffner_c_Page_78.QC.jpg
3ab7f7d29628a21aaa3900e1fc7630be
d739076bbb49b1d695fd1e4035fed613034cf8cc
34112 F20101206_AABRTT heffner_c_Page_52.QC.jpg
df300881efaa81df9fefe212c28f504d
626bc60cd7cc43c061b8f4330e4a98ae0a677cb2
14217 F20101206_AABRUI heffner_c_Page_80.QC.jpg
071a760ed9a8b2b8da6457018579cbca
b004ef55b9a931efcd6c55a04f144732a47c8a53
6931 F20101206_AABRTU heffner_c_Page_53thm.jpg
6b398ee774b4711cf6df0d111db1864e
88e0aa295eeee08228500cdb88cdc43a838a9e4b
16013 F20101206_AABRUJ heffner_c_Page_82.QC.jpg
11756c3d740e3c672b2a9e36f36f0612
a5afdcd55506811fd26c9748b6f411595aeccc07
6717 F20101206_AABRTV heffner_c_Page_54thm.jpg
bee2dd73bf0c92aac632550be0649d2d
f5b58e988c8193df8f758d079e70a665e42086fb
11396 F20101206_AABRUK heffner_c_Page_85.QC.jpg
baab5f7abf51bb17b947a68d8fff0d8f
6f0835eaffdc2a98b4b56f074c01bd517d9fcb74
29604 F20101206_AABRTW heffner_c_Page_54.QC.jpg
25d291d0b926a0526325d0bfe4e73457
1fbab40e17bdfb4d6355052f626dfac8eef2fd57
12437 F20101206_AABRUL heffner_c_Page_87.QC.jpg
c85bdb39739b8789ef39634f8f88856f
1a9a1c90c5a0fdb37c55f7fe08cbdd1ceaac4aa4
6680 F20101206_AABRTX heffner_c_Page_55thm.jpg
5f2d6550616aecc7978d5751e9cd9091
4b9b270c4ee3be41407a1c51dd877ec47e9a61fa
6769 F20101206_AABRUM heffner_c_Page_90thm.jpg
b338b37e4227ad90fafdf84087dd20dd
d779e672bfccf059af7503d427cccfeb16a8e5db
3623 F20101206_AABRTY heffner_c_Page_59thm.jpg
feddb1802b8932580743d5494bfd111e
8b68ee06432911eb9c26dc607ebf3b4eb0ce4b4a
14648 F20101206_AABRUN heffner_c_Page_92.QC.jpg
59be7e85b09b01996f09e10d4a917758
459d50370f7cc05b584444d0f81fc0889a94d2ac
11261 F20101206_AABRTZ heffner_c_Page_62.QC.jpg
d34ae208a10a8e5c2053aadfa1fb0bab
7ac85252afc5948f3e69f4bd0f730195942f0e8c
27582 F20101206_AABRAA heffner_c_Page_01.jp2
803a7ee36c0eede66d0f2c89ca75c610
59c7b4ad2eb532f1037f1f30cea3e49b29639f56
5709 F20101206_AABRAB heffner_c_Page_02.jp2
f189e14b7326b122b9416e811ffff93f
071385350e5638400f6d351bf8b96b265f7dece6
4284 F20101206_AABRAC heffner_c_Page_03.jp2
6550010606da604bbccfe48b01058b7d
4c7d6e73a5610dd3d82155530fbf70aa5d7c0cbe
112220 F20101206_AABRAD heffner_c_Page_04.jp2
e52756c0efeab558310e778a28eda2bd
34e6690319bd4373e06793873f17f6be61475a73
21253 F20101206_AABRAE heffner_c_Page_05.jp2
6fe43824d52d1d4de4afce22d7b10bf0
d449fd6abca5e2bbc6bee5557328fc32f55012f0
1051917 F20101206_AABRAF heffner_c_Page_06.jp2
8727774d8c9d727a7d7b54171d1e789f
81f44f8586124461986708dde8d7aa43f63e6324
1051983 F20101206_AABRAG heffner_c_Page_07.jp2
8b5356feb69182e48ab0e7fdc1e21edf
5b31d8e91b6964ea483e2ab810ef942cbb466169
1051979 F20101206_AABRAH heffner_c_Page_08.jp2
5c917c9b714318caa5253a35680330ea
84e3f24010d8d0831bcd8eeb4fb0ae051b0a45bf
405 F20101206_AABQVB heffner_c_Page_03thm.jpg
d0f9d5083ef52c701d85431d5b8088b6
efb2c23ec3bb0fdd2364e72b2cf4f85a4c8e49fb
1051975 F20101206_AABRAI heffner_c_Page_09.jp2
018cec8bf9db270b9e6e1d8d987d2e6c
34d181f94daf131d5b482d008553b0ab4d3bd518
117113 F20101206_AABQVC heffner_c_Page_33.jp2
0e35150e1bd844cf0fe028a95f5c7fa9
0b4c0e898a2c85556eb6de528cba6718816f989d
5362 F20101206_AABQVD heffner_c_Page_08thm.jpg
63f10c1d0791caef59fd459764990e7b
9951208fb4c4a6b38e1a293cee619306c0f24089
87141 F20101206_AABRAJ heffner_c_Page_10.jp2
d61c803f4cf22f3fb71b83972d8e22c6
337ef9de388ae5b37bef9ad979ff6ef5d1bf144d
2842 F20101206_AABQVE heffner_c_Page_55.txt
1d29c2fdfd9605f410cd9afa07b893eb
6a876b0be4798512db44bea4380d1af8905ba98f
32240 F20101206_AABRAK heffner_c_Page_11.jp2
024767c88fb3421eed0a6c80174861a8
9c592cb53ec1848b73f95bef899dc83666a6efdb
29331 F20101206_AABQVF heffner_c_Page_48.QC.jpg
dd85ad2ccaca50db8e7b891b269e8bfe
2a15ccc1fc79c8bc35d2c2d8b2c5e7645c367834
105392 F20101206_AABRAL heffner_c_Page_12.jp2
4c125b9cf014624e5eda9667b7627d30
85cb8afb4e1197476d5859c285b06cf63c394f93
27019 F20101206_AABQVG heffner_c_Page_30.QC.jpg
739118b1ad45bc08528323846955086c
816375a46145145b6e567a28a5be7a633a44ae2a
119113 F20101206_AABRBA heffner_c_Page_28.jp2
b4b5b7dcde91a9ecd8888cccdcf7916b
dce2a06c63bc4a94354b8f4ec44f8d6126523e5d
116652 F20101206_AABRAM heffner_c_Page_13.jp2
1cbdc89985723ac7912d534bc7d47ef1
dd62780bb19efcda36cdda1bb856c4e6490a5f25
2406 F20101206_AABQVH heffner_c_Page_89thm.jpg
5fb6ef375843c99eed81bd1dd918de2e
c6158112ea9fcd42d779d5d83b17bec8ce3a47e1
110095 F20101206_AABRBB heffner_c_Page_29.jp2
cb0d34c2af1af1590b4dc1fa5555a45e
2f40c18fd4e75cdeeef1dc096553ce0ab55b99de
107302 F20101206_AABRAN heffner_c_Page_14.jp2
172ae0bc24f8f442586dabe016e83aa9
38234f67f1b59ac6b0d869a1adf7515373cba711
128756 F20101206_AABQVI heffner_c_Page_54.jp2
f660d2a1949eff2185b0a236eba5c620
5d935e00615c305b6b6e5722c56bd66d0c9c214b
121804 F20101206_AABRBC heffner_c_Page_30.jp2
144665a404810c8ef705c016e15ebe7a
e630611f20658fada0c66f909d4477ee1ec68086
91278 F20101206_AABRAO heffner_c_Page_15.jp2
dd430c2ecf370bee03f10741afb05f5b
ba384b7af3debc24a0113e170ab0cf69316bed5a
112743 F20101206_AABQVJ heffner_c_Page_40.jp2
fb8249010a3565116f0de7ee2cd33783
024e1cf6929681dd6743a5961a84508282021065
113743 F20101206_AABRBD heffner_c_Page_31.jp2
dc05f3ffc952b449687d0db21dcf3f36
e6066da1d2f72df1ccbe32a3670411e87baf5370
53875 F20101206_AABRAP heffner_c_Page_16.jp2
297b7090871d023c3666872fe818a7fe
9ef53f6c83ce5b2b49b88a8359cf844075b122a0
72579 F20101206_AABQVK heffner_c_Page_81.jp2
da9b9d99cceed74bd923dd029b11a7d8
9f486542a6e003ee765e203d143006273f59deba
135128 F20101206_AABRBE heffner_c_Page_32.jp2
6f195e4a642d41741d19443caaf7e954
5225a150029b4d9bf92205919a796e16bcd95347
110342 F20101206_AABRAQ heffner_c_Page_17.jp2
d831c3073597c89271a7b0ab66a4005d
7e3cdcb899e5b0cfe071d50f0d1f37369f01f6ae
3555 F20101206_AABQVL heffner_c_Page_80thm.jpg
79530f83c5564d6cdf5dcf01c346e439
732db340426ef4043cb7d7a76822ae78c207db00
121434 F20101206_AABRBF heffner_c_Page_34.jp2
9489614e49d658437952ab93f6769846
3e8be1b3b406647a34a04646bd3a0d6f988028e5
119215 F20101206_AABRAR heffner_c_Page_18.jp2
bcc6c97c4d2f83a75e927fe5ce0c6500
f874c59bdea45ffdaf2b25f09d0c4c83433b3e03
63457 F20101206_AABQVM heffner_c_Page_44.jp2
a5c7e5a40dc8e933c981ea866914db8a
ff10ddbad5d78c6c3591193f593044f19f92ad6e
125084 F20101206_AABRBG heffner_c_Page_35.jp2
931b426c66a09a27072f9344c1ac3679
30c0d5c38fe90fc5d1f64abca8ec1355772edc68
12179 F20101206_AABQWA heffner_c_Page_64.pro
378238aa22d5d8a1d6a5ff3c39e062a4
147161479e6b1b0a57c4a08d3d270a51d165869f
143626 F20101206_AABRAS heffner_c_Page_19.jp2
cca50750ceb308b4407c5a0a1bfdf9e9
aa468abdb22eda998448a6374c9588699695fdb1
28186 F20101206_AABQVN heffner_c_Page_93.QC.jpg
18cb847c914c84f534d332d8f495163e
d3ebbf7d28279774445ca5af046a32669b563fea
113582 F20101206_AABRBH heffner_c_Page_36.jp2
1352ab83221214d652249c547735a8e0
5cadbe33f31e56916497e0b7405854844a4a65aa
47801 F20101206_AABQWB heffner_c_Page_85.jp2
3f1b201d9f0e278e71bec6576ff7111e
9c5b069c044b5f5b1df945695fe2ddbda16900cb
109524 F20101206_AABRAT heffner_c_Page_20.jp2
d6fda101249a995c44cb0c56d1e3504f
2a426b6222bd3a7fe9dfac15948fbcb661fd868a
122657 F20101206_AABQVO heffner_c_Page_70.jp2
bdb940afcf7b52bd03f3b8afae88ec0c
ba3f22b45aece95cafe05d42aa14f1618c7a1d58
10748 F20101206_AABRBI heffner_c_Page_37.jp2
a23070c83ab739e2a4bbb3d349d48d5e
284799fe76d58a869921192ab40d01f3752c79c1
862 F20101206_AABQWC heffner_c_Page_89.txt
531e976e0d5ecc31cb750dba9991fd08
5dfad41446d300a8ccc30be42a2a204dc9dff9ac
120349 F20101206_AABRAU heffner_c_Page_21.jp2
6132865a961fc43d4d9642aa303b3c14
6af27079b63e0855e08b59de2460e4cf844b23c1
1054 F20101206_AABQVP heffner_c_Page_59.txt
6918d49f674d8f370dc6dedfdfd738ec
653f42abbbb532d1c9aa185940eb9d2f198ed2f0
110938 F20101206_AABRBJ heffner_c_Page_38.jp2
7a4299649b672750397487357a6d7f3f
d5f6d179b6b4f4149f55c55c3ee5ca567dac157a
F20101206_AABQWD heffner_c_Page_51.tif
8c84f81b2223c01ca1816085be81755e
f592fc2ab341fe94e378d5968cd594636887dc02
118229 F20101206_AABRAV heffner_c_Page_22.jp2
f1800f4c1297217861c278fda0651760
0aac340c10111f2c80e595465c6d39e08a3213c2
55815 F20101206_AABQVQ heffner_c_Page_27.pro
7f28d680d4df93638716666fbc1bfb22
c19e9485fc809db90ee36bd17f919aa92bbe201c
116332 F20101206_AABRBK heffner_c_Page_39.jp2
e159a5cec9650dcfe4898bc429c21ee6
7784e39b7c9f3fc877f362469ae74a58fc84d7b9
26388 F20101206_AABQWE heffner_c_Page_50.QC.jpg
d128e3fb8fdb27636bfa585dfcc16fd7
f9df661f178d20ba35f76b329612c21068ee3075
123259 F20101206_AABRAW heffner_c_Page_23.jp2
fcbe2df828a67cf27d54c6080f750e64
b291faf7be35b75db62264f66fdca6b4634db435
89890 F20101206_AABRBL heffner_c_Page_41.jp2
62a53dfeffeacbfd2acfcde994e72ed3
135646006ff16792b1911b1afe15d34fc65e6b6f
22238 F20101206_AABQWF heffner_c_Page_94.jpg
963af5b40965f4e2c801221f8cb7b31e
b5651726148cdc1028186460040d86701586beb9
114633 F20101206_AABRAX heffner_c_Page_24.jp2
1e82efb989589bbf17a966ce5fb0a8b3
1bdd58abd5ed099f5ada26d75bb5e30d178d84f1
132558 F20101206_AABQVR heffner_c_Page_52.jpg
b131e71b14cca5450f3366ae68a2619c
ca60b2f6e42067d1c54ea31c8c65a4f2f651a231
353897 F20101206_AABRCA heffner_c_Page_58.jp2
b61f20175615d0bffd1314b8b69d09d7
61b8dde1e8eca846fb788aeb5038006b33b740a1
116428 F20101206_AABRBM heffner_c_Page_42.jp2
241e447fff3707541f5cb8e2f8effba1
c79ab96bd3a53eef869502c448b9f1fb90d909cf
82391 F20101206_AABQWG heffner_c_Page_50.jpg
b6d327f8c5069508bb6da967a26a4c79
7aa95bdbe44418405d28ec74aac5b178e2f24549
121693 F20101206_AABRAY heffner_c_Page_25.jp2
baacfff87b5bb98c7a4111aa6304c529
9665d9cb3f2695a81670438c7e6491fceff8cdeb
80450 F20101206_AABQVS heffner_c_Page_53.pro
908f85f75fb58685a142000747ab820b
7385ceda6588c7a6e6f00fbab0f905ac8d497b7a
383616 F20101206_AABRCB heffner_c_Page_59.jp2
804449406f95a7c45e57df2e8dd6f52c
00b6eaa050944b8bc183df08d83a63c47f4c12e0
103292 F20101206_AABRBN heffner_c_Page_43.jp2
0158cf6d8fb263ce0f820deb93f46986
f10770a8613076abafebc313983144675e0c9fc9
F20101206_AABQWH heffner_c_Page_84.tif
bf4e69a05523346a3fd3c6de8589d026
ecb3f5574438eb0b25af12cc4eada3214cbb87e6
118380 F20101206_AABRAZ heffner_c_Page_27.jp2
71c05e100b81a2350c8826bcc92fdfb6
ebe7ea703ea346a391759707ed7a475f663f41a3
2557 F20101206_AABQVT heffner_c_Page_32.txt
0091d1c7ffe13daccbeb88e657c67094
f4b68436846867fb8a37df22929e5693183abc7d
350288 F20101206_AABRCC heffner_c_Page_60.jp2
f68068548414267b4ba15e9fe3545dfd
bc2d84d2fe3db237da19b8782fa836b7bb50152c
101999 F20101206_AABRBO heffner_c_Page_45.jp2
d012bac2bc84dd4d68aa7e24eddda019
f2a6f08ee0d9141209f1e942b03c313005ede0de
118522 F20101206_AABQWI heffner_c_Page_26.jp2
2d1ae5f5f63cbb5b790440b8a9ae2cd8
e87f5698676f08ccfc3ec2d9f2803e779ff56c61
51543 F20101206_AABQVU heffner_c_Page_04.pro
3bf7df9f6ac18da6d5a52447d5c93067
f0a72a317cfa287b5c46e47726005f044df60340
342136 F20101206_AABRCD heffner_c_Page_61.jp2
6f6eb5d6e9692c5c913cde4a2032db76
0c51dde15f601f520ce4d305dbe370c8043ea34a
110792 F20101206_AABRBP heffner_c_Page_46.jp2
77bf73dc119f47c819dc9eddb4118a8b
85d8a83ff4ed30e554303ecea549e16a2ac3d046
F20101206_AABQWJ heffner_c_Page_52.tif
8a112b809f369cd39fdb4d3d9fa050c0
1a0b859553980af240ad3130923ebe2ee89cfaf6
55023 F20101206_AABQVV heffner_c_Page_42.pro
b3cba7ee6a83142468f218e9499b88d0
660f830ec610e3b6281207a78437d44907eee9f9
344924 F20101206_AABRCE heffner_c_Page_62.jp2
1227a87bbf5acbaf55aea98e6edbaa1d
76f220cc1c913148cb430766d0ce558de1ce50e1
109212 F20101206_AABRBQ heffner_c_Page_47.jp2
fea1a371fb16cd2b2f066564ce0dbea4
ae7697657e1dbd0e141854929defc461fca13a18
52709 F20101206_AABQWK heffner_c_Page_36.pro
2bec6e016e614e782dccb900abcc5582
aab91130e189a44f838d18f1100c756915898a67
F20101206_AABQVW heffner_c_Page_17.tif
0dbbc6485f6a49d2076195d0f7331b12
ce214458b090df3fdb76c58feda14ffe5b38a895
390625 F20101206_AABRCF heffner_c_Page_63.jp2
3340ce7c28b011e93b94c2c6686be655
d12bdb7f6bc066805271b497043270fb846a5baa
134445 F20101206_AABRBR heffner_c_Page_48.jp2
3744093e89725c5cd03bc13dbf49cec0
2a3b08eb85b7e3b160e339e0232a1a25538e440a
27394 F20101206_AABQWL heffner_c_Page_46.QC.jpg
8e2677625c2fd986e445d699537a5441
5412f0aabe6022c2e12c38f1203b5709f674cf95
81315 F20101206_AABQVX heffner_c_Page_68.jpg
db48bd7c226f6e52e0ff76f961feb8e5
afaba16e3ed35aa1977ef3466ecc6f980561183e
340435 F20101206_AABRCG heffner_c_Page_64.jp2
2796e1a3913a38130463c741225754f9
c2f31e6e19da4c94f0c387d45fa62344f647f36e
81973 F20101206_AABQXA heffner_c_Page_12.jpg
f60f98352ad300919df2ded560d4fb47
6deed01dd1bb1c613780a864e9329f2aaaf9740f
125078 F20101206_AABRBS heffner_c_Page_49.jp2
a03dec6d73826678b89b147afbdf7624
a2375ef44c49327cc420570f55ff6899d3ce55cc
109854 F20101206_AABQWM UFE0021419_00001.mets
e2b977d532991bcaa43a2014e16ffd13
6a8b16b126f49d1ac31a9200b0882044f37be736
106791 F20101206_AABQVY heffner_c_Page_55.jpg
0e9a2d9837acf59570111b00c89ce8f6
249b2a636d02ddbd538a284a1caaae6a8ddae3bb
359129 F20101206_AABRCH heffner_c_Page_65.jp2
474e0257cdee31117918de2c328db842
2e8f0f19e7597734e0dd8c3f98c49c66f7233934
89396 F20101206_AABQXB heffner_c_Page_13.jpg
aab9904748c2e9ad9a062ab527f060bc
42d89b549c32a0edad2faf77a9c608d30c47cfc7
109231 F20101206_AABRBT heffner_c_Page_50.jp2
896c637173d74aaf7adefdb5074fbaf7
bccfd93dc45d8e8afbb34a0181e3adf6bfd50361
6875 F20101206_AABQVZ heffner_c_Page_23thm.jpg
bb896bc2888fe83c9d6815457665db39
ffdc9f135abbbb5bccb75424a0182a7dbe5c5dde
64783 F20101206_AABRCI heffner_c_Page_66.jp2
e0bc205c1b96ccdbe677e52c8b43149b
8a898a946f1f93ca48f4db5d4aaaa2d00856aa89
81052 F20101206_AABQXC heffner_c_Page_14.jpg
34e04391d3cc757ca1a540f32437579c
538984129bce195a0aa05ef097043ad70f4b89f0
113091 F20101206_AABRBU heffner_c_Page_51.jp2
20f2bacb91662ad7939e48e1ead09382
38e9d2c76c7fa6983691454e906610da2483cd4d
53553 F20101206_AABRCJ heffner_c_Page_67.jp2
8967362257ffd8f9fce88255ec8fb81f
1c2f3e4b073357719312f93fbc4cd5eb430a727e
71365 F20101206_AABQXD heffner_c_Page_15.jpg
5df660a6ff49dd43e26f6e6b562fac0e
69bbada2473862364e2b0ce617f2b5d097d9045f
169145 F20101206_AABRBV heffner_c_Page_52.jp2
e3af90ccb71e46fc31e47dc2b5013408
410c0443fa7f9f811c538a16eaec6d0d7afec56e
25387 F20101206_AABQWP heffner_c_Page_01.jpg
44add80cf2f3f88e34f575ad1dbbd1c1
ec818b5468bd1e091423bf31eac224ffe527fdeb
106287 F20101206_AABRCK heffner_c_Page_68.jp2
dd7a804d229e047d421c4fcd0cdff671
35808f1a6125b41c4a6804b38d20a368206fb66e
41366 F20101206_AABQXE heffner_c_Page_16.jpg
d3c85805c85d8f128e15df686fb14b0b
1e7fa65f8a2e9e7b7cde78c4fd528c359ad4203c
159297 F20101206_AABRBW heffner_c_Page_53.jp2
aad58659b553cf65748e822a506a8293
66d7c88e650a499a6450a89cbf07c58be7d7e806
3912 F20101206_AABQWQ heffner_c_Page_02.jpg
91d87456ef18a87a35bdc1e56a58423c
e10ac0214f800c54f609dcbcf293bb87b11020af
111055 F20101206_AABRCL heffner_c_Page_69.jp2
065c14a0e0912d76045bd0e04297e3ff
1652f6f96546e3d86e873b59f76dc2f151807fd7
85988 F20101206_AABQXF heffner_c_Page_17.jpg
bf8aea39f66c40a9756e566a78b5150c
648248e2b4ec74256e6d3799d27912bb8148c2cb
137112 F20101206_AABRBX heffner_c_Page_55.jp2
552076b2b27385e229df71f440f0fa9b
fb88b6a9010cdeb13ace61f39865ebc090968f91
3002 F20101206_AABQWR heffner_c_Page_03.jpg
701b17a66495bd065e59c1d6a6d3eff4
eb657c45f36a2e39bae90ecc5b447c644d0ef4e4
111734 F20101206_AABRCM heffner_c_Page_71.jp2
3e5371337009f0120ddd17845076218f
14925405e2583480718b04b0cc50e1cf45d877ec
90994 F20101206_AABQXG heffner_c_Page_18.jpg
cafaa4beb3e36bddb4e65bb7ee51b662
1410d6a5afa2b2dd7bf894888bcdabb2206163e7
91367 F20101206_AABRBY heffner_c_Page_56.jp2
3f77a49e68a474cf4455477cc5915414
1b30d975b57a78f9b5eb3155913850f3fd9876c8
47928 F20101206_AABRDA heffner_c_Page_87.jp2
bf147df10646e363d6406bfefcf92b7b
0b4a8123ce0569c15cdd9fb607849d7289ea4d0a
119900 F20101206_AABRCN heffner_c_Page_72.jp2
e55f49069c012c096f7182bfb5c7d4aa
309652451ce4ee8ee2ac0c4aa36c186c488e4bbe
110480 F20101206_AABQXH heffner_c_Page_19.jpg
f343521028b5248b27c59ef762cea869
2bb1808c5f6faf6981bfb315fbb8c1a3456261b3
345807 F20101206_AABRBZ heffner_c_Page_57.jp2
eea9145e47b80b7759a0e80271aff7a3
66037980309f8efd63e77a7c14bf7130216babad
86862 F20101206_AABQWS heffner_c_Page_04.jpg
f6fccd137a3ac09b3625015475d36f75
5f955de14d86de937f3a3ab8439ed314ae8bb7e1
67289 F20101206_AABRDB heffner_c_Page_88.jp2
dfaaed0ac7241504d0a641745ed30c37
90a7dad990e23b74b019c41a5a24959abbc89407
116969 F20101206_AABRCO heffner_c_Page_73.jp2
117dab11a9cf11c5312954e557621c48
2a4b749cf6ce6dbfc9780a428f041b4336123fd1
83763 F20101206_AABQXI heffner_c_Page_20.jpg
0f4ca3911e72b6e63786c52e8ce3c2db
6d9247b57c4e5dc112f4282eee4921844a5c7668
16583 F20101206_AABQWT heffner_c_Page_05.jpg
b7602ce914d9e4dc6ea8c22c0dabc593
e2f6a1f52065612d23d2fa1767d96930639d0064
33827 F20101206_AABRDC heffner_c_Page_89.jp2
17f77aeccf9ab1b3f28fdb05128e1112
74af1f6b1abe0b4a69b43c3b08b82de805f3db73
107590 F20101206_AABRCP heffner_c_Page_74.jp2
20d73dc6c400305a5edfa0454dd8bd71
234a0f9381c81f50f131254aa5f07520735c3b07
91878 F20101206_AABQXJ heffner_c_Page_21.jpg
a26e34e14c728c82d540ae48c0ffd5e2
cfe5c1935ba844af431b6ce0b86cacb9771aeccf
82982 F20101206_AABQWU heffner_c_Page_06.jpg
bae77dd06c7f34e1f87efbf6f61a9dee
cf10f42593ad430093b9cae25148e4d4a3739b55
116294 F20101206_AABRDD heffner_c_Page_90.jp2
6e3108b290b5e5e6891ea02f342c411e
19a148127c231f6be54033daac42d1019737ae60
114566 F20101206_AABRCQ heffner_c_Page_75.jp2
20018ddb431a6e61a62b8f0791088c5d
601d642eea5ada165e7e92c39dca3cb17d081bec
90851 F20101206_AABQXK heffner_c_Page_22.jpg
f314b3c9cdb745e506fdf3910b3cc4b4
142ab3f5f1488683bd426191fdad4e634fa3fc31
94738 F20101206_AABQWV heffner_c_Page_07.jpg
3ff6b1760ec47b42c4936ae12c64e5da
cb8d7f6e078c0ddc38134aa908fb8468c2e8bee8
113057 F20101206_AABRDE heffner_c_Page_91.jp2
0b69d8d387c858d161f8b7cda5ea8c52
06d275a3a0fa35ebbf784cf41dd4133b82228bff
107015 F20101206_AABRCR heffner_c_Page_76.jp2
8a70542a41fa3662c20977fed21688c8
6beac97503083a8507e802ebdb0dbd08105da611
94032 F20101206_AABQXL heffner_c_Page_23.jpg
a44a6e9c944baf016e8472b5df8a125c
b4bd9050f94efe9ac8b363332e490fc6f688a397
80170 F20101206_AABQWW heffner_c_Page_08.jpg
d4bc225524c778014ff0ec840346dae4
77591115a8394c2b30939e7cf8eae74d39444552
65409 F20101206_AABRDF heffner_c_Page_92.jp2
939b199ab8ca3ae9d294bfe4cbb34b19
202ac4bd8b7d12e15e15844cbcaeaf6d90bcbca1
86949 F20101206_AABQYA heffner_c_Page_38.jpg
a523aeac0474f416690e0eeb98de54c5
bfbe26d38bdde4344cfa21d81fd5174f4006ec7e
103811 F20101206_AABRCS heffner_c_Page_77.jp2
589412793802380bbd911257c0c27116
5259d295cbb40ac00be4731c2faaa38782d59e7c
87085 F20101206_AABQXM heffner_c_Page_24.jpg
bf2b5e923779cf3f6459d5eb5b0028d6
115c89a034c2ae1b7207500e5f680802e33244ad
99899 F20101206_AABQWX heffner_c_Page_09.jpg
0a6533aec7683ea5ceb4891d3be00435
05ee7d109bd75ffae8da761a9bdd92b661e5f885
116316 F20101206_AABRDG heffner_c_Page_93.jp2
01e8c22a31e46695c8e0f925dbb808ee
87f09579be9d52393b817b15424f75ebb5221131
88736 F20101206_AABQYB heffner_c_Page_39.jpg
ac0d367e3ce01798cf8b359755feeb15
163f773b59a5788bc56347a04547f06a6651231d
114386 F20101206_AABRCT heffner_c_Page_78.jp2
84fa530732c2c4a4cb38e7587ef676cd
efd3c8dff00d71c584ad5523dff968670485f464
92084 F20101206_AABQXN heffner_c_Page_25.jpg
4f52b38044c0b3ccdb7d8b20b2156528
228797fa60ef3f49e9d2de1f6985d7368f9847e5
69529 F20101206_AABQWY heffner_c_Page_10.jpg
314908dca0d6f9b8d6a6a37cd711761e
5ddfa6b8e8aae9f61b5ae7df2891ec8f772eefc4
27879 F20101206_AABRDH heffner_c_Page_94.jp2
a5d64ad6bef496c21e65c8feb48cab4b
f02abef7d86cfb3eb6c13f8baeb50005701a6329
85940 F20101206_AABQYC heffner_c_Page_40.jpg
42275eea717a5da35359d3acab37f3cf
da3a308fbefa20734b7b4f4e743d2ea52d72162d
50500 F20101206_AABRCU heffner_c_Page_79.jp2
272b6c4ff30600173646349437afe509
585109578d106ad977e9ebf15708e55edbcea620
90584 F20101206_AABQXO heffner_c_Page_26.jpg
28349f925db6c2dfc7081937525a6e9d
4931d3e68026e00d1454b098ff969a63a5ad4402
25477 F20101206_AABQWZ heffner_c_Page_11.jpg
c41309723bb40156911e55cd62ba1d9b
957a6aadf5986d2f3867bd7c0798b265d3909c78
F20101206_AABRDI heffner_c_Page_01.tif
be85f88bb1e602f14dd31b87f3f23925
a6acd397a6293741d4c8f1848ead96f0d9267458
66178 F20101206_AABQYD heffner_c_Page_41.jpg
c7b8892e673490decb56139f5f131598
634ee95ea55c646ab89142c5d69f404c583af3c9
65285 F20101206_AABRCV heffner_c_Page_80.jp2
bac7894e1ef65f45c703f2b680fb28b5
be35e744f400b8df67f735108958f5db1c10891d
91275 F20101206_AABQXP heffner_c_Page_27.jpg
591a1ef79f7bad30ada52860ef96b7c9
01ee94c4ff96beb452b187b2da0521dd345d4735
F20101206_AABRDJ heffner_c_Page_02.tif
a26edf876196720a4f6be91be8b040ff
c6f8c2f3fb01f25b6cc374ec81251df681d80885
90157 F20101206_AABQYE heffner_c_Page_42.jpg
f1b9a16a10084ba6ae14ce1acc9ed1d6
e70ece59ed51014caf5ee83d43739b397df59e86
73686 F20101206_AABRCW heffner_c_Page_82.jp2
4ea09dc1e76939695f93492a11e5aff3
ee6cfb1c77834002fccf4773d111a4a9c6578feb
91086 F20101206_AABQXQ heffner_c_Page_28.jpg
9c9762eeb7a0789f999b3913b3b30d4c
4de37627e0fb2a717546047b21755d185c778421
F20101206_AABRDK heffner_c_Page_03.tif
88a4c35c2e8641c23016c6d82479e93f
bb51b3333efb0b78a96b2a1d8f3bd714bdafcbc1
77441 F20101206_AABQYF heffner_c_Page_43.jpg
220f299c4fdb9fc294eccb69d6ec7756
4e28bf9aa37447a421a96b20c468e675b32da014
43088 F20101206_AABRCX heffner_c_Page_83.jp2
d5f4064c717ebdb8490cf15282822a7c
cec637ff3cb9f939bec96c244edfe90899509f92
83753 F20101206_AABQXR heffner_c_Page_29.jpg
4c398cf1cd0bf6bbd61f3af452ddf17c
edecf9cdb38933cac5c19674ad233eeaf6774c5f
F20101206_AABRDL heffner_c_Page_04.tif
fa7536cd3eeb514747c852733657d4e7
0916307faf919a09956278927319ece71dbce96b
48936 F20101206_AABQYG heffner_c_Page_44.jpg
47c9feb9b475b472d0e85fcab3e61eba
85560c1596332aad57c0957c11191b8833d48311
67159 F20101206_AABRCY heffner_c_Page_84.jp2
d7b7d5b24d94fb459704425eac5406eb
16ef8b5308a81928e8dc4e1015917b8a30284916
91977 F20101206_AABQXS heffner_c_Page_30.jpg
e52c2f7db5ec5649c0ac935a98fd8fb8
b02845df86700cc70ac6052088bce1bc265bb37a
F20101206_AABREA heffner_c_Page_20.tif
0f84642cab120f8770ea43e66d8b9084
ea82e4c0f61474d25695f43ca436c560533b10f3
F20101206_AABRDM heffner_c_Page_05.tif
d4782cd867929a2cd2df1e9a443ed30d
67d64f921e4419bf92bf04967f47d868da0537ed
77972 F20101206_AABQYH heffner_c_Page_45.jpg
5bdb849c90e998c2faee650720ff1aa0
16728d61deb356d2b4af115fb07903c31c89a7f0
48012 F20101206_AABRCZ heffner_c_Page_86.jp2
fb74c3d19d561a7516e3389fb534b468
3c835ea1cedb48a6ed5e96bd51aaf6b8c55eb896
F20101206_AABREB heffner_c_Page_21.tif
c4687f4c6451831a427b3bca763c3896
df008f90d015fb8c49a5c1b2613f2b0912bb41b1
F20101206_AABRDN heffner_c_Page_06.tif
71aa3a99f318eff608fade737e663391
7ed936959207c0639270d5cf0acae279f08517f4
84796 F20101206_AABQYI heffner_c_Page_46.jpg
e31b8eb482db870a7df9c02a811835d9
6a3ddc2646e8bac9a3429347445f8fd3fd629739
86586 F20101206_AABQXT heffner_c_Page_31.jpg
a9b598c5746004d1a387ec423beb892b
82b7a7170ba0075321054962afb0d4389504f01c
F20101206_AABREC heffner_c_Page_22.tif
508521c34ab06622f25e8732305c5617
f4d3ae939c7c77e72a0509a1df529358cc2bd4ef
F20101206_AABRDO heffner_c_Page_07.tif
50515277767dc8432c9d4f7593409188
c584ce87dddc0f0da456202b731082b6b551eadf
103163 F20101206_AABQXU heffner_c_Page_32.jpg
04ce95cfaac336644b62b2371f6e6594
74a7dbfa0761030c172051be51df961ed291b1c7
F20101206_AABRED heffner_c_Page_23.tif
8179425d715cdc186e4fe3af01cca1c8
a0aa4e92209b8f179ef4a8c1812446f8a2561cb3
F20101206_AABRDP heffner_c_Page_08.tif
45d606b9d85706cc58cd4b32fee76a2a
b415f56d0609051f5fd3e97bd2b800c426ccb2f7
81657 F20101206_AABQYJ heffner_c_Page_47.jpg
1cf153fb1939bde09d808c1a5273aa4d
2daa55c77a80b927827117c4741a139a9477e7b3
88942 F20101206_AABQXV heffner_c_Page_33.jpg
85e272c79d75beeecdb162dab6cf39b4
c8ab38738f8c8df496886e2dba9e7bf549ae0321
F20101206_AABREE heffner_c_Page_24.tif
035d8b6775b6cae9f87fbd9ae30d0b03
71fd7d7aa8f221f594d2f27e8d18e6b84990c44a
F20101206_AABRDQ heffner_c_Page_09.tif
cc570f406eb0e8ad9509f3763313ec11
36c7b87043d4253f41ab1e787974f959a3747546
100716 F20101206_AABQYK heffner_c_Page_48.jpg
cc50ea10f0a06c3f5a3079ebd706c632
06dfd0ba7c2e6922ffe33adb82a5e96131daaab8
92258 F20101206_AABQXW heffner_c_Page_34.jpg
1a0f327a951cda9a630bf37b744a9749
b23f91d448b4c20a2cd95039d45c3c437f0a8ecc
F20101206_AABREF heffner_c_Page_25.tif
ea88c8ddcf1c7ead65acd7bb9aac0f4e
b8fbbee94788524026209b5430fb45480e1f8250
F20101206_AABRDR heffner_c_Page_10.tif
3582d656bd16d88f6a91775e3881dd1e
04d0a7cfd6eb37e105e0b19455694fb1feec0c28
97361 F20101206_AABQYL heffner_c_Page_49.jpg
11f36e0193150b1a9bd191b769451e53
bc10612d6255df2d2c5b9cb3e5c715e66294e4a8
95022 F20101206_AABQXX heffner_c_Page_35.jpg
eb21f5e0ef36cd3a7c99d32c29734388
72c44d14b6dc3bc4868d553b6c1b808d48e1b940
F20101206_AABREG heffner_c_Page_26.tif
6ec026d97d0b80c219c2bf70e08a6e32
6cd3ce023b2eee8877788aea36301d49b213b5ce
47253 F20101206_AABQZA heffner_c_Page_67.jpg
eb5a43f38444d5d6c3b98b70cec864a4
ec72794532a37af59e9e4c304cdadbee78b15f1a
F20101206_AABRDS heffner_c_Page_11.tif
4eb5738f4097e11efe584be4e91c0551
77af770e3d6dca47608e5c6e10b64b9f8b927b6a
83892 F20101206_AABQYM heffner_c_Page_51.jpg
8d5c6c4988fdbe908c4329f521d7b2d2
ea945231fbfb529a711e0c6bd27ccd0d4389bfe5
86604 F20101206_AABQXY heffner_c_Page_36.jpg
d60f3407fd2a4570fee4d54e7f6833d3
caed517240d93f63ad0b3dbd5ac398f71f5b8473
F20101206_AABREH heffner_c_Page_27.tif
b05b20f99f1876dee80ec077e869665f
688e87b4b1ebd0469491bc957e350c9aa538c41b
85415 F20101206_AABQZB heffner_c_Page_69.jpg
1a85622b3865bb2fd1c6a95f728361bc
fd490afd82e2c989f977ce866fb2be2200d6b708
F20101206_AABRDT heffner_c_Page_12.tif
3db72728c2a8034c4b84f25d7c3936bc
6f1b22563009d83539c33956ddecaf34cf71da59
129110 F20101206_AABQYN heffner_c_Page_53.jpg
1c482354fe64f07d07a50398a4a417c5
0c48b57d872ecbe2e8f42208412ab0dfdf05b40c
8065 F20101206_AABQXZ heffner_c_Page_37.jpg
802437ed89dd7920e132a4859dcb3783
6a5116f87e130fdeed4063233e9590561323084c
F20101206_AABREI heffner_c_Page_28.tif
e26086e273599e0385137d1ef04292a2
1e64d43b78e685142d6fe0fe3d9419aa2ae10e0c
95734 F20101206_AABQZC heffner_c_Page_70.jpg
d5438973fd8471409a376ff4d2f1533f
f242e29acc060eaa7bf1e0387b00ab2aa2b30fe0
F20101206_AABRDU heffner_c_Page_13.tif
917b2d64aeea2a8e0255a1a40268ed4d
b12b5a084c8938b07b02379e4ba69ccaef1b7e02
98422 F20101206_AABQYO heffner_c_Page_54.jpg
1306bde5a1cfbebc7631112f79bc6146
f13465101d98458565cb319b0f0df3a92bb7f7f6
F20101206_AABREJ heffner_c_Page_29.tif
63736cd13777bb94f2d10ffb38f168ec
55695f9799834d820f12d3d23a3a88eae712bc9a
86322 F20101206_AABQZD heffner_c_Page_71.jpg
4f7c8ca833e1bb18b771e34deff86526
4f0e6c8c8d49d54a1f567bbb0c936ac3b3ef67e4
F20101206_AABRDV heffner_c_Page_14.tif
03586b69be5294065e9016d230ab60cb
d0c8ba05298bb3ddf0c339ded9a3f31e7ebe5d46
69147 F20101206_AABQYP heffner_c_Page_56.jpg
e72c6ad5ee60748bf0f27f843b0ed5f1
c268e87c5d306c9a78bab00fd1d72a2beb50c24e
F20101206_AABREK heffner_c_Page_30.tif
020c99eb5248e04ca0e1286d0c399323
7481d98a9b8416e06276c99065a7c7d4890f792a
90937 F20101206_AABQZE heffner_c_Page_72.jpg
16626f7b2b0debed8b2653c928a87883
0b2885838011481242d78865930c9301fc843922
F20101206_AABRDW heffner_c_Page_15.tif
473592ff3a0f84397ebb67fa0df707a8
10f5c9cf242754b9e4ebc1bd57675169bb0a2ac8
32782 F20101206_AABQYQ heffner_c_Page_57.jpg
8fabb6a9f44847325ebc08086d3201b3
a4e78c4155794df272233986e75268f9f60e7a08
F20101206_AABREL heffner_c_Page_31.tif
099bcd4de85145a096044017f95a1e94
2bad493b7721d97846adf98e5ebb7982075b346b
88173 F20101206_AABQZF heffner_c_Page_73.jpg
6f9e4b249250846877619f8b9fc521de
5fddd7f5c1243149caff3bf3ec00af798467d8df
F20101206_AABRDX heffner_c_Page_16.tif
a7e2aead5a1d46ffc814d4ebfabe9051
92307c66b9d95f15e027d339f7f3feeacab18450
34354 F20101206_AABQYR heffner_c_Page_58.jpg
91be594fc1a558e0c9a130bce6d90ea8
4ac61fca26afbd09b2b8a16a9e833ee2ec28af9c
F20101206_AABRFA heffner_c_Page_46.tif
432925c7248b2927903b63b15dc86c3b
29c16a2b6aeade06b974fbc48aa8fd3de6224073
F20101206_AABREM heffner_c_Page_32.tif
951d4a94848d31ccc286ccd400168e92
e614b91286adf73a4045b510b3d1fce582f93e69
82508 F20101206_AABQZG heffner_c_Page_74.jpg
6636ee6e6ecd9734d978cbc3853f7af4
e99dcd74bc9d51ea3430d0d2391476db4ea82eda
F20101206_AABRDY heffner_c_Page_18.tif
6580606e7c261d2f8a30cc523ac8abe9
c19a59f91352a80efceea8b4755f9670c49d53a1
35720 F20101206_AABQYS heffner_c_Page_59.jpg
d5399d676cb1ca71fb0ac7e867dc5af0
51995e91f989d83f7158721f827384195b4e489a
F20101206_AABRFB heffner_c_Page_47.tif
a435be9e1474713bc6df22007af3b4e9
69d4eb4bb7540527405f349e4c72d16374fb4f7f
F20101206_AABREN heffner_c_Page_33.tif
f4d1341b159c924010746453de051602
7c5ff072d40759c2c97983ab98c978b9b2978135
86639 F20101206_AABQZH heffner_c_Page_75.jpg
67b3b4f236ea925be2cf8c0d03a43ad4
daf39d93eeeadbae40567ab636609860aa357696
F20101206_AABRDZ heffner_c_Page_19.tif
2a467d3948d2335852aca4ceefd6e8ac
01fa7c02a794b84731f26b781d77d383d4130c64
34158 F20101206_AABQYT heffner_c_Page_60.jpg
dbca649c9113f5416b863a2177adba48
ecb23491dafd9b61a7d4c34e1eae2cff5fb40e61
F20101206_AABRFC heffner_c_Page_48.tif
ae6cc8b494451bd49c146263ad65a585
df718f5e1a31a6c87b29e1daa0715f2b4863c551
F20101206_AABREO heffner_c_Page_34.tif
c0dbf7fdd71bf149b65e4ba3b3604be2
df1f119fc7e743225e7307250f6e7923990f50a0
82005 F20101206_AABQZI heffner_c_Page_76.jpg
e4d98cebda9d2f68f8a767f22d4c6f76
11e414845fba38c30e51299c79e796875e517fd8
F20101206_AABRFD heffner_c_Page_49.tif
9d5598876cfb447b29de38879bf8f80b
5d2ac969680f7bc6798ed81c5107696404d4a76e
F20101206_AABREP heffner_c_Page_35.tif
661b4e09f223dd44fda74c9759faaff0
7e98167331904b531d0efddf128cf9920a9412c8
79645 F20101206_AABQZJ heffner_c_Page_77.jpg
9ddd258481c5fd2723311dbe6d9daafb
e35308c451ca72613a17c50198617560c40acfe4
31839 F20101206_AABQYU heffner_c_Page_61.jpg
3841e17a8f60c7a3bfd435457aa88d47
f9f07eb66a7ade86525aec859c536ca65b5a3e12
F20101206_AABRFE heffner_c_Page_50.tif
c2605a1ebc4f5ac10a1183ba4d467793
9c5b8dc36572979d281f6d97bc7d50f5211b705e
F20101206_AABREQ heffner_c_Page_36.tif
031977642181b706a6ec395b179878a1
8a84bc94c1e05db5c12b784a3f59aaba3a04615a
87979 F20101206_AABQZK heffner_c_Page_78.jpg
aa75c79fbddac713b338c8413425f792
cf40441ddcc6bf52252c983c34058c3a7bea2ef3
31531 F20101206_AABQYV heffner_c_Page_62.jpg
93a5853b7986c31815e0c71c06d8f137
45c430f116ef8b29aec98a75383d22d02ad05047
F20101206_AABRFF heffner_c_Page_53.tif
7159e0231da2bd81d847105d021b8407
68b4302c2fa0aacfa7069c01e9fe6bfa729452f7
F20101206_AABRER heffner_c_Page_37.tif
ced7661c69b4534fe9c003eaa559dc4f
62f09a0f5e9478167bc737a301a1cad710b413d3
39106 F20101206_AABQZL heffner_c_Page_79.jpg
d0f06c4d30697451f9a293ba91a5b645
decf88e2843305102188dfb20f29f57a2cf01fa5
35624 F20101206_AABQYW heffner_c_Page_63.jpg
49831ca43785198165e24fb827cac25b
6881be61498373271fd2b4f83b744000fcb92332
F20101206_AABRES heffner_c_Page_38.tif
6c75c69ed0e0890c1180527ebfc37691
b63954d1273030d1c77cdc94dedf5be2af8e0080
52100 F20101206_AABQZM heffner_c_Page_80.jpg
5ff3e3856b237ae3c618d704869a333b
60a5d6a30a5e98024d45fc472a8ccc9e4edb84fa
31844 F20101206_AABQYX heffner_c_Page_64.jpg
907f7a12d8de36f951ae0096f9308030
0b94ba797b72079640cbb01e341ea9aec296bd97
F20101206_AABRFG heffner_c_Page_54.tif
1b3ca081136fe8c4655e2641ffdecaf2
7d3888bccb8a0b48661daaec39c05113d2ad823e
F20101206_AABRET heffner_c_Page_39.tif
e1c0a6c578e78582359b7625aa812646
d62929d1a78483f8fb7fb56b110cfa89b8fba55c
57073 F20101206_AABQZN heffner_c_Page_81.jpg
5efa0f7bfb44c9ec72314684c6ed10b0
da24ff07138fce15e17fa0d9e8ec8423748a8eff
34157 F20101206_AABQYY heffner_c_Page_65.jpg
afe0eb9e1af2efacdf460532a816ee12
082f28f1c703924de3926cbdf0da4dfebe480b5f
F20101206_AABRFH heffner_c_Page_55.tif
29ca9c9df94ce0d74bd42a710a63b50d
4a3c217a1eb91a9b267e5c783ac6a1187bf72400
F20101206_AABREU heffner_c_Page_40.tif
9a22f91d1cd4bdcc0358998a4d859feb
e965cbb645146da7bd0d4954bfd8300cf3f28b16
58643 F20101206_AABQZO heffner_c_Page_82.jpg
ab7761e69cfd6eca65ccd0312cd27bdf
d2acb951d99020fd11c379c987912b8286acd1cf
56238 F20101206_AABQYZ heffner_c_Page_66.jpg
955ca8f5f896d33fafd4731b02374cde
853e191e5c5c16de8479d2ff1da63ded5c4e06d4
F20101206_AABRFI heffner_c_Page_56.tif
4e5d8dd0bf0901ecb93e5da00d6f40ef
c4020c06b48b746a3f0b0e575156451500aeeac7
F20101206_AABREV heffner_c_Page_41.tif
601be878d7ab3d6722b4afd43749f7fb
d7428d955fe1b9b5a583631f97c1b5bc5ff3205f
32704 F20101206_AABQZP heffner_c_Page_83.jpg
53cb03abd29a69612237967ce3998a10
b9068784ef29d02ef55bcaf72ec64b353c1a1043
F20101206_AABRFJ heffner_c_Page_57.tif
cbb87e6fd693d8b640d4102bfb838868
ccd3a336d2d3b1c671600595581249619b79bba9
F20101206_AABREW heffner_c_Page_42.tif
832bf95937ee5b37cf0658e9fc41a194
faf47b02c7eb359b38de6a56f4e3fa20a14e299f
59550 F20101206_AABQZQ heffner_c_Page_84.jpg
20d4065ee8f1d048ff9f65e9957d7d5b
e669b60e2604f82647e3f45d2784ede5ab32926f
F20101206_AABRFK heffner_c_Page_58.tif
74860890a249d032fa8f83f13fa9603f
f25dac3034ca93c0e909b8613f8e99bc7ba27e13







THE IMPACT OF HIGH-STAKES TESTING ON CURRICULUM, FUNDING,
INSTRUCTIONAL TIME, AND STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN MUSIC PROGRAMS





















By

CHRISTOPHER J. HEFFNER


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007

































O 2007 Christopher J. Heffner

































To my Wife









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the many people who made this

research and the completion of my doctoral degree possible. First, I thank each of my

supervisory committee members. I thank Dr. Timothy Brophy who was always available for the

many meetings I requested during this process. His patience, knowledge, and understanding

were invaluable to me during the pursuit of this degree. I thank Dr. David Waybright for the

opportunities that he has given me as a student and the life lessons that changed my perspectives

as a person and Dr. Russell Robinson for giving me the teaching opportunities and experiences

that have helped me grow as an educator. I thank Dr. Clark for his leadership lessons that have

given me a greater understanding of the human condition and have enhanced my abilities as an

educator.

I thank Matt Sexton for giving me conducting and teaching experiences while at the

University of Florida. His unselfishness with the athletic and symphonic bands allowed me to

gain a high level of confidence with all varieties of college ensembles. I am thankful for the

graduate conducting students who I have worked with throughout this degree. Without their

encouragement and laughter, this experience would have not been as enj oyable.

I thank the staff of Music Educators National Conference for their guidance through the

research process. The MENC staff provided many helpful suggestions that aided in the

evolution of my research. Thanks go to the district and state arts supervisors that took the time

to provide the information the led to the discovery of the impacts of high-stakes testing on music

education. This degree would not have been possible without them.

I thank Jay Jacobs. A true friend and office mate who answered my never-ending series of

questions pertaining to the research process. I thank him for being so patient and helpful to me

during my doctorate.










Finally, I thank my family members for their patience and support. To my wife Serena

thank you for being so supportive during this process. Without your understanding, this degree

would have been next to impossible. I thank mother and father for always believing in my

abilities as a teacher and musician.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES .........__... ......._. ...............8....


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............9.....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 10...


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............12.......... ......


Acc ountab ility ................. ...............12................

Purpose of Study ................. ...............14................
Research Questions............... ............... 1
Delimitations ................. ................. 15............
Li st of T erm s ................ ................. 15......... ...

Significance of Study ................. ...............16........... ....

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............17................


Philosophical Rationales of the Importance of Music Education ................. ............... ....17
Theoretical Rationales of Standardized Testing ................. ...............19........... ...
Research ............... .. .......... ...... .. ...... ... ...........2

Impact on Curriculum and Instructional Time .............. ...............23....
Impact on Funding............... ...............27
Impact on Music Students ...................... ......... ...........2
Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing .............. ...............30....
Summary ................. ...............36.................


3 METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES ................. ...............38................


Introducti on ................. ...............38.................

Participants .............. ...............40....
Proc edure s ................ ...............40........... ....
Data Collection .............. ...............43....
Reliability Procedures............... ...............4


4 RE SULT S .............. ...............45....


Introducti on ................. ...............45.................
Re sults ................ ...............46.................
Survey Analy si s............... ...............47
Test Information ................ ...............47.................












Impact on Curriculum Since 2001 ................ ...............48...............
Impact on Funding Since 2001 ................. ...............49...............
Impact on Instructional Time Since 2001 ........._.._.. .....__. ...._.._ ..........4
Impact on M usic Students .............. ...............54....
Summary ........._..... ...._... ...............55.....
Procedure ........._..... ...._... ...............55.....
Survey Results ........._..... ...._... ...............55.....

5 DI SCUS SSION ........._..... ...._... ...............68....


Introducti on ........._..... ...._... ...............68.....
Data Collection .............. .. .... ... ..............6
Discussion of Research Questions. ........._.._... ........._. ... ..._.._ ...... ..........6
How has the music curriculum been impacted since the passing of the No
Child Left Behind act of 2001? ........._.._._ ......._._. ... ...............6
How has funding for music education been impacted since the passing of the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? ........._.._.. ....... .... ..... .... ........7
How has instructional time been impacted in music education since the passing
of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? ........._.._.. ......_. ......._.... ....7
How have students been impacted in music education since the passing of the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? ........._.._.._......_ ......__. ........7

Implications for Theory .............. ...............73....
Issues............... .... .. .................7

Implications for Music Education .............. ...............75....
Future Research .............. ...............77....
Conclusions............... ..............7


APPENDIX


A SURVEY .............. ...............80....


B IMPACT ON CURRICULUM BY STATE ...._. ......_._._ .......__. ...........8


C IMPACT ON FUNDING BY STATE .............. ...............85....


D IMPACT ON INSTRUCTIONAL TIME BY STATE ................. .............................86


E IMPACT ON STUDENT PARTICIPATION BY STATE ................. ............... ...._...87


F PARTICIPANT AND TEST INFORMATION ................ ...............88........... ...


LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............90........... ....


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............. ..............93.....











LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4-1 Change in the number and variety of music classes since 2001 ................ ................ ..66

4-2 Change in funding for music programs since 2001 ................ .............................66

4-3 Change in instructional time since 2001 ................._. ............... ..........6

4-4 Music educators stopped instruction to teach test material .............. .....................6

4-5 Music rooms used as testing sites .............. ...............66....

4-6 Music educators required to teach Reading classes ................. .............................67

4-7 Changed ensemble schedule to rehearse before or after school .............. ....................67

4-8 Gave up planning period to teach ensemble .............. ...............67....

4-9 Students had to drop music class for Reading or Math .............. ...............67....

4-10 Students participating in music classes in 2001 versus 2007 ................. .....................67

B-1 Supervisors indicating change in classes offered since 2001 ................. .....................84

C-1 Funding changes since 2001 .............. ...............85....

D-1 Hours spent in music classes in 2001 versus 2007 ................. ...............86...........

E-1 Changes in student participation since 2001 ................. ...._._. ............. ......8

F-1 Years experience as a fine arts supervisor ........._..._... ............_......88._._....

F-2 Years experience as a fine arts teacher before becoming an arts supervisor.........._.........88

F-3 Disciplines taught before becoming a fine arts supervisor ................. .......................88

F-4 Supervisors indicating administration of state test .............. ...............88....

F-5 State test inclusion of fine arts ................. ...............88........... ..

F-6 Fine arts areas covered by high-stakes test ................. ....__. ............ .......8

F-7 Participant information .............. ...............89....










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

4-1 The percentage of supervisors that indicated their State Department of Education
administered a high-stakes test. ............. ...............57.....

4-2 Percentage of supervisors indicating whether the high-stakes test had an arts section. ....57

4-3 Percentage change in number and variety of music classes offered since 2001 ........._.....58

4-4 Percentage of supervisors that indicated a change in funding for music programs........... 58

4-5 Number reporting increases versus number reporting decreases in funding since
2001 ........... __..... ._ ...............59....

4-6 Percentage of supervisors indicating elimination of teaching positions due to reduced
funding. ............. ...............59.....

4-7 Hours students spent in music classes in 2001 versus 2007. ....._____ ..... ......__........60

4-8 Supervisors indicating music instruction stopped for test strategy or test item
instruction. ............. ...............60.....

4-9 The amount of class time lost to test item or test strategy instruction ............... ...............61

4-10 Percentage of supervisors indicating the use of music rooms as testing sites. ................61

4-11 Instructional time lost as a result of using music rooms as testing sites.............._.._.. ........62

4-12 The percentage of supervisors indicating music educators had to teach reading
courses............... ...............62

4-13 Percentage of supervisors indicating music classes being removed due to music
educators having to teach reading courses. ...._.._.._ ... .....__. ...._.._ ...........6

4-14 Supervisors indicating teachers having to rehearse a performance group before or
after school............... ...............63.

4-15 Music educators giving up planning periods in order to rehearse an ensemble. ........._.....64

4-16 Supervisors indicating students dropping music class for reading or math. ................... ...64

4-17 Music student participation in 2001 versus 2007. ......_................... ........._...... ...6

4-18 Supervisors belief of relationship between student participation and high-stakes
testing. .............. ...............65....









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE IMPACT OF HIGH-STAKES TESTING ON CURRICULUM, FUNDING,
INSTRUCTIONAL TIME, AND STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN MUSIC PROGRAMS

By

Christopher J. Heffner

August 2007

Chair: Timothy S. Brophy
Cochair: David A. Waybright
Maj or: Music Education

Since the enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (H. Res. 1, 2002), school

administrators have felt the pressure of accountability. NCLB mandates that 100% of students

reach the proficient level in reading and math on the state high-stakes test by 2013-2014. Almost

all of the state tests that are used to measure school accountability do not have a section devoted

to the Eine arts. The lack of Eine arts inclusion has caused schools to emphasize reading and math

during the school day to the detriment of fine arts.

To determine the degree of that impact, an online survey was created examining:

* How has the music curriculum been impacted since the enactment of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001?

* How has funding for music education been impacted since the enactment of the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001?

* How has instructional time been impacted in music education since the enactment of the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001?

* How have students been impacted in music education since the enactment of the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001?










The survey was sent to 2,011 district and state arts supervisors in the United States. The

survey remained online for ten days. Two hundred fourteen supervisors participated in the study

representing 14,293 music educators from 38 states.

Supervisors indicated that since 2001, high-stakes testing has negatively impacted the

number and variety of music classes, funding for music programs, the amount or instructional

time allotted for music programs, and the number of students participating in music classes.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Accountability

Education has entered an age of accountability. Schools, educators, and students are

subjected to a barrage of tests from elementary age through graduation from high school. Kohn

(2000) states that children in the United States are tested more thoroughly than in any other

country in the world. Many educators wind up feeling that their main purpose in education is to

raise test scores. As a result, the nation is witnessing a diminution of attention being given to

any subj ect that is not covered on a high-stakes test (Popham, 2001).

On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act

(NCLB) (H. Res. 1, 2002). This new law contains the most comprehensive changes to the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act since it was enacted in 1965. NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002)

contains four basic education reform principles: stronger accountability for results, increased

flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents, and an emphasis on teaching methods

that have been proven to work. The main purpose of the act is to ensure that all children have a

fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach proficiency

on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments. Scores

from state testing are monitored and compared from year to year. The adequate yearly progress

or AYP helps states keep track of educational progress so that their schools accomplish the

objective of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002). AYP is determined when test scores are compared from

one year to the next and progress toward obj ectives are achieved. One of the objectives is to

have 100% of students at a minimum of a proficient level in reading and math by the 2013-2014

school year (Yell & Drasgow, 2005).









Critics of the act state that it "makes costly demands without providing the resources to

meet them. Others point to its bureaucratic complexity; its unattainable main goal; its

motivationally undesirable methods (threats, punishments, and pernicious comparisons); its

overdependence on standardized tests; its demoralizing effects; and its corrupting influences on

administrators, teachers, and students" (Noddings, 2005, p. 8).

What does this mean for music education? As a result of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002), many

schools are placing an emphasis on the subjects that are being tested: reading-language areas,

math and science. In a recent study of Virginia teachers researchers indicated that more than

80% had been influenced on what to teach as a result of standardized testing. The emphasis on

tested material led to a decreased emphasis on non-tested curricular areas (Abrams, Pedulla, &

Madaus, 2003). Researchers from another study from 2001 collected data from 4,200 teachers

from across the nation. They indicated that 40% of teachers in high-stakes states reported that

their school's test results influenced their teaching on a daily basis. Teachers from the study also

reported that more time was being spent on content covered in the high-stakes test with less time

being spent on non-tested content including music classes. Both parents and teachers in the

study supported the use of standards in schools. Eighty-four percent of teachers surveyed,

however, stated that schools place too much emphasis on standardized text scores (Lewis, 2003).

With an emphasis on reading-language arts, math, and science Jennings and Rentner

(2006) add that schools are spending more time on reading and math at the expense of subj ects

not tested. Many schools, in an attempt to raise test scores and meet achievement standards set

by local and state boards of education, are decreasing the time allocated to subj ects not tested as

apart of the state assessments. These subjects include music education classes. It is the schools










hope that by allocating more time to English, math and science, the schools will perform better

on standardized tests (Wilkins et al., 2003).

It is this attitude that is punishing music education out of the curriculum in public

schools. Popham (2001) points out that there is a shift in curricular attention toward subj ects that

are featured on state tests. The pressure that is associated with school achievement causes

educators to focus on content that will be tested, not on music education. "This exodus is seen in

almost any setting where high-stakes tests dominate" (p. 52). The first content areas to be

dropped are the music and art classes. Some educators believe that any time spent on non-tested

subjects will cut into time that could be devoted to what is measured by the high-stakes test

(Popham, 2001).

Because of the NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002), schools that draw their students from a lower

socio-economic area are spending large parts of their school days working through worksheets in

an effort to boost standardized test scores while wealthier students are enjoying a varied

curriculum with opportunities to engage in the arts (Noddings, 2005).

NCLB (R. Res. 1, 2002) has increased school accountability across the nation. The

pressures of raising test scores are causing schools and teachers to emphasize content covered by

the high-stakes test. In an effort to improve test scores in reading and math, music classes are

losing instructional time in the school day.

Purpose of Study

In the quest to reach a 100% proficient level by 2013-2014, public schools are emphasizing

subjects that are contained in the State's high-stakes test. Researchers have shown that school

accountability has an impact on the content schools emphasize. There is currently no study that

has specifically targeted the impact of high stakes testing on music education. The purpose of










this study is to determine the impact of state testing, school accountability and the reading and

math emphasis on music education.

Research Questions

* How has the music curriculum been impacted since the enactment of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001?

* How has funding for music education been impacted since the enactment of the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001?

* How has instructional time been impacted in music education since the enactment of the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001?

* How have students been impacted in music education since the enactment of the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001?

Delimitations

This study is not concerned with:

* The impact of high-stakes testing on any disciplines other that music.

* The feelings and attitudes of teachers, administration, and students for high-stakes testing
and school accountability.

* The impacts of block scheduling on music programs.

* The impacts of advanced placement curriculum on music programs.

List of Terms

The following are provided to clarify terms used within this study.

* High-Stakes Test Any test that a state uses as a measure of the schools adequate yearly
progress.

* Accountability The State's responsibility to educate.

* Adequate Yearly Progress or AYP A set of proficiency standards that progressively
increase the percentage of students in a district that must meet the proficiency standard.

* No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) An education law passed in 2002. It mandates that all
public school students will reach 100% student proficiency levels in reading and math by
2014.










Significance of Study

The pressures that are being felt by administration and educators to reach the 100%

proficient level by 2014 are having an enormous effect on music education. Administrators and

teachers are placing an emphasis on reading and math classes due to their inclusion on high-

stakes tests. As a result, instructional time, funding, and student participation in music classes

are diminishing. This study is designed to explore the degree of impact that high-stakes testing

and school accountability are having on music curriculum, funding, instructional time, and

student participation across the nation. The results of this study will be used to enlighten music

educators to the level of influence that high-stakes tests have on current educational practices and

help administrators and educators develop new ways to assess students that do not place an

emphasis on one curricular area.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this study is to discover the impact of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002) on music

curriculum, funding, instructional time, and student participation in music programs. Since this

law was enacted school administrations have felt the pressures of accountability. The purpose of

this chapter is to present a sampling of the literature that is pertinent to the study. The six

sections in this study are: (a) philosophical rationales, (b) theoretical rationales, (c) impact of

high-stakes testing on curriculum and instructional time, (d) impact of high stakes testing on

music funding, (e) impact of high-stakes testing on music students, (f) the unintended

consequences of high-stakes testing, and finally a summary outlining how the sections relate to

the study.

Philosophical Rationales of the Importance of Music Education

From as early as 500 B.C., music has intrigued theorists and philosophers. Plato and

Aristotle studied the nature of music, its place in the cosmos, its effects on individuals, and its

place in society. They both advocated a system of education that incorporated gymnastics and

music. To Plato and Aristotle, this combination was the only way to produce the "right" kind of

citizen. In Plato's Republic, he went so far to insist that the two components be balanced. Too

much music and a man becomes effeminate or neurotic, while too much athletics makes a man

uncivilized, violent, and ignorant. Aristotle added that music could be used for entertainment and

intellectual enj oyment as well as education (Hanning, 2002).

Middle Ages Philosophers, Martianus Capella and Boethius gathered as much information

from the collapse from the Roman Empire as possible to derive the seven liberal arts. Martianus'

The Marriage of2~ercury and Philology listed the liberal arts as: grammar, dialectic, and

rhetoric; then geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and harmonics (or music). The first three










disciplines, verbal arts, were called the Trivium. The final four, titled by Boethius, was the

Quadrivium (Burkholder, Grout, & Palisca, 2006).

Music has been shown to be a vital component of education from the beginnings of

recorded history. In a contrary notion, Noddings (2005) states that many feel that schools are at

their best when focusing on primary academic goals. Other institutions should be given the task

of chasing the physical, moral, social, emotional, spiritual, and aesthetic aims that are associated

with the whole child. Those who make these arguments have not considered the history of our

Nations' education. The Massachusetts School Law of 1648 included the "grounds and

principles of Religion" (Mark, 1996, p. 4) as a staple of fundamental educational practices.

Thomas Jefferson' s Report of the Commissioners for the University of Virginia outlined the

fundamentals of education as: morals, understanding of duties to neighbors and country,

knowledge of rights, and intelligence and faithfulness in social relations (Noddings, 2005). In

1918, the National Education Association listed seven aims of education. Those aims are:

health, command of the fundamental processes, worthy home membership, vocation, citizenship,

worthy use of leisure, and ethical character. Noddings (2005) states that there is one aim to add:

happiness.

These aims can be met through the inclusion of music in education. In 1838, Lowell

Mason set out to prove that music education had a place in the school day. To be considered,

music must benefit students intellectually, morally, and physically. Contained in the Boston

Musical Gazette was the School Committee report, which listed the effects, music was expected

to produce:

In the language of an illustrious writer of the seventeenth century, Music is a thing that
delighteth all ages and beseemeth all states, a thing as seasonable in grief as joy, as decent
being added to actions of greatest solemnity, as being used when men sequester themselves
from action. If such be the natural effects of Music, if it enliven prosperity or soothe









sorrow, if it quicken the pulses of social happiness, if it can fill the vacancy of an hour that
would otherwise be listlessly or improfitably spent, if it gild with a mild light the
chequered scenes of daily existence, why then limit its benign and blessed influence? Let
it, with healing on its wings, enter through ten thousand avenues the paternal dwelling. Let
it mingle with religion, with labor, with the homebred amusements and innocent
enj oyments of life. Let it no longer be regarded merely as the ornament of life. Let it no
longer be regarded merely as the ornament of the rich. Still let it continue to adorn the
abodes of wealth, but let it also light up with gladness, the honest hearth of poverty. Once
introduce music into the common schools and you make it what it should be made, the
property of the whole people. And so as time passes away, and one race succeeds to
another, the true obj ect of our system of Public Education may be realized, and we may,
year after year, raise up good citizens to the Commonwealth, by sending forth from our
schools, happy, useful, well instructed, contented members of society (Mark, 1996, p. 6).

These philosophical viewpoints are very relevant to this study. The importance of music in

the curriculum has been documented since the beginning of structured education. It is the recent

trends in school accountability that are impacting the determination of what content is

emphasized by teachers and administration.

Theoretical Rationales of Standardized Testing

At the turn of the twentieth century many critics of public education were searching for a

means of assessment that would measure both student progress and teacher effectiveness.

Giordano (2005) states that as World War I came closer, federal, state, and local governments

asked public schools to do a better j ob of preparing students for military service or wartime

employment. The schools accepted this responsibility, however, it became evident that a

significant portion of students were not able to meet the higher scholastic standards. If these

goals were to be met, schools needed safe facilities, effective textbooks, and suitable curricula.

In an attempt regain control of education, standardized tests were introduced. Standardized tests

were originally introduced as aids for assigning grades in the early twentieth century. These tests

were very popular among scientifically minded teachers. These teachers thought that

standardized tests could easily assess student progress while improving the public opinion of

public education. Tradition-minded educators were upset that their grading policies were being









challenged. Educators were also concerned with this form of assessment because the critics of

education strongly felt that poor test scores was a direct indicator of teacher effectiveness. The

strongest critics called for teachers to pass these standardized tests in order to prove competence

and retain their j obs.

Giordano (2005) continues by stating that administrators embraced tests as a cost effective

means for measuring school achievement. Parents thought tests could pinpoint their children's

learning problems and ensure scholastic remediation. The public hoped that tests would hold

schools accountable to voter-sanctioned directives. From the start of standardized testing, some

groups had their own agendas for promoting standardized tests. Political conservatives

concerned themselves with tests that covered national security or economic health. Employers

wanted screening and placement tests that would improve the efficiency of their companies.

Military leaders thought that tests were important components of their training and management

system. Publishers saw tests as opportunities to expand business with the public schools,

colleges, commerce, and industry.

As time progressed, the emphasis on particular aspects of education shifted. There are

many accounts in American history that have led to the current theories of testing and

accountability in the United States. Since the launching of Sputnik I in October of 1957, the

United States has been in constant competition with other nations for the development and

implementation of a superior educational system. In the 1980s it was the first Bush

administration's 'American Achievement Tests' or AAT. The AAT reflected the content of the

"New World Standards" which tested knowledge of English, mathematics, science, history, and

geography. In the 1990s it was the Clinton administration's 'Voluntary National Test' or VNT.









The VNT tested knowledge listed in the new content standards in the subj ects: English, U. S.

history, mathematics, science, civics, and the arts (Bourque, 2005).

So why are standardized tests being used as a measure of student and teacher progress and

achievement? Kohn (2000) states that there are many motivations for the use of standardized

tests as a measure of accountability by schools. High-stakes tests give schools a simple method

of measuring progress. The author states that this method gained popularity after the Reagan

Administration released its famous 'A Nation at Risk' report in 1983. According to this report,

the United States was accused of producing mediocre students. America's students were not

measuring up to their foreign counterparts. The report called for a commitment to placing

education as one of the Nation' s priorities. 'A Nation at Risk' called for schools to adopt higher

and measurable standards for academic progress. As a result, states began work on creating

academic standards for student achievement (Yell & Drasgow, 2005).

Along with simple accountability, Kohn (2000) feels that there are ulterior motives

influencing the use of high-stakes tests. One motive is the promotion of privatization of

education. The author states that by placing an emphasis on tests and scores, content in public

schools centers primarily around what is to be tested. This is meant to cast a negative light on

public school education and, in turn, promote privatized education. Another motivation for using

high-stakes tests is money. Corporations that design and build and score the exams are pulling in

huge profits. These same companies also sell teaching materials that are designed to help

schools raise test scores on their own tests. Many times schools choose tests that are the easiest

to administer, unfortunately for schools, the tests that are easy to administer are the ones with the

worst content. Flinders (2005) points out that private companies have been responsible for test-

development, scoring, and providing the 'test-prep' curricula that are intended to accompany the









exams. There are times these private companies are problematic. In 1997, Kentucky

experienced a delay in results reporting. The testing company had to be fired due to scoring

mistakes. Scoring mistakes were also reported in New York, mistakes that keep children from

graduating. Berube (2004) states that Virginia officials choose its high-stakes test because; "it is

cheap, it is easy to read, and it is simple to grade" (p. 264).

Politics are another motivation for the use of high-stakes tests. Testing gives politicians a

platform to exhibit their concern about school achievement. High-stakes tests are a favorite of

politicians because they offer a quick and easy way to chart progress (Berube, 2004).

This review of literature has established the importance of music education in the

curriculum and determined why standardized testing is widely accepted as an appropriate

measure of learning in the United States. This information is important when considering the

impact of high-stakes, standardized testing on music education.

Research

The research presented examines how school accountability and adequate yearly progress,

has taken a toll on school curriculum. The research will indicate that high-stakes testing is

causing a shift in emphasis toward subj ects that are tested. This, of course, is pushing music

education out of the school curriculum. Many States do not include a music assessment portion

on their respective high-stakes test. The literature will provide information that supports the

views that music education is losing the battle for inclusion in the school day. The unintended

consequences of high-stakes testing, examines issues related to education that are created by the

use of high-stakes standardized testing. These unintended consequences include the diminution

of teacher and student morale, an increased student dropout rate, and lowered achievement on

National standardized exams like the SAT. These unintended consequences relate to music

education on a fundamental level. When students drop out of school, they can no longer










participate in music classes. The final portion of the literature review examines the impact of

high-stakes testing on music education, which is the basis of this study.

Impact on Curriculum and Instructional Time

School accountability as a result of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002) has had a severe impact on

music education in the Nation's schools. School accountability is causing a teaching emphasis

on tested content. This emphasis is causing schools to spend less time and money on arts

education. Wilkins et al. (2003) state that there are many research studies, over a long period of

time, that indicate more instructional time leads to improved achievement. Increasing time in

which students engage in educationally important activities has important implications for the

curriculum. Subj ects that are not included in the state's high-stakes test are being forced to give

up instructional time so that schools may better prepare for test content. School accountability

has inspired a fundamentalist movement in education that, often times, motivates teachers to

'teach to the test.' In contradiction to that study, Wilkins et al. (2002) state that: "Principals who

decide to eliminate or reduce time allocated to art, music, or physical education, with the

expectation that test scores will improve, have no basis for this expectation" (p. 52).

The reason that schools and administrators continue to emphasize tested material may be

caused by the consequences inflicted if the school does not meet requirements. The mandates

and punishments that occur as a result of schools not reaching achievement goals create a sense

of pressure on teachers and administration. Flinders (2005) reported that Texas schools could be

shut down for repeated low performance on high-stakes tests. These pressures related to

accountability are creating a huge shift in what content is being covered in schools. Even when

music is covered on a high stakes test, the scores are not weighed equally with core content. In

Kentucky, music is tested as part of a larger category titled humanities. The humanities portion

of Kentucky's high-stakes test counts for 7.13% of the school's accountability score. English









counts for 14.25% of the accountability score on the same test. Flinders (2005) feels that testing

music causes a great disadvantage to the discipline. He states that actual music performances are

being replaced by written exams.

Teachers in North Carolina felt powerless in the face of high-stakes accountability to teach

outside of the test. Many felt that they were turning their backs on methods of teaching that they

believed would be successful and appropriate for a wide range of children. Teachers knew that

although their students were performing better on the North Carolina' s A+ School's Program, the

students were being exposed to a constricted curriculum (Murillo & Flores, 2002).

This theoretical rationale is the basis for this study. The concern facing education is that

all students must reach a proficient level by the 2013-2014 school year. The pressures of

accountability have caused an emphasis on tested material in schools. Emphasizing tested

material is limiting students' exposure and ability to participate in the arts.

The lack of emphasis on music education can be linked to public and school perception of

the arts and specifically music education. Eisner (2000) states that there are many influences on

arts policy that are based on public perception. Eisner cites the impact of testing as a maj or

influence of arts policy. "Test scores drive curriculum because what is tested is what is taught.

And since the arts are not tested, they can be neglected with greater immunity than those fields

that are" (Eisner 2000, p. 5).

Bresler (2005) suggests that the low regard for music in schooling is based on the

recognition of its affective powers, instead of recognition of its intellectual properties. "In other

words, a view of music as nonintellectual stems from the difficulty of grasping the

interdependence of cognition and affect" (p. 25). A study initiated by the Getty Institute and

supported by the College Board examined five public high schools that integrated the art into









academics. The five schools were chosen based on their diverse student populations and

administrative support of the arts. In the first out of four studies, the research indicated that

teacher morale increased as a result of arts inclusion in schools. The teachers regarded their role

as a developer and not an implementer. Students were exposed to a more social and personal

structure of class content that linked past and present while comparing distant cultures with that

of their own. The second study examined how the learning opportunities provided by an arts

curriculum affected students' learning and attitudes. It was determined that; "students in "high-

arts" groups performed better than those in "low-arts" groups on measures of creativity, fluency,

originality, elaboration, and resistance to closure" (p. 27). The third study centered on "at-risk"

students and lasted ten years. The researchers studied the students' learning and language

development. By giving students the control to make rules, experiment, and take inspiration

from various sources, the researchers witnessed "impressive language development" (p 28). The

fourth study sought to improve students' self-regulation skills. Researchers witnessed

heightened self-regulation skills in arts classes and less in academic classes. The results of this

research were attributed to: a physical and emotional climate conducive to active learning; goals

set collaboratively by the teacher and students that result in a performance; lessons that require

active participation; and teacher expectations that manifest high standards for all.

Popham (2001) states that: "Because today's educators are under such intense pressure to

raise their students' scores on high-stakes tests, we are witnessing a nationwide diminishment of

curricular attention toward any subj ect that isn't included on a high-stakes test" (p. 121).

Educators often times feel that if their number one priority is to raise test scores, why should they

waste time on content that is not tested. Popham (2001) continues that the first subj ects that

suffer in schools are music and art. Some teachers are so enamored with test scores that they feel









that arts classes will cut into time that could be devoted to tested material. Even the core

subjects suffer as a result of testing. In many cases, the level of mathematics in high-stakes

testing deals only with the lower level cognitive challenges, so few classrooms push students into

the high- level mathematical skills. The result of this focus is a reduced and diminished

education in all curricular areas for students.

It is not only the arts classes that suffer as a result of high-stakes testing. Birk (2003)

discusses an example of a history curriculum entitled 'Facing History and Ourselves' (FHAO).

FHAO is a social justice curriculum created in 1976 that is taught in 6,000 schools across the

country. The purpose of social-justice education is to help students get a better understanding of

the world and their place in it. The social justice curriculum teaches interpersonal skills. Birk

(2003) continues that FHAO has been shown to decrease racism and fighting among students and

to increase social maturity, according to two studies sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation of

New York. High-Stakes testing is jeopardizing social justice curricula. State mandated tests aim

to enhance learning, teaching and accountability. In many cases, high-stakes tests may be

hampering all three. Multiple-choice tests typically do not reward inquiry or analysis, so courses

that emphasize such in-depth learning are often pushed to the margins of the school day. The

Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) makes it challenging to use social

justice curriculum. FHAO uses holocaust studies to teach students the importance of critical

thinking in understanding and protecting the rights and responsibilities of all. The MCAS does

not cover Germany from the 1920s to the 1940s.

Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus (2003) report that teachers surveyed in Virginia, Arizona, and

Kentucky show that teachers are placing greater emphasis on content covered by their respective

high-stakes test. After four years of research, Jennings and Rentner (2006) state that schools are










spending more instructional time on reading and math. Seventy-one percent of elementary

school districts are reducing time spent on subj ects not covered on their high-stakes test.

In 2005 Chapman and Golding (2005) conducted a survey to determine the influences of

art instruction in schools. Four hundred fifteen teachers responded to the survey representing

almost 150,000 students. In one section of the survey, educators were asked to indicated trends

and issues affecting their work. Pressure to improve test scores and formal assessments/tests

ranked near the top. Inadequate budget and supplies, short class periods, and a lack of

administrative support were also included at problems cited by art educators. Several teachers

went so far as to cite NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002) as a problem.

Mishook & Kornhaber (2006) state that research has shown decreases in time allotted for

arts instruction. A report by the Center for Basic Education concluded that 25% of the principals

surveyed in Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, and New York indicated a decrease in arts

instruction, whereas just 8% reported an increase. High minority schools showed a 36%

decrease in arts instruction with one-third of the principals reporting a large decrease in arts

instruction.

Impact on Funding

Chapman (2004) states that the arts were initially included in NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002).

Funds for the arts were cut in 2003 on the grounds that the Bush Administration has a policy of

terminating categorical programs with limited impact in order to fund higher priorities.

Chapman continues by stating that arts programs are especially vulnerable to cuts in the many

states already in financial trouble, and in public schools where 35% or more of students are "at-

risk" for academic failure. In early 2004, a Council on Education indicated that:

Twenty-five percent of principals had cut arts education and 33 percent anticipated
reductions. In schools with high-minority populations, 36 percent reported decreased and
42 percent anticipated them in the near future. Only 10 percent reported increased or









anticipated these. In states with high-stakes tests before NCLB, 43 percent of teachers
reported that they had "decreased a great deal" the time spent teaching fine arts, with the
greatest impact in elementary schools and then middle schools (p. 10).

Ashford (2004) states that today's schools are experiencing increasing pressures to shift

resources from the arts to areas of Reading and Math. One Kentucky educator stated "the arts

get short shrift when there is limited money and, with NCLB, there's a huge push for Reading

and Math" (p. 22-23). The arts education coordinator for Americans for the Arts states that the

incentive to offer arts classes is not strong considering its lack of inclusion on tests, expense,

special facilities, and long-term commitment by students. The senior project associate for

partnership development at the Arts Education Partnership stated: "We are hearing that time

might be taken away from the arts for reading and math. But we don't have hard data that arts

budgets are being cut" (Ashford, 2004, p. 22).

Impact on Music Students

High-stakes tests are having a considerable impact on public education. School

accountability has shifted teacher and administration priorities from the quality of student

education to the yearly progress of students' scores. In an attempt to have 100% of students

reach the proficient level in reading and math, by the 2013-2014 school year, educators have

placed an emphasis on core-content areas. This is having a detrimental effect of both educators

and students.

Conrad (2006) points out that current music education focuses on select students. The

cause of its selectiveness is its performance-based curriculum. Most high schools offer a band

and chorus class but few offer courses in music history, music theory, or music appreciation.

Unfortunately, the emphasis on core subj ects has reduced the opportunities for music programs

to incorporate a comprehensive approach to music education. A comprehensive music

curriculum examines not only the music, but its context in history. Fowler (1996) states: "when









music education concentrates solely on performance, its educational potential is compromised

and its impact is diluted" (p. 130).

What administrators are failing to realize, is that there are benefits to including music

education in the school day. Buchbinder (2003) discusses a 1988 National Educational

Longitudinal Survey led by James Catterall of the University of California, Los Angeles.

Catterall's research followed the progress of 25,000 middle and high school students over a 10-

year period. Catterall separated students into two categories: High-arts involvement and Low-

arts involvement. "High-arts students" were students that participated in at least two arts classes

per week plus extracurricular arts. "Low-arts students" were students with no arts or very

limited arts participation. Results from the study indicated that high-arts students performed

better on standardized tests than students with low-arts involvement. Almost 67% of high-arts

8th graders scored in the top half on standardized tests, compared to 43% of low arts students.

By their sophomore year, 73% of those same high-arts students scored in the top half on

standardized tests, compared to 45% of the low-arts students. Caterall's study indicated that

students are twice as likely to have low-arts involvement if they are from a low socioeconomic

background. It should be noted that high-arts students from a low socioeconomic background

performed better than their counterparts on standardized tests along with math, reading, history,

and geography.

Eady & Wilson (2004) studied the effects of music on academic achievement. The authors

discovered that students who used commercial music as part of a language arts packet scored

significantly higher in regards to continuing motivation. Students that received the music

condition were more likely to continue working on tasks away from the instructional context.









Other research gathered indicated that music served as a beneficial component for success in:

teaching reading, social studies, science, and even improving attitude toward history.

Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing

Emphasis on high-stakes testing affects schools in various ways. Thomas (2005) outlines

some of the collateral damage due to high-stakes testing. Due of a lack of critical thinking on

their state's high-stakes test, Mission Hill School in Boston requires their students to present and

defend their work twice a year in public exhibitions. These demonstrations give students the

opportunity to demonstrate why material is relevant, and demonstrate that they understand

diverse points of view.

High stakes testing also affects students in more detrimental ways. Thomas (2005)

continues by stating in 2003, 12% of Nevada high school seniors who had completed all school

requirements were not eligible to graduate because they had failed the math portion of the state's

graduation exam. Forty percent of students statewide had not taken algebra or geometry because

of teacher shortages.

Often times there are inconsistencies in test standards. Students in a Boston school had

35% of students earning an advance status dropping to 3% in a short time. One student who had

earned advanced status on the Stanford exam dropped to the failure category on the state exam.

Thomas (2005) states that physical education classes are being eliminated:

In 2003, it was reported that a quarter of U. S. children were obese. This figure had
doubled from the previous decade. The study also focused on diseases associated with
obesity and inactivity. Diabetes, attention-deficit disorders, cardiovascular malfunction
were increasing rapidly. Poor eating habits and lack of exercise were cited as two principal
causes of the obesity trend. Analysts estimated that three-fourths of high school students
currently had no physical education of any sort. As states placed more emphasis on
passing standardized tests, time and money were being taken from physical education and
used for teaching pupils test-taking skills (p. 7).










Thomas (2005) continues by stating that in early 2004 growing numbers of states reported

that half or more of their schools were failing to reach the federal government' s NCLB

standards. Attitudes of teachers are also suffering. A study of teachers opinions by a

nonpartisan research group reported that most of the 1,345 teachers surveyed said they were

unfairly blamed for school short-comings, were being undermined by parents, and were

distrustful of administration.

In one of the most extensive surveys to date, States were divided into low, moderate, or

high categories depending on their emphasis on high-stakes tests (Lewis, 2003). The study

polled 4,200 teachers in 2001 from across the Nation. As the stakes increased so did the

emphasis on the test. Forty percent of teachers in high-stakes states reported that their school's

test results influenced their teaching on a daily basis compared to 10% in low stakes states.

Teachers from all three categories reported that more time was being spent on subj ects that were

tested and less time on other areas. These other areas include fine arts, physical education, and

foreign languages (Lewis, 2003).

Studies have shown that high-stakes tests increase stress and decreased morale among

teachers. In regards to students, high-stakes tests have caused increased levels of anxiety, stress,

and fatigue (Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus, 2003). Barksdale-Ladd and Thomas (2000)

interviewed educators from two states. I response to pressures felt by teachers, they had this to

say: "The pressure is on. I feel pressure, partly from the constant memos. I internalize the

pressure, and it is always with me" (p. 390). Another said:

It' s awful. I just cringe every time I walk in the teacher' s room because these tests are the
only topic of conversation in there, and it raises your anxiety just to hear how scared
everybody is. A few years ago, I really loved teaching, but this pressure is just so
intense.... I'm not sure how long I can take it (p. 390).










Many teachers feel that there teaching practices are becoming worse instead of improving

as a result of high-stakes test preparation. One educator had this to say:

I'm not the teacher I used to be. I used to be great, and I couldn't wait to get to school
every day because I loved being great at what I do. All of the most powerful teaching tools
I used to use every day are no good to me now because they don't help children get ready
for the test, and now it makes me like a robot instead of a teacher. I didn't need a college
degree and a masters degree to do what I do now. They don't need real teachers to prepare
children for tests and, in fact, I think they could just develop computer programs to do this
(Barksdale-Ladd, & Thomas, 2000, p. 392).

Increasing scores on a state test does not represent gained knowledge in core content.

Koretz and Barron (1998) found substantially increased scores on the math portion of the KIRIS

high-stakes test in Kentucky than on the math portion of the National Assessment of Education

Progress. Improved performance on high-stakes test does not necessarily reflect broader gains in

student knowledge (Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus, 2003).

In a conversation with her principal, Berube (2004) boasted about her sixth-grade science

students for learning Einstein's theory of relativity, as evidenced by student discussions, projects,

and papers. The response: "Well that's fine, but can they pass the rlesi" (p. 264). The test that

the principal was referring to was the high-stakes, multiple-choice, standardized state test.

Berube states that it is not the standards that are the problem. It is how they are measured that is

hurting education. These tests subdue teachers' and administrators' creativity, threaten job

security and only demonstrate that students have memorized facts. Berube wanted to see just

how much the Virginia high-stakes test was hampering student creativity. She followed the

progress of eighty students that were split into six different classes with teachers who used either

constructivist (student centered) teaching methods or a mixture of lecture, discussion, and

student discovery as a means of teaching. The study indicated that 76% of the students who had

passed the Standards of Learning failed a comprehensive exam, which asked students to explain

their answers. Yeh (2001) feels that a new breed of high-stakes tests should be developed.










These tests should emphasize critical thinking. Argumentation is one way to support critical

thinking on tests. From an early age, students are willing and able to argue their particular

points. Yeh states that by using argumentation, students are expected to use facts to defend their

opinions instead of recalling them. Content on the test would include real life problems that

students could examine.

In Michigan, schools that perform well on high-stakes tests are awarded Golden Apples.

Golden Apples are financial rewards for schools that score well on high-stakes tests. Golden

Apples are designated by the Governor and announced to the news media. Who stands to gain

from this award? Well, it is the teachers, principals, aides, janitors, and all school personnel.

The problem with financial rewards, are that on the surface it would appear that teachers and

students are not trying hard enough to accomplish educational goals (Paris & Urdan, 2000).

Studies have shown that teachers are under pressure to raise student scores on high-stakes

tests. In Maryland, 88% of teachers surveyed felt that they were under increased pressure to

improve student performance on the state test. Ninety-eight percent of teachers in Kentucky

responded similarly when asked the same question (Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus, 2003).

Financial rewards given to schools that perform well on tests have sent the wrong message.

States such as Michigan, Georgia, California, and Kentucky reward teachers financially for

increased scores on high-stakes tests. These financial rewards erode students' motivation. The

message that is sent to students is that getting good grades, trying their hardest, and succeeding

in school is money. By using financial rewards, schools are setting up an extrinsic rewards

motivation, instead of an intrinsic will to learn (Paris & Urdan, 2000).

The researchers continue that the extrinsic motivation of money causes undue pressure on

teachers and students. Pressure for students to improves test scores often results in decreased










motivation, performance, and quality of learning among students. When teachers are paid to

improve test scores, or are threatened with punishment when students' scores do not improve,

teachers develop a feeling of coercion. Teachers then develop teaching strategies that are based

on raising test scores and not student learning. From the student point of view, they begin to

question the teacher integrity. Paying for results sends a message that the test is a valid indicator

of skill and the maj or measure of academic accomplishments. Not all schools are equal. The

socio-economic background of schools varies intensely. Grading schools with vastly diverse

populations on the same scale is unfair to students. The rich are rewarded while schools that are

continually improving may not qualify for rewards. Finally, monetary motivation is not fair to

teachers who put effort into their j obs but are not rewarded. Teachers who work diligently may

become bitter when counterparts at other schools may put in less effort and rewarded more

substantially. Teachers begin to compete for jobs in "rich schools" (Paris & Urdan, 2000).

Other research shows that students are greatly affected emotionally by high-stakes tests.

Arizona teachers reported that students experienced: headaches, "freezing" during parts of the

test, irritability, increased aggression, stomach problems, crying, truancy, refusing to take the

text, and vomiting. Texas teachers reported students experiencing: headaches, upset stomach,

irritability, increased aggression, freezing up, vomiting, crying, refusing to take the test, and

truancy, "often" or "always" in a survey (Paris &Urdan, 2000).

Amrein & Berliner (2003) state that students become less intrinsically motivated and less

likely to engage in critical thinking when emphasis is placed on test scores. When the pressure is

on, teachers do not allow students to explore the concepts and subj ects that interest them.

"Attaching stakes to tests apparently obstructs students' path to becoming lifelong, self-directed

learners and alienates students from their own learning experiences in school" (p. 33).










Dropout rates in the United States are up 4-6% in schools that require high school

graduation exams. Another study reported that students in the bottom 5% of states with high-

stakes tests were 25% more likely to drop out of school that peers in schools without high-stakes

tests.

Eight-eight percent of the states with high school graduation tests have higher dropout
rates than do states without graduation tests. In 62 percent of these states, dropout rates
increased in comparison with the rest of the nations after the state implemented high-stakes
graduation exams. In addition, the top 10 states with the weakest grade 9-12 continuation
ratios all administered high-stakes tests over the years for which data were available
(Amrein & Berliner, 2003, p. 34).

In addition to the increased drop out rates, the percentage of students receiving a General

Educational Development (GED) credential has risen in the last ten years. In North Carolina, the

proportion of students under the age of 20 taking the GED increased by 73 percent between 1986

and 1999. In Georgia, almost twice as many teenagers earned a GED in 2000 than in 1990.

Since 1997, about 50,000 students have been retained in Chicago due to low-test scores.

Researchers found that students were 12% more likely to drop out before graduation as a result

of being retained. Ninth-grade students from racial minority and low socio-economic

backgrounds are being retained at an extraordinary rate in Texas. The Texas Assessment of

Academic Skills is administered to tenth grade students. Many teachers retain students for fear

that they will perform poorly on the high-stakes test. Reports estimated that half of all minority

students enrolled in Texas high schools are technically enrolled as freshmen. Some are ninth

graders for the first time, while others have been retained once or even twice (Amrein &

Berliner, 2003). Amrein and Berlliner (2003) also discovered that 67% of the states that use

high school graduation exams reported decreased in ACT performance after having implemented

such exams. Along with deteriorating ACT averages, declines were also reported in the number

of students passing and participating in AP classes.










Summary

There is an emphasis on school accountability as a result of NCLB (R. Res. 1, 2002).

Researchers have outlined concerns on the impacts of high-stakes testing on school curriculum,

instructional time, funding, music students and the unintended consequences of high-stakes

testing.

The impacts of high-stakes testing on curriculum and instructional time are evident. State

tests emphasize achievement in reading and math. Administration is not given much incentive to

support a music curriculum in public schools. In addition to the reduction of music curriculum

in schools, the amount of instructional time in existing music classes is being reduced.

Music students are feeling the impacts of high-stakes testing and school accountability.

Many times the students who would benefit from music classes the most had to drop music

classes in order to take extra reading and math remediation to improve test scores.

Researchers have also presented facts about the unintended consequences of high-stakes

testing. It is important to have an understanding of these consequences as an educator. Students

in today's schools are feeling a greater sense of stress and pressure. This combined with the

dissolution of many music programs is causing morale of both students and teachers to plummet.

Because of this, there has been a rise in the number of students choosing to drop out of school

and pursue their GED. These unintended consequences are having an indirect impact on music

education. When students perform poorly on reading sections of the high-stakes test, music

educators are often times asked to teach remediation courses. This causes the music educator to

give up planning periods and even music classes.

Through this examination of literature it can be determined that high-stakes testing and

school accountability have had a negative impact on music education. What cannot be

determined is the degree of this impact nationally. This research study was designed to










investigate the degree of impact in music curriculum, funding, instructional time, and music

students on a national level.









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of high-stakes testing on music

education. After extensive examination of related literature, four areas of concern surfaced: The

impact of high-stakes testing on music curriculum, funding, instructional time and participation

by students. High-stakes testing and school accountability has caused a shift in curricular

emphasis toward Math and Reading, primarily due to the stipulations of the NCLB (H. Res. 1,

2002). Wilkins et al. (2003) stated that many research studies had indicated more instructional

time being allotted to subjects included on the State, high-stakes test. The National emphasis on

school accountability has inspired a fundamentalist movement in education that is causing

educators to 'teach to the test.' Most schools do not include a music or fine arts portion in the

State test. Even when music is included on the State, high-stakes test, the importance of the

subject is not completely realized. Flinders (2003) states that the Kentucky State test includes

music as a portion of the larger category: humanities. The humanities portion of the state test

counts for 7.13% of the school's accountability score. As a comparison, English counts for

14.25% of the accountability score on the same test. These reasons are why the section

pertaining to the impact of high-stakes testing on music curriculum was included in the survey.

It is important to gain a National level of information related to this impact on music curriculum.

With the lack of arts inclusion on State testing and the emphasis of the school curriculum on

tested material a section to the survey was added to determine the severity of impact of high-

stakes tests on music curriculum.

Chapman (2004) states that funds for the arts were cut in 2003 because the Bush

Administration has a policy of terminating categorical programs with limited impact in order to









fund high priorities. The requirement that all schools reach 100% proficiency, by the 2013-2014

school year, in Reading and Math has rearranged the priorities in public schools. Schools that

enroll a higher amount of "at-risk" students become even more vulnerable to reductions in arts

areas in order to finance programs covered on the high-stakes test. Test scores are determining

the curriculum. In early 2004, a Council on Education stated that 25% of principals had cut arts

education and 33% that anticipated reductions in funding. With this information, it was

important to include a section devoted to funding for music programs in the impact of high-

stakes testing on music education survey.

The third area of concentration in the survey focused on the impacts of high-stakes testing

on instructional time for music classes. Research has shown decreases in time allotted for arts

instruction. A report by the Center for Basic Education concluded that 25% of the principals

surveyed in Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, and New York indicated a decrease in arts

instruction. Schools with a higher population of minority students indicated a 36% decrease in

arts instruction with one-third of the principals reporting a large decrease in arts instruction

(Mishook & Komhaber, 2006). Chapman (2004) also included in the report from a Council on

Education that 43 percent of teachers indicated that the time spent teaching fine arts had

decreased significantly. This reduction had occurred before the enacting of the NCLB act of

2001. This information led to the inclusion of a section devoted to the impact of high-stakes

testing on music instructional time since 2001.

The final section of the survey was designed to measure the impact of high-stakes testing

on music students. More specifically, the curricular decisions that students had to make in

response to the heightened emphasis on reading and math. When students perform poorly on

reading and math portions of State tests, they are required to take remediation courses. In order










to make time for these courses students, often times, have to withdraw from music classes. With

the curricular emphasis on tested materials, a section of the survey was created to determine the

degree of impact of high-stakes testing on music students.

Through research, four areas of concern surfaced in regards to State testing. State testing

has had an impact on music curriculum, funding for music programs, music instructional time,

and students participating in music classes. What has been lacking in the research is information

about the impacts of State testing in these four areas from across the Country. This survey was

created to gain a National perspective on the severity of the impacts of high-stakes testing.

Participants

For this study, it was important to use participants that had a comprehensive perspective on

the music programs in their area. District and state arts supervisors were chosen as participants

based on their knowledge of and interaction with music programs and music educators. Polling

the district and state arts supervisors would provide the researcher with specific information from

an extensive geographical area. The Information Resources Director was contacted at Music

Educators National Conference (MENC) to obtain permission to contact the current district and

state arts supervisors. There were 2,011 district and state level supervisors registered with

MENC at the time of the study.

Procedures

Based on the review of literature, a survey was created that asked district and state arts

supervisors to provide information about the impact of high-stakes testing on music education.

The survey consisted of twenty-five questions and was divided into six sections: Personal

information, high-stakes test information, the impact of testing on curriculum since 2001, the

impact of testing on funding since 2001, the impact of testing on instructional time since 2001,

and the impact of testing on music students since 2001.










The survey contained of a variety of questions; closed-response, open-ended, and

contingency questions. Following these six divisions, participants had an opportunity to include

any additional comments on their views on the impact of high-stakes testing on music education.

The personal information section of the survey listed five questions asking:

* How many years have you been an arts supervisor?

* Are you a district orsState level supervisor?

* Were you a fine arts teacher before becoming an arts supervisor? If so, how many years
did you teach, and which art form did you teach?

* In which State do you supervise?

* How many music educators do you supervise?

With the variety of State tests administered, some information about the State, high-stakes

test was required. Supervisors were asked:

* Does your State Department of Education administer a high-stakes test? If yes, continue.
If no, please submit your survey now.

* Does the high-stakes test have a section devoted to the arts?

* If yes, what content areas are covered? Check all that apply.

Music Theory
Music History
Music Appreciation
Jazz History/Improvi station
Other

The third section of the survey contained only one question about the impacts of high-

stakes testing on curriculum since 2001. The question: Has there been a change in the amount

and variety of music classes offered since 2001? Supervisors were given the opportunity to

indicate an increase, decrease or no change in the variety and number of music classes offered

since 2001.










To determine an impact on Funding since 2001, Supervisors were asked three questions

about funding for music programs over the last seven years. The questions were:

* Has funding for music programs changed since 2001?

* If yes, could you please estimate a percentage of increase or decrease?

* Have any teaching positions been eliminated because of reduced funding since 2001?

The fifth, and largest, portion of the survey asked the supervisors to list any changes in the

amount of instructional time given to students since 2001. With curricular emphasis on content

tested on high-stakes tests, music instructional time has been the largest area of impact based on

previously discussed literature. Supervisors were asked:

* What is the difference in amount of hours students spent in music classes in 2007 versus
the amount of hours students spent in music classes in 2001?

* Have music educators had to stop instruction during their music class in order to teach
students a test strategy or prepare for a test item?

* If yes, how many hours of instruction do you estimate music educators lose per year?

* Are music rooms used as testing sites?

* If yes, how many hours of instruction per year do you estimate music educators lost as a
result?

* Have music educators been required to teach Reading classes?

* If yes, how many music classes have been removed from the program in order to allow
music teachers to teach Reading?

* Have music educators changed their schedules in order to each a performance ensemble
before or after school due to lost class time as a result of increased teaching requirements
in Reading and Math? If yes, can you estimate a percentage of music educators in your
District or State (based on supervisor level) that this has impacted?

* Have music educators given up planning periods to teach ensembles because their regular
ensemble time is devoted to Reading and Math remediation?

The sixth and final section focused the attention of the supervisor on the impact of high-

stakes testing on music students. Supervisors were asked:










* Have music students had to drop a music class in order to take a course in Reading or
Math?

* How does the amount of students participating in music classes in 2007 compare to the
amount of students participating in music classes in 2001? Please estimate a percentage if
you are able.

* Do you feel that this change in participation can be attributed to high-stakes testing?

Supervisors were given the opportunity, at the end of the survey, to include any additional

comments on the impacts of high-stakes testing on music education. This gave the supervisors

an opportunity to voice opinions and provide information that may have been left out of the

survey .

Data Collection

The survey was created and posted online on a popular survey hosting website. A link to

the survey was sent to the Information Resources Director of MENC. It was determined that

participation in the survey may be stronger if he link to the survey came from an internal source

at MENC. A survey link was sent to the Information Resources Director and then forwarded to

2,011 District and State fine arts supervisors.

The survey was opened May 21, 2007, remained active for ten days and was closed May

30, 2007. Supervisors were asked to follow a link to the online survey where they were taken

through the 25 questions. The survey was estimated to take the participant 5-10 minutes to

complete and participation was anonymous.

Reliability Procedures

In order to establish reliability and validity, trial versions of the survey were sent to

District supervisors in Florida and administrators at MENC. The Florida supervisors and MENC

administrators were asked to complete the survey and offer ideas for formatting and content

change in the survey. The Florida District supervisors returned the survey with many useful









comments on structure and content. The questions: "Have music educators had to stop

instruction during their music class in order to teach students a test strategy or prepare for a test

item?" and "Are music rooms used as testing sites?" were added based on district arts supervisor

comments. Music educators from Gainesville, FL had also voiced concerns about having music

classes removed from schedules in order to teach reading and math remediation. One local

music educator indicated having to move music ensemble rehearsals before and after regular

school hours. The information provided by District Supervisors in Florida, MENC

representatives, and public school music educators in combination with the research on high-

stakes testing already examined helped solidify reliability and validity of the content included in

the survey.

The survey went through numerous revisions in order to develop a tool that was concise,

relevant, and capable of providing valuable information about the impacts of high-stakes testing

on music education throughout the nation.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of high-stakes testing on music

curriculum, funding, instructional time and student participation in the United States. Music

Educators National Conference (1VENC) was asked to provide a list of current district and state

level arts supervisors. Surveying district and state arts supervisors allowed the researcher to

address broad and specific issues impacting current music education practice. Supervisors were

sent a link to an online survey consisting of twenty-five multiple choice, open-ended and essay

questions. The survey was divided into six sections: Participant information, test information,

impact on curriculum, impact on funding, impact on instructional time and the impact on music

students. At the conclusion of the survey, supervisors were asked to provide any additional

information regarding high-stakes testing.

In the first section, supervisors were asked to provide personal information. They were

asked to indicate at what level they supervised (district or state), the state in which they are

located, the number of years experience as a supervisor and number of years experience as a fine

arts teacher before becoming an arts supervisor.

Supervisors were then asked to provide information regarding the state's high-stakes test.

The first question whether the representative state offered a high-stakes test. If supervisors

indicated that no high-stakes test was administered, they were asked to submit the survey

immediately. The remaining supervisors were asked to include whether the state test included a

section devoted to the Arts. If the high-stakes test did include an arts section, supervisors were

then asked to indicate (from a list) which arts classes were tested.










To determine the impact of high-stakes testing on music curriculum supervisors were

asked whether the number and variety of music classes had increased, decreased, or remained the

same since 2001. Supervisors indicating a change in curriculum were asked to provide a

percentage of increase or decrease in the number and variety of classes offered since 2001.

To determine the impact of high-stakes testing on funding, supervisors were asked if there

had been any change in funding since 2001. If there had been a change, was the change an

increase or decrease and had any teaching positions been eliminated due to reduced funding

since 2001.

Supervisors were asked to indicate the impact of high-stakes testing on instructional time.

They were asked to compare the amount of instructional time for music in 2001 versus

instructional time in 2007. Supervisors were also asked to indicate whether teachers were losing

instructional time in order to teach students test strategies or test items. Other possible impacts

included in the survey were using music rooms as testing sites, music educators having to teach

reading and the changing of ensemble rehearsal schedules.

In order to determine the impact of high-stakes testing on student participation, supervisors

were asked whether a music student had dropped a music class in order to take a course in

reading or math. Supervisors were also asked to compare the amount of students participating in

music classes in 2001 and 2007. Finally, supervisors were asked if a change in participation

could be attributed to high-stakes testing.

The survey was sent on May 21, 2007 to 2,011 supervisors. The survey remained online

for ten days and closed on May 30, 2007 (see Appendix A).

Results

The survey link was sent to the District and State Arts supervisors on May 21, 2007.

MENC reported that there were 2,011 current supervisors in their database. One hundred ninety-









six of the e-mails were not successfully sent due to outdated e-mail addresses, resulting in 1,815

e-mails successfully sent to the arts supervisors. The survey was online for ten days and was

closed on May 30, 2007. Two hundred fourteen supervisors of the 1,815 participated in the

study (12%).

Ninety-one percent of the participants were District level supervisors with a mean of 9

years of supervising experience and 9% of the participants were State level supervisors with a

mean of 8 years supervising experience. Ninety-nine percent of the participants reported having

teaching experience before becoming an arts supervisor with a mean of 19 years teaching

experience.

Supervisors from the following States participated in the survey: Arizona, California,

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,

Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,

Washington, and Wyoming. State and district supervisors participating in this study represented

a total of 14,293 (see Appendix F for participant information).

Survey Analysis

Test Information

Supervisors were asked if their State Department of Education administered a high-stakes

test (see Figure 4-1). Ninety-one percent indicated that a high-stakes test was administered in

their State, 9% of supervisors indicated that no high-stakes test was administered in their State.

Supervisors were then asked if the high-stakes test had a section devoted to the arts (see

Figure 4-2). Almost 92% of supervisors indicated that the high-stakes test did not have a section

devoted to the arts, 6% indicated that the state test had a section devoted to the Arts.










All of the supervisors who indicated that their state high-stakes test included a section

devoted to the arts stated that music theory was included in the arts section. Seventy-one percent

included music appreciation, followed by music history (57%), jazz history/improvisation (43%),

and music technology/music education (29%) (see Appendix F).

Impact on Curriculum Since 2001

Supervisors were asked if there had been a change in the amount and variety of music

classes offered since 2001 (see Figure 4-3). Thirty-two percent of supervisors indicated that the

number and variety of music classes has decreased since 2001. Thirty percent of educators

indicated that the number and variety of classes had increased since 2001 and 21% of supervisors

reported that there was no change in variety or number of music classes offered since 2001

(Table 4-1). In reference to the impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum, participating

supervisors stated:

The more we try to fix problems by tutoring and pumping a million dollars of education
into aims tutoring for example, maybe we should work on fixing the curriculum and use
that money elsewhere. The more high-stakes testing there is the less students we will have.
--AZ

Compared to other situations, our school district's music program has been very fortunate
in that we have not been greatly affected by the high-stakes testing. However, we do feel
the impact in scheduling and the emphasis put on the testing and "teaching to the test"
approach. We have had to integrated concepts of learning into our curriculum, but
compared to other situations, that has not been extreme. --NY

High-stakes testing is killing the Arts and Music programs in the State of Louisiana. Too
much emphasis is being placed on test scores rather than the needs of our children. Those
students in the Art and Music programs are the ones that have good grades and are
motivated to do well on the high-stakes test. --LA

Testing and emphasis on the academic side of standards have diminished the relevance of
the arts in education. --MO

State mandated testing results in schools are causing a ranking system. Because of this,
administrators are asking teachers to include reading and writing skills in all classes.
Another facet of this problem, is the "honors classes" that are offered against music
classes. Parents feel all of their kids need to take "advanced level classes which can have a










weighted GPA, allowing their kid to have a higher GPA, and a higher class ranking. A 4.0
GPA is nothing today, some students have a 4.2 or higher. Music classes get pushed aside
for honors classes. Foreign Language requirements also knock kids out of having room in
their schedule for music. --OK

Music is a Core-Curriculum class but is not treated as such in many places I know. --AZ

The impact of high-stakes testing on music curriculum by state can be seen in Appendix B.

Impact on Funding Since 2001

Supervisors were asked if funding for music programs had changed since 2001 (see Figure

4-4). Sixty-five percent of supervisors reported a change in funding since 2001. Thirty percent

stated that there had been no change in funding for music classes since 2001 and 5% indicated no

knowledge of any change. Forty-six percent of supervisors indicated an increase in funding for

music programs, 54% reported a decrease in funding since 2001 (see Figure 4-5).

Had any teaching positions been eliminated due to reduced funding since 2001 (see Figure

4-6)? Fifty-nine percent of supervisors indicated that no positions had been eliminated as a

result of reduced funding since 2001. Thirty six percent of supervisors reported that music

teaching positions had been eliminated due to reduced funding. Of the 36% of supervisors that

reported eliminated music teaching positions, 40% stated that more than one position had been

eliminated due to reduced funding (Table 4-2). A participating supervisor stated:

There have been significant changes to the music offerings in our district as a result of
higher emphasis on testing. 2007-2008 will see even more of this, as potential music
students are "double-dosed" on reading and math instruction. Music teachers continue to
lose budget resources and staffing levels while math and reading departments see increases
every year in staffing and budget. --CO

The impact of high-stakes testing on funding by state can be seen in Appendix C.

Impact on Instructional Time Since 2001

Supervisors were asked to estimate the amount of hours students spent in music classes in

2007 versus the amount of hours students spent in music classes in 2001 (see Figure 4-7). Forty-










two percent of supervisors reported that there was no change in the amount of time students

spent in music classes in 2001 versus 2007. Thirty-nine percent indicated that more hours were

spent in music classes in 2001 and 7% reported more hours spent in music classes in 2007 (Table

4-3 ).

Supervisors were asked if music educators had to stop instruction during their music class

in order to teach students a test strategy or prepare for a test item (see Figure 4-8). Fifty-two

percent of supervisors indicated that educators had to stop instructional time to teach a test

strategy or test item, 44% reported no interruption in instructional time, and 4% did not know

that information (Table 4-4).

The 52% of supervisors that had reported a loss of instructional time were then asked to

estimate the number of hours per year music educators lose for test preparation (see Figure 4-9).

Thirty-one percent of supervisors indicated that music educators lose 1-5 hours per year as a

result of test strategy and test item preparation. Twenty-seven percent reported a loss of 6-10

hours per year, 30% reported 11-15 hours per year, and 13% indicated more that 15 hours of

instructional time lost per year due to teaching state test strategies or items.

Supervisors were asked if music rooms were used as testing sites (see Figure 4-10). Sixty-

one percent of supervisors indicated that music rooms were not used as a site for administering a

high-stakes test. Thirty-two percent reported that music rooms were used as testing sites and 8%

did not know that information (Table 4-5).

Those supervisors indicating the use of music rooms as testing sites were then asked to

estimate the amount of instructional time lost per year during testing (see Figure 4-11). Thirty-

five percent reported 1-5 hours per year, 33% estimated 6-10 hours per year, 21% indicated 11-

15 hours, and 12% reported instructional losses of over 15 hours per year.









Have music educators been required to teach reading classes (see Figure 4-12)? Seventy

percent of supervisors indicated that music educators were not required to teach a reading class.

Twenty-six percent of supervisors reported that music educators were required to teach a reading

class (Table 4-6).

The 26% of supervisors that indicated music educators teaching reading, were asked to

estimate how many music classes had been removed from the program in order to allow music

educators to teach Reading (see figure 4-13). Forty-two percent estimated that no classes had

been removed, 29% estimated 1-2 classes, 24% estimated 3-4 classes, and 5% estimated more

than four classes had been removed from the daily schedule.

Supervisors were asked if music educators have had to change their schedules in order to

teach a performance ensemble before or after school due to lost class time as a result of increased

teaching requirements in reading and math (see Figure 4-14). Forty-eight percent responded that

music educators did not change schedules, 41% indicated that music educators did have to

change schedules to accommodate increased teaching requirements in reading and math (Table

4-7).

Supervisors were asked in the final question measuring the impact of state tests on

instructional time if music educators have had to give up planning periods to teach ensembles

because their regular ensemble time is devoted to reading and math remediation (see Figure 4-

15). Sixty percent of supervisors stated that music educators did not give up planning periods,

25% reported that music educators did give up planning periods (Table 4-8). Participating

supervisors commented on the impacts of high-stakes testing on music instructional time.

Supervisors stated:

Elementary instrumental pull-out music lessons have seen a decrease in recent years.
Without specific data to back it up, the music teachers feel that the higher stress level in










classroom with regards to testing, some from teachers, some from parents, has contributed
to fewer students signing up for the pull-out lessons. The classroom teachers are
concerned they do not have enough time to prepare the students thoroughly for the State
tests, and some parents follow this line of thinking. Decreased numbers at the elementary
level will of course impact participation levels at the secondary level. --NJ

Raising test scores in our corporation is a high priority. Everything else takes a back seat. -
-IN

It seems that Illinois has placed strong emphasis on the core subj ects, i.e., math, science,
reading, etc., and has basically ignored music and the other arts. --IL

I'm afraid that a maj or blow to music education is coming to Louisiana. The board that
governs public education is going to require, in 2008-2009, that all incoming high school
freshmen take added "core" subj ects, thereby limiting the number of electives they may
take. Even now, many freshmen must delay taking PE and foreign language courses until
their sophomore or junior years to stay in band or choir. --LA

We are having to look at our intermediate schools and their schedules, as the focus on
mathematics and English-Language Arts has them creating double block periods for these
classes, which eliminates space for elective classes, including music. Elementary schools
in program improvement years 4 and 5 often go to blocks of time for math and ELA and
this causes scheduling issues for the elementary music teachers in doing "pull outs" for
instruction as well as scheduling classes to come to general music times. --CA

Due to increased time required for reading, math and science classes, there is less time
available now for students to take advantage of elective courses. This has had a negative
impact of enrollments, especially for students who, at one time, would have liked to take
four full years of music at the high school level. --IL

The impact of testing has been felt mainly at the middle school level with large performing
ensembles. A new schedule devised to boost academic areas being tested has resulted in
substantial loss of rehearsal time. --NY

The comments heard from Maryland music educators most often have to do with
scheduling practices and diminished time for pull-out programs because of additional
required time for students in reading/language arts and mathematics. --MD

All related arts classes are placed on hold for the duration of the State test, grades 3-9. --SC

As stated earlier, the "need" for remediation has caused the greatest amount of concern.
Music class time, and in particular performance music class time, has been the target time
to remediate. Many teachers also complain of the loss of teaching time that is spent on
assisting the English and Math department in making sure that students are "competent" in
those areas. Indiana currently only tests those two subject areas. Funding is based upon
those test scores. The start of the school year has also become dependent on the fact that
this testing occurs in September. Many school districts now are starting school a full
month sooner than before. The effects of this system affect not only those in need of










remediation, but those that share class time with the remediate students as fellow
classmates. There are some major issues facing our music teachers and potential language
changes to middle level curriculum confirm the reason for concern. --INT

In Arizona, the AIMS exam focuses primarily on Math, Reading, and Writing (Science
next year) and does not include the fine arts yet. The primary impact for me has been our
district has raised the number of mandatory classes students must have (i.e. 3 years of
math, 3 years of science) which limits the number of electives a student can take--which
means I may not get a students until their sophomore or junior year (unless they choose to
go to summer school) and there is a year or two of catching up. Which ultimately
influences music selection and quality of the ensemble. --AZ

The maj or impact is seen through classroom teachers attitude toward music. It is now seen
as negative impact on classroom instruction in the content areas tested. Parents are also
using the test data as a reason to stop their child's participation in instrumental music
programs and after school lessons. --MA

Music classes are expected to provide 10 minutes daily of reading or math time for
students to work on these skills rather than using music techniques to enhance the fluency
in reading or fraction concepts for math. We now face another obstacle with a program
called the Hathaway Scholarship that offers tuition monies to students who meet
curriculum criteria that does not include the arts. As a result, students will be less likely to
enroll in arts classes or other elective programs. --WY

All incoming freshmen must take 2 math classes which leaves NO time for band or chorus.
They have them scheduled to be in band or chorus for HALF of a year. --MA

It' s killing us no time for music. --MO

Elementary teachers are asked to teach reading and math to cover for the classroom teacher
when there is a team meeting. Five to ten minutes have been cut from each music class to
accommodate more reading, math and science. Middle School chorus positions are being
regularly cut to hire more science and reading as well as class reduction requirements. --FL

Principals will hire an additional math or reading teacher in lieu of a music teacher. Music
teachers are being used to teach remedial math and reading classes for which they have no
training. --SC

The real impact in California is the length of the school day. With only six periods
available, music is relegated to zero period at the secondary level. Some students cannot
get to school at 7:45 AM so they wind up dropping music. The six period day has also
affected the range of music classes since only one band, one orchestra and one chorus can
be offered at zero period. There is no space for additional ensembles to meet. --CA

Music in our Middle School is affected the most. All Band and Chorus students meet
before or after school as there is no room to schedule these classes due to double math and
English classes. --NJ










One supervisor turns the schedule change into positive outcomes:

Lessons and sectionals at the High School have been eliminated forcing these to take place
before or after school. Despite facing similar problems to other arts educators, we have
gone into this with a win-win type attitude and come out on the better end of every
negotiation we enter. The arts have gotten stronger because we have taken every negative
proposal and demanded a counter-balance staff increase, new computer equipment to
increase efficiency and enrollment in elective courses, etc... --CT

The impact of high-stakes testing on instructional time by state can be seen in Appendix D.

Impact on Music Students

Have music students had to drop a music class in order to take a course in reading or math

(see Figure 4-16)? Supervisors reported that 77% of music students have had to drop a music

class in order to take a reading or math course. Seventeen percent of music students have not

had to drop a music class in order to take a reading or math course (Table 4-9).

Supervisors were asked how the amount of students participating in music classes in 2007

compares to the amount of students participating in music classes in 2001 (see Figure 4-17).

Fifty-two percent of supervisors indicated that more students participated in music classes in

2001 than in 2007. Twenty-four percent indicated that more students participated in music

classes in 2007 than in 2001 and 11% reported no change in participation (Table 4-10).

The final question of the survey asked if the change in participation could be attributed to

high-stakes testing (see Figure 4-18). Fifty-five percent of supervisors felt that the change in

participation could be attributed to high-stakes testing. Twenty seven percent of supervisors felt

the change in participation was not attributed to high-stakes testing. Participating supervisors

commented on the impacts of state testing on student participation:

Students with low academic performance have to drop their electives to take Ramp-Up
Math and Ramp-Up Reading classes for at least one semester. --WA

Students at risk are no longer being allowed to participate in the arts as they need to take so
many AIS classes. Our arts classes are, once again, becoming something only offered to
the more privileged. --CO










The now-required double math and double reading classes coupled with pull-out tutoring
have severely cut into instruction time for music classes. Students are being squeezed out
of music (and other arts) classes for the sake of preparing or taking the plethora of tests. --
KS

The primary negative impact that high-stakes testing has on our music program is the
relatively new challenge of performance and recruitment tours. We have a difficult time
getting principals to support arts assemblies or other activities that require students to be
excused from the "regular" classroom. Seat time in the "regular classroom has become an
overwhelming obstacle. --MT

All of our instrumental lesson groups are not allowed to be taken from math classes
making scheduling extremely difficult. It is going to be worse next year when a new
reading initiative is enacted adding reading to the list of classes "off limits" for lessons.
Several students who would excel and benefit from music are not allowed to take it due to
academic intervention in math and reading. At some point we need to look at what is in
the best interest of the student and not how the district looks for the newspaper showing
our testing results. --NY

Students are being given so much homework that they do not find time or energy to
practice instruments. Practice time has dropped considerably since 2001 resulting in lower
retention and lower skill level in our ensembles. Students are under constant pressure from
classroom teachers to skip lessons, take lessons after school so that they can stay in class
and learn the test content. Most of our dropouts in grades 4-8 are due to the need for more
time in class to do better in academics i.e. test. Teachers are under great scrutiny to have
their students perform well on the tests. In New York, we have State and NCLB testing.
Our kids are tested 3-8 then have to pass 5 High School Regents exams to graduate. It is
too much!!i --NY

The impact of high-stakes testing on student participation can be seen in Appendix E.

Summary

Procedure

* Survey sent to 2,011 district and state arts supervisors across the Nation.

* Supervisors were questioned about impacts of state high-stakes testing on music
curriculum, funding, instructional time and student participation.

* Two hundred fourteen supervisors responded representing 14,293 music educators from 38
States.

Survey Results

* Ninety-one percent of supervisors indicated that their State administered a high-stakes test.

* Ninety-two percent reported no section devoted to the fine arts.










* Thirty-two percent of supervisors reported a decrease in the number and variety of classes
offered since 2001.

* Fifty-four percent of supervisors indicated a decrease in funding for music programs since
2001.

* Thirty-six percent of supervisors reported the loss of at least one teaching position as a
result of reduced funding for music programs since 2001.

* Thirty-nine percent of supervisors indicated more time spent in music classes in 2001 than
in 2007.

* Fifty-two percent of supervisors stated that educators had to stop instruction during music
class to teach a test strategy or test item.

* Thirty four percent of supervisors reported the use of music rooms as testing sites resulting
in lost instructional time.

* Twenty-six percent of supervisors indicated that music educators were required to teach a
Reading class resulting in loss of music instructional time.

* Forty-one percent of supervisors indicated music educators had to teach a performance
ensemble before or after school due to increased requirements in reading and math.

* Twenty-five percent of supervisors stated educators gave up planning periods to teach a
performance ensemble because regular rehearsal time was devoted to reading and math
remediation.

* Seventy-seven percent of supervisors reported that music students had to drop a music
class in order to take a course in reading or math.

* Fifty-two percent of supervisors stated that more students participated in music classes in
2001 than did in 2007.

* Fifty-five percent of the supervisors indicated this change in participation was attributed to
high-stakes testing.












100%

80%

60%-r Test Administerd

40% -l/ I No Test Administered

20%

0%


Figure 4-1. The percentage of supervisors that indicated their State Department of Education
administered a high-stakes test.


100.00% -

80 %-
80.00% -

60.00% -
20 %-

40.00% -


O7 Section for the Arts


SNo Section for the
Arts
O Don't Know


Figure 4-2. Percentage of supervisors indicating whether the high-stakes test had an arts section.













40.00%


SNumber and Variety has
30.00% -
Increased since 2001

20.00% _,-G r I Numberand Variety has
Decreased since 2001

10.00% .,- III O No Change in Number and
Variety since 2001
0.00%


Figure 4-3. Percentage change in number and variety of music classes offered since 2001.


80.00% -

60.00% -

40.00%

20.00% -

0.00% -


5 Change in Funding
SNo Change in Funding
O Don't Know


Figure 4-4. Percentage of supervisors that indicated a change in funding for music programs.












54%
52%
50%
48%
46%
44%
42%


SIncreased percentage in
Funding since 2001
SDecreased percentage in
Funding since 2001


Figure 4-5. Number reporting increases versus number reporting decreases in funding since
2001.














60% -
SNo positions eliminated due
50% n II to reduced funding
40% -KI I Yes positions eliminated due
to reduced funding
30% '
O Don't Know
20% '
10% -'" 0 More than one music
0% position eliminated



Figure 4-6. Percentage of supervisors indicating elimination of teaching positions due to reduced
funding.














-

-

-

- -

-

1


50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%


SMore hours spent in music
classes in 2007

SMore hours spent in music
classes in 2001
O Don't Know


O No Change


Figure 4-7. Hours students spent in music classes in 2001 versus 2007.

















60.00%

50.00% n Have stopped Instruction

40.00% -
5Have Not Stopped
30.00%
Instruction
20.00% rl I Don't Know

10.00%

0.00%




Figure 4-8. Supervisors indicating music instruction stopped for test strategy or test item
instruction.













40.00%
5 1-5 hours lost per year

30.00%
S6-10 hours lost per year

20.00%
O 11-15 hours lost per year
10.00%
O More than 15 hours lost per
0.00% 'Y- year




Figure 4-9. The amount of class time lost to test item or test strategy instruction.
















80.00% -

SMusic rooms used as
60.00% -
testing sites
40.00 _, 5Music rooms Not used as
testing sites
20.00 ., -O Don't Know
20.00%





Figure 4-10. Percentage of supervisors indicating the use of music rooms as testing sites.













40.00%
5 1-5 hours lost per year

30.00%
S6-10 hours lost per year

20.00%
O 11-15 hours lost per year
10.00%
O more than 15 hours lost per
0.00% year




Figure 4-11i. Instructional time lost as a result of using music rooms as testing sites.














80.00% -

SRequired to teach Reading
60.00% -
class

40.00% _,~ Not required to teach
Reading class
20.0% .,O Don't Know
20.00%





Figure 4-12. The percentage of supervisors indicating music educators had to teach reading
courses.













50.00% -' I Zero Classes Removed

40.00%
S1-2 Classes Removed
30.00%

20.00% .. .I( O 3-4 Classes Removed

10.00% -' I More than 4 Classes

0.00% .,Removed




Figure 4-13. Percentage of supervisors indicating music classes being removed due to music
educators having to teach reading courses.


-000
50.00%

-000
40.00%

00
30.00% -


SHave changed schedule
SHave Not changed schedule
O Don't Know


Figure 4-14. Supervisors indicating teachers having to rehearse a performance group before or
after school.





-000
60.00%
00
50.00%
00
40.00%

30.00% -


Figure 4-15. Music educators giving up planning periods in order to rehearse an ensemble.


80.00% -

60.00% -


40.00%


20.00% ,-

0.00% -


Figure 4-16. Supervisors indicating students dropping music class for reading or math.


SHave given up planning
periods
SHave Not given up planning
periods
O Don't Know


SHave had to drop a Music
Class
SHave Not had to drop a
Music class
O Don't Know













60.00% -
50.00% -
40.00% .
30.00%
20.00%

10.00% -
0.00%


5 More Student Participation
in 2007
SMore Student Participation
in 2001
O No Change

O Don't Know


Figure 4-17. Music student participation in 2001 versus 2007.


60.00%

50.00% -
40.00% .
30.00%
20.00% -
10.00%

0.00%


SChange Attributed to high-
stakes testing
SChange Not Attributed to
high-stakes testing
O Don't Know


Figure 4-18. Supervisors belief of relationship between student participation and high-stakes
testing.










Table 4-1. Change in the number and variety of music classes since 2001


Classes
Number Increased
Variety Increased
Number Decreased
Variety Decreased
No Change in Variety
No Change in Number


Percentage
31.8
28.6
38.1
26.2
21.4
20.6


Table 4-2. Change in funding for music programs since 2001
Funding Percentage
No Change 29.6
Change 65.6
Increase 46.8
Decrease 55.7
Don't Know 4.8

Table 4-3. Change in instructional time since 2001
Instructional Time Percentage
More in 2007 6.8
More in 2001 39.3
No Change 41.9
Don't Know 12.0

Table 4-4. Music educators stopped instruction to teach test material
Stopped Instruction Percentage
No 43.6
Yes 52.1
1-5 hours lost per year 31.3
6-10 hours lost per year 26.6
11-15 hours lost per year 29.7
More than 15 hours per year 12.5
Don't Know 4.3


Table 4-5. Music rooms used as testing sites
Used
No
Yes
1-5 hours lost per year
6-10 hours lost per year
11-15 hours lost per year
More than 15 hours lost per year
Don't Know


Percentage
60.7
31.6
34.9
32.6
20.9
11.6
7.7










Table 4-6. Music educators required to teach Reading classes
Taught Percentage
No 69.6
Yes 26.1
0 classes removed from music program 42.1
1-2 classes removed from music program 29.0
3-4 classes removed from music program 23.7
Don't Know 4.4

Table 4-7. Changed ensemble schedule to rehearse before or after school
Changed Percentage
Yes 41.4
No 48.3
Don't Know 7.8

Table 4-8. Gave up planning period to teach ensemble
Gave up Period Percentage
Yes 24.8
No 59.8
Don't Know 15.4

Table 4-9. Students had to drop music class for Reading or Math
Dropped music class Percentage
Yes 77.4
No 16.5
Don't Know 6.1

Table 4-10. Students participating in music classes in 2001 versus 2007
Participation Percentage
More students in 2007 23.5
More students in 2001 52.0
No Change 10.8
Don't Know 16.7









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Introduction

A survey was created to obtain information on the impacts of high-stakes testing on the

music curriculum, funding, instructional time, and student participation in music programs. A

link to the survey was sent to 2,011 District and State arts supervisors. The survey consisted of

25 questions divided into six sections. After providing some personal and test information, the

participants were asked to answer questions pertaining to the impacts of high-stakes testing.

These questions focused on music curriculum, funding for music classes, music instructional

time, and music students, in the participant's State or District. These four sections were chosen

based on research of related literature. Researchers show a curricular shift in emphasis to

subj ects covered by the State high-stakes tests, primarily reading and math. The increase of

emphasis in reading and math causes less time and money invested in music programs and

students that perform poorly on state tests have to drop music classes to spend additional time in

remediation. Supervisors were given the opportunity to provide any additional information

related to high-stakes testing at the end of the survey. The survey was online for ten days.

This chapter contains discussion about data collection, findings, the implications for

theory, issues, and implications for music education. At the end of the chapter, I will provide

personal thoughts and information based on research questions and data collected from the

impact of high-stakes testing on music education survey.

Data Collection

A link to an online survey was sent to 2,011 District and State arts supervisors across the

Nation. Permission to send the survey to the supervisors was granted by the Information

Resources Director from Music Educators National Conference (1VENC). One hundred ninety-









six of the e-mails were undeliverable. One thousand eight hundred fifteen e-mails were

successfully sent to the district and state arts supervisors.

The electronic survey was very useful and provided the opportunity to reach the

supervisors quickly and efficiently. Possible impacts to using this method of research were the

inactivity of supervisor e-mail accounts and supervisor attitude to online surveys. The survey on

the impact of high-stakes testing was administered immediately following another online survey

during the month of May. With the inundation of electronic surveys, the number of participants

may have been negatively impacted. No negative comments were indicated by participating

supervisors during the survey for having administered the study in this fashion. Two hundred

fourteen supervisors participated in the study (12%). This percentage of State and District level

supervisors represented 14,293 music educators from across the Country. The participation

provided the researcher with a diverse representation of the impacts of state testing on music

programs.

Discussion of Research Questions

In this section the research questions that were presented in the first chapter are

reexamined. The questions are stated below with discussion following.

How has the music curriculum been impacted since the passing of the No Child Left
Behind act of 2001?

Music curriculum has been negatively impacted as a result of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002). A

maj ority of supervisors (53%) indicate that the number and variety of music classes had either

decreased or not changed since 2001. One-third of the supervisors indicate that music classes

have decreased in number and variety since 2001. These findings are similar with the studies

presented earlier in the literature review. Wilkins et al. (2003) state that there are many research

studies that indicate more instructional time leading to improved achievement. High-stakes










testing has forced schools to focus on tested content. Subj ects that are not included in the State' s

high-stakes test are being forced to give up instructional time so that schools may better prepare

for test content. Teachers are teaching to the test. Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus (2003) state that

teachers surveyed in Virginia, Arizona, and Kentucky showed that teachers are placing greater

emphasis on content covered by their respective high-stakes test.

When schools feel the pressure of accountability, curriculum shifts to content covered on

State high-stakes tests. Ninety-one percent of supervisors surveyed indicate that their State high-

stakes test did not contain a section devoted to the arts. Administrators are not held accountable

for the inclusion of arts in the school curriculum. These results allow the researcher to conclude

that the value of arts by administrators is diminishing in the public schools.

How has funding for music education been impacted since the passing of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001?

Funding for music education has been negatively impacted as a result ofNCLB (H. Res. 1,

2002). The arts were originally included in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. In 2003 the

arts were removed based on the Bush Administration' s policy of the termination of categorical

programs with limited impact in order to fund higher priorities (Chapman, 2004). Chapman

states that funding for arts programs has decreased since the creation of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002).

This study on the impacts of high-stakes testing on music education revealed that funding

for music programs has been negatively impacted. Over half of the supervisors that participated

report a decrease in funding for music programs since 2001. Some supervisors indicate that

music programs were functioning on the same budgets for the past several years. Not only are

music programs losing funding they are also losing educators. The reductions in funding have

led to the elimination of music teaching positions. In some States, supervisors state that multiple

teaching positions had been eliminated from the music programs. These reductions in funding









for music programs are fundamentally linked to the lack of inclusion on State testing. School

administrations fund subj ects that play a role in school accountability before funding programs

that do not. Music education is not being valued for its benefits for students and is subsequently

being removed from schools in the Nation.

How has instructional time been impacted in music education since the passing of the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001?

Music instructional time has been negatively impacted due to NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002).

The largest portion of the survey was devoted to the impacts of high-stakes testing on

instructional time since 2001. The educators and supervisors that were interviewed during the

survey development process indicated that instructional time for music was suffering the most.

One researcher indicates that the first subjects to suffer as a result of testing are the fine arts

(Popham, 2001). Mishook & Kornhaber (2006) reveal that principals surveyed in Illinois,

Maryland, New Mexico, and New York indicated a decrease in arts instruction with one-third of

the principals reporting a large decrease in arts instruction.

The results of this study indicate that the amount of instructional time for students has been

negatively impacted as a result of high-stakes testing. Supervisors were asked to provide

information about loss of instructional time due to: teaching test items, losing rooms to be used

as testing sites, music educators having to teach Reading, and changing class schedules.

At least one-fourth of the supervisors state a loss of instructional time. The supervisors

that participated in this survey report:

* Music educators have had to stop instructional time in order to teach students test items
and strategies resulting in loss of class time.

* Music rooms are being used as testing sites resulting in the loss of instructional time.

* Music educators are required to teach Reading classes resulting in the loss of music
classes.










* Music educators have had to change schedules in order to teach a performance ensemble
before or after school due to lost class time as a result of increased teaching requirements
in Reading and Math.

* Music educators have given up planning periods to teach ensembles because their regular
rehearsal time is devoted to Reading and Math remediation.

* Students spent more time in music classes in 2001 than in 2007.

The most significant issues facing music educators in relation to instructional time are:

having to teach test items/strategies, and having to rehearse a performance ensemble before or

after school. This study indicates that music educators are losing significant instructional time

due to high-stakes testing.

How have students been impacted in music education since the passing of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001?

Music students have been negatively impacted since the passing of NCLB (H. Res. 1,

2002). The last section of the survey centered on music student participation in music classes.

Supervisors were asked if music students had to drop a music class in order to take a course in

Reading or Math. The results of the study indicate that high-stakes testing has had a negative

impact on student participation. The largest percentage of supervisors that participated indicate

that students had dropped music classes in order to take additional classes in Reading and Math.

Supervisors also indicate that more students participated in music classes in 2001 than did in

2007. When the supervisors were asked if they felt the change in student participation was

attributed to high-stakes testing, a majority stated 'yes.' The minority of supervisors that did

indicate more students participating in music classes in 2007 than in 2001 state that the increase

in participation may not be attributed to high-stakes testing.

After discussing the impacts of high-stakes testing on curriculum, funding, and

instructional time, it is not surprising that student participation was negatively impacted as well.

More than three-quarters of the supervisors indicate that music students have dropped a music









class in order to take a Reading or Math course. Comments from the supervisors in the previous

chapter indicate that students have had to spend additional time in Reading and Math in order to

help raise test scores. It is not that students are developing a love for Reading and Math, these

students are being required, by counselors and administrators to spend more time in these core

content areas in order to improve test scores. Administrative sanctions as a result of low-test

scores are determining the curriculum, instructional time, funding, and student participation in

schools.

Implications for Theory

Standardized testing was developed at the beginning of the twentieth century. Critics of

public education were searching for a means of assessment that would measure student progress

and teacher effectiveness. Educators examined this form of testing with mixed reviews.

Scientifically minded teachers thought that these tests could easily assess student progress while

improving the public opinion of public education while the traditional-minded educators were

upset that their grading policies were being challenged. The general public has been the biggest

supporter of standardized testing believing that standardized tests are a strong indicator of

teacher and school effectiveness (Giordano, 2005). Giordano (2005) also states that standardized

testing was embraced by administrators due to its cost effectiveness as a means for measuring

school achievement. Parents indicated that the use of standardized testing could be used to

pinpoint learning problems in students and outline needs for remediation. Politically,

government officials became more interested in standardized tests that covered national security

and economic health.

One hundred years later, education in the United States is shrouded in a new age of

accountability, standardized testing is now being used as a means to measure success in teachers

and students by school administrators. High-stakes tests give schools an efficient method of










measuring progress. Researchers state that high-stakes testing has been used for a variety of

reasons including: the promotion of privatized education, profit for test manufacturers, and

politics (Kohn, 2000). Standardized testing is being used today in much the same fashion it was

when it was created. The differences today are in the levels of significance that the scores hold.

The problems in education does not lie in the use of standardized state testing, but how heavily

administrators use the scores from state testing to measure student achievement. Standardized

tests were developed as an easy and economical way to measure school and teacher

effectiveness, but the enactment of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002), has a created a whole new level of

accountability in public schools. With the federal mandates in reading and math, and the lack of

arts inclusion on the state high-stakes tests the results of this survey are not very surprising.

What is frightening is the severity of impact that high-stakes testing is having on music

education. Music educators are fighting to justify music and the other fine arts curriculum in an

educational system that does not hold the teaching of the discipline accountable.

Issues

Reading and math skills are very important to students but our educational system may be

placing too much emphasis on these subjects. The issues for music education created by school

accountability and high-stakes testing are:

* Reduced funding for music education.

* Reduced instructional time for music education.

* Reduced number and variety of music classes.

* Reduced student participation in music.

There needs to be a re-evaluation of how schools are held accountable for student learning.

The problem for music education lies in the emphasis that is placed on state tests mixed with

music's difficult nature to assess using a paper and pencil test.










In order to measure student learning, a new comprehensive portfolio needs to be developed

that measures school achievement in all areas. Standardized tests could still be used for the core

content subj ects with inclusion of an arts and humanities section, much like the section that

exists on the Kentucky state high-stakes test. School success should be based on student

achievement in all disciplines. In order to measure achievement for performance ensembles,

school groups could participate in sanctioned state assessment festivals. Most school's

performance groups already participate in district, regional, or state festivals. The performance

assessment would function much the same as it currently does. A critique exists in all states

designed to measure the quality performance of performance ensembles. Judges for the

performance assessment concerts would be distinguished band directors from other districts,

states, and colleges using the scores from these sanctioned events to determine annual progress

or achievement of the performance ensembles. These results would then be added as a section in

a school-wide assessment portfolio, which could be sent to the State Department of Education

for review.

Implications for Music Education

The results of this study, on the impacts of high-stakes testing on music education, report

that music education is being negatively impacted due to accountability and the curricular

emphasis on reading and math. The study showed that some issues were more apparent than

others. A majority reported decrease in funding and participation. Seventy-seven percent of

supervisors reported that music students had dropped a music class in order to double-up or take

remedial classes in reading and math. The variety and number of music classes have been

reduced in schools and the actual instructional time is taking a hit in order to teach test strategy

and test items. Music educators have changed their schedules in order to continue the inclusion









of a performance ensemble in the music program. These are some suggestions to help change

the legislation philosophy on the need for music education in schools:

* Inclusion of a music portion on the state level high-stakes test.

* Integration of music into core subj ects.

* Improving music education advocacy.

By including a music portion on the State high-stakes test, the subj ect gains instant

credibility with the State Department of Education ensuring funding and instructional time in

schools. Even if the music section did not weigh as heavily as reading or math, music would

play a role in determining school success, and could not be ignored by school administration.

Integrating music into the core curriculum is important to the success and longevity of

music in schools. Music education is left out of the testing process because of its difficult nature

of evaluation. If music is not being included on the State high-stakes test, it is not going to be

funded and taught. A participating supervisor, stated:

We must provide the general public with clean, clear research-based reasons and
connections of how music and the arts contribute to deeper conceptual understanding in
other content as well as developing group processes and creative thinking. This must be
concrete information that is spread across the Nation.

Argabright (2005) states that because the current trend in education focuses on student

achievement, curricular integration is essential to prevent reductions in music education.

Argabright lists music's contributions to a child's total education. Music can be used for:

* Improving spatial reasoning ability, which enhances math and science skills.

* Developing the ability to understand and use symbols in new contexts.

* Helping students develop decoding and interpretation skills.

* Increasing students' vocabulary and language skills.

* Fostering student creativity.










* Allowing students to exercise problem-solving skills

* Encouraging self-discipline.

Educating teachers of core content classes will help promote music education and take the

fear out of incorporating music activities in the non-music classroom. It is up to the music

educators to take the initiative in promoting music education across the curriculum.

Improving music advocacy is a necessary step in promoting music education in public

schools. Elpus (2007) states that music educators cannot expect policymakers to understand why

music is important to students. Public policy is based on accurate knowledge and informed

judgment. Elpus continues by stating that advocacy helps others to understand music educator's

beliefs and commitments. Elpus states:

Teachers in the field bear responsibility for improving music education advocacy as well.
It is infinitely easier to advocate on behalf of strong school music programs that offer
comprehensive, sequential instruction than it is to advocate for music programs of
substandard quality (p. 17).

No one understands the importance of music education for students more than music

educators. The benefits of music education must be communicated to State Departments of

Education as well as the National Legislation.

Future Research

Research that correlates test scores with students who have spent additional class time in

remedial reading and math classes should be examined. Are the remedial courses and the

doubling-up on core subj ects improving scores on high-stakes tests? I believe it would be

interesting to determine if these methods are working in schools. Another area of research could

be an examination of test scores from the schools that have reported an increase in music and arts

participation since the enactment of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002).










Block scheduling and the inclusion of college credit classes for high school students should

be examined as further impacts in student participation in music classes. Supervisors that

participated in this study included concerns for students and their need to enroll in advanced

placement classes to boost high school grade point averages for college entrance requirements.

Finally, an area of future research could be a correlation between the ability of the music director

and the success of the music programs. There are several music programs in each state that are

thriving in the face of state high-stakes testing. Are the impacts felt in music programs the fault

of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002), or is this legislation being used as a scapegoat for educators?

Conclusions

Through an examination of the results of this survey, the following conclusions can be

stated:

* Students were offered a higher number and variety of music classes before the enactment
of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002).

* Since the enactment of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002), a maj ority of music programs have
experienced a decrease in funding since 2001.

* More instructional time was spent in music classes in 2001 than in 2007 as a result of
NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002).

* More students participated in music classes in 2001 than did in 2007 due to the enacting of
NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002).

Based on the results of this survey, high-stakes testing has negatively impacted a maj ority

of music programs in the United States. The minority of supervisors that indicated an increase in

student participation, since 2001, stated that high-stakes testing most likely did not have a part in

the promotion of music education. The pressures of accountability are causing a curricular shift

in emphasis towards tested material. Reading and math classes are at the center of attention. In

an effort to improve test scores, students who perform poorly in reading and math had to drop

elective classes in order to double-up on core subj ects and remediation. Music educators are










very aware of the importance of arts in the curriculum and it is time that administrators and

legislatures understand the value of music in the curriculum for students. New forms of testing

need to be developed that incorporate music sections. Educators should work to develop a

measurement for performance assessment to be included on the state high-stakes test. If

inclusion is not a possibility, music educators should push for a new method of school

accountability, a method that rewards schools for increased student participation in fine arts

classes. Music educators have to be the loudest voices of advocacy and the ones to change

policy. State legislators must be made aware of the impacts of high-stakes testing in all areas of

the music program because without music in schools students lose a medium of creativity and

di scovery.










APPENDIX A
SURVEY

Personal Information:

1. How many years have you been an arts supervisor?
2. Are you a District or State level supervisor?
a. District Level Supervisor
b. State Level Supervisor
3. Were you a fine arts teacher before becoming an arts supervisor? If so, how many
years did you teach, and which art form did you teach?
a. Yes, taught art
b. Yes, taught music
c. Yes, taught theatre/drama
d. Yes, taught dance
e. No, did not teach fine arts
i. Please indicate number of years taught
4. In which State do you supervise?
5. How many music educators do you supervise?
6. Please include your e-mail address if you would like a copy of the results sent to you
(optional).

Test Information:

1. Does your State Department of Education administer a high-stakes test? If yes,
please continue. If no, please submit your survey now
a. Yes
b. No
2. Does the high-stakes test have a section devoted to the arts?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don't Know
3. If yes, what content areas are covered? Check all that apply.
a. Music Theory
b. Music History
c. Music Appreciation
d. Jazz History/Improvisation
e. Other (please specify)










Impact on Curriculum Since 2001:


1. Has there been a change in the amount and variety of music classes offered since
2001? Check all that apply.
a. Number of Classes has Increased
b. Variety of Classes has Increased
c. Number of Classes has Decreased
d. Variety of lasses has Decreased
e. No Change in Variety
f. No Change in Number

Impact on Funding since 2001:

1. Has funding for music programs changed since 2001?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don't Know
2. If yes, could you please estimate a percentage of increase or decrease?
a. Increased Percentage in Funding
b. Decreased Percentage in Funding
3. Have any music teaching positions been eliminated because of reduced funding since
2001?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don't Know
d. If more than one, please provide number

Impact on Instructional Time since 2001:

1. What is the difference in amount of hours students spent in music classes in 2007
versus the amount of hours students spent in music classes in 2001?
a. More hours spent in music classes in 2007
b. More hours spent in music classes in 2001
c. No Change
d. Don't Know
e. Number of Hours
2. Have music educators had to stop instruction during their music class in order to
teach students a test strategy or prepare for a test item?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don't Know












3. If yes, how many hours of instruction do you estimate music educators lose per year?
a. 1-5 hours
b. 6-10 hours
c. 11-15 hours
d. More than 15 hours per year
4. Are music rooms used as testing sites?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don't Know
5. If yes, how many hours of instruction per year do you estimate music educators lost
as a result?
a. 1-5 hours
b. 6-10 hours
c. 11-15 hours
d. More than 15 hours per year
6. Have music educators been required to teach Reading classes?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don't Know
7. If yes, how many music classes have been removed from the program in order to
allow music teachers to teach Reading?
a. O classes
b. 1-2 classes
c. 3-4 classes
d. More than 4 music classes removed from the daily schedule
8. Have music educators changed their schedules in order to teach a performance
ensemble before or after school due to lost class time as a result of increased teaching
requirements in Reading and Math? If yes, can you estimate a percentage of music
educators in your District or State (based on supervisor level) that this has impacted?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don't Know
d. Estimate Percentage
9. Have music educators given up planning periods to teach ensembles because their
regular ensemble time is devoted to Reading and Math remediation?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don't Know












Impact on Music Students:


1. Have music students had to drop a music class inorder to take a course in Reading or
Math?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don't Know




2. How does the amount of students participating in music classes in 2007 compare to
the amount of students participating in music classes in 2001: Please estimate a
percentage of change, if you are able.
a. Percentage Increased
b. Percentage Decreased
c. No Change
d. Don't Know



3. Do you feel that this change in participation can be attributed to high stakes testing?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don't Know

Additional Comments:

1. Please provide any additional comments on the Impact of high-stakes testing on
music education.












Table B-1. Supervisors indicating. changee in classes offered since 2001
State Number Variety of Number of Variety of No No No
(number of of classes classes has classes has classes has change change report
supervisors) has has decreased decreased in in
increased increased variety number
AGE (5) 1 1 2 2 1 1 1
C:A(8) 3 3 2 1 2 2 0
C:O (1) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
CT (7) 2 0 5 3 0 0 0
I)E (1) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
FL (6) 1 1 4 3 0 0 1
Ch (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IA (3) 0 0 2 2 0 0 0
IL)(2) 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
IL (6) 1 1 2 2 1 2 0
IN (2) 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
KS (2) 0 0 2 1 0 0 0
KY (1) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
LA (4) 0 0 1 2 0 1 2
MA (6) 0 0 3 2 0 2 2
ME) (9) 1 2 3 2 2 3 2
MI (2) 2 1 0 1 0 0 0
MN (2) 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
M4( (5) 1 1 2 1 1 0 0
MT (1) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
NC (3) 1 0 0 0 3 2 0
LE (2) 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
14J(11) 5 5 0 0 2 1 5
NV1 (3) 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
NT'(16) 8 7 4 4 3 2 1
CG (6) 1 1 1 0 4 1 0
Cal (3) 0 2 1 1 1 1 0
PA (7) 1 2 3 2 2 2 1
RI(1) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC (4) 1 1 3 2 0 0 0
SI) (1) 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
ITN(2) 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
17{(2) 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
UT (1) 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
VA (1) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1"[ (1) 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
WA (4) 2 1 0 0 1 1 1
VY (1) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0


APPENDIX B
IMPACT ON CURRICULUM BY STATE














Estimated decrease
30%
22%
No report
28%
0%
10%
No report
25%
0%
22Vc
0%
3794
50%
0%
30%
Report (no %)
No report
094
10%
1592
3294
36%
48%
28%
30%
0%
25%
25%
No report
0%
No report
No report
No report
0%
15%


APPENDIX C
IMPACT ON FUNDING BY STATE


Table C-1. Funding changes since 2001
State Estimated increase
AZ 0%
CA 15%
CO No report
CT 17%
DE 12%
FL 15%
GA No report
IA 20%
ID 25%
IL Oo
IN 8%
KS Oo
KY 0%
LA 10%
MA 20%6
MD 6%
Aff No report
NC 5%o
NE 0%
NJ 16%o
NV1 Oo
NY 116%
OH 100%
OK 0%
PA 5%0
RI 30%
SC 10%
SD 090
TN No report
TU( 251%o
UT No report
VA No report
1"[ No report
WA 10%
WY 0%











Table D-1. Hours spent in music classes in 2001 versus 2007
State More in 2007 More in 2001 No change Don't know
(supervi sors)
AGE (5) 0 2 1 1
C:A(8) 1 4 3 0
C:O (1) 0 0 1 0
CT (7) 0 4 2 0
I)E (1) 1 0 0 0
FL (6) 0 4 1 0
Ch (2) 0 0 0 0
IA (3) 0 1 0 1
IL)(2) 0 1 0 0
IL (6) 0 2 2 0
IN (2) 1 0 1 0
KS (2) 1 0 0 1
KY (1) 0 1 0 0
LA (4) 0 1 1 0
MA (6) 0 2 1 0
ME) (9) 1 2 2 0
MI (2) 0 0 1 1
MN (2) 0 1 1 0
M4( (5) 0 3 1 0
MT (1) 0 0 0 0
NC (3) 1 0 2 0
LE (2) 0 1 1 0
NJ (11) 1 1 4 1
NV1 (3) 0 1 1 1
NT'(16) 1 2 9 3
CG (6) 0 1 5 0
Cal (3) 0 2 0 1
PA (7) 0 2 3 1
RI(1) 0 0 1 0
SC (4) 0 3 0 1
SI) (1) 0 1 0 0
17 (2) 0 1 1 0
17{(2) 0 2 2 0
UT (1) 0 0 1 0
VA (1) 0 0 0 0
1"[ (1) 0 0 1 0
WA (4) 0 1 1 1
VY (1) 0 0 1 0


APPENDIX D
IMPACT ON INSTRUCTIONAL TIME BY STATE





APPENDIX E
IMPACT ON STUDENT PARTICIPATION BY STATE


Table E-1. C
State
(supervi sors)
AZ (5)
CA (8)
CO (1)
CT (7)
DE (1)
FL (6)
GA (2)
IA (3)
ID (2)
IL (6)
IN (2)
KS (2)
KY (1)
LA (4)
MA (6)
MD (9)
MI (2)
MN (2)
MO (5)
MT (1)
NC (3)
NE (2)
NJ (11)
NV (3)
NY (16)
OH (6)
OK (3)
PA (7)
RI (1)
SC (4)
SD (1)
TN (2)
TX (2)
UT (1)
VA (1)
VT (1)
WA (4)
WY (1)


changes in student participation since 2001
Increased Decreased


No change


Don't know













Table F-1. Years experience as a fine arts supervisor
0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years 26+ years
58 36 26 15 4 7
Note. 146 supervisors reported information, 68 supervisors did not.


Table F-2. Years experience as a fine arts teacher before becoming an arts supervisor
0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years 26+ years
28 12 24 19 19 30
Note. 122 supervisors reported information, 92 supervisors did not.


Table F-3. Disciplines taught before becoming a fine arts supervisor
Art Music Theatre/Drama Dance Did not teach fine arts
3 136 6 0 5
Note. 150 supervisors reported information, 64 did not.


Table F-4. Supervisors indicating administration of state test
Yes No Skipped question
121 12 81


Table F-5. State test inclusion of fine arts
Yes No Don't know Skipped question
7 112 3 92



Table F-6. Fine arts areas covered by high-stakes test
Music Music Music Jazz history Other skipped question
theory hi story appreciation and improvisation
7 4 5 3 2 207


APPENDIX F
PARTICIPANT AND TEST INFORMATION





Table F-7. Participant information
State Number of supervisors
represented participating from state
AZ 5
CA 8
CO 1
CT 7
DE 1
FL 6
GA 2
IA 3
ID 2
IL 6
HR 2
KS 2
KY 1
LA 4
MA 6
MD 9
MI 2
MN 2
MO 5
MT 1
NC 3
NE 2
NJ 11
NV 3
NY 16
OH 6
OK 3
PA 7
RI 1
SC 4
SD 1
TN 2
TX 2
UT 1
VA 1
VT 1
WA 4
WY 1


Number of educators
supervised from state
1,942
291
45
537
8
10
72
1,728
3 8
342
36
33
5
56
348
2,777
27
0
298
200
102
7
457
83
3,379
151
158
359
7
230
2
93
10
8
100
65
65
23










LIST OF REFERENCES


Abrams, L. M., Pedulla, J. J., & Madaus, G. F. (2003). Views from the classroom: teachers
opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory into Practice, 42, 18-29.

Amrein, A. T., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). The effects of high-stakes testing on student motivation
and learning. Educational Leadership, 5, 32-3 8.

Argabright, R. (2005). Connecting with music (music education). General2~usic Today, 18, 4-


Ashford, E. (2004). NCLB's unfunded arts programs seek refuge. Education Digest, 70, 22-26.

Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., &Thomas, K. F. (2000). What's at stake in high-stakes testing: teachers
and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 3 84-396.

Barnett, B. (2005). The future of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 272-278.

Berube, C. T. (2004). Are standards preventing good teaching? Clearing House, 77, 264-267.

Birk, L. (2003). Collateral Damage. In Spotlight on high-stakes testing (pp.75-81). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Education Press.

Bresler, L. (2005). Music and the intellect: perspectives, interpretations, and implications for
education. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 24-3 1.

Buchbinder, J. (2003). The arts step out fiom the wings. In Spotlight on high-stakes testing
(pp. 82-91). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Burkholder, J. P., Grout, D. J., & Claude P. V. (2006). A history of western music. New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Chapman, L. H., & Golding, C. M. (2005). 2005 school arts teacher viewpoint survey: the
results. SchoolArts, 1, 51-55.

Chapman, L. H. (2004). No child left behind in art? Arts Education Policy Review, 106, 3-17.

Circle, D. (2005). To test or not to test. Music Educators Journal, 1, 4.

Conrad, C. (2006). American music education: a struggle for time and curriculum. Phi Kappa
Phi Forum, 86, 3 1-34.

Eady, I., & Wilson, J. D. (2004). The influence of music on core learning. Education, 2, 243-
248.

Eisner, E. W. (2000). Arts education policy? Arts Education Policy Review, 3, 4-6.










Elpus, K. (2007). Improving music education advocacy. Arts Education Policy Review, 108, 13-
18.

Enrique, G. M., & Flores, S. Y. (2002). Reform by shame: managing the stigma of labels in
high-stakes testing. Educational Foundations, 2, 93-106.

Flinders, D. J. (2005). The costs of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 5, 621-625.

Fowler, C. (1996). Strong arts, strong schools: the promising potential and shortsighted
Disregard of the arts in american schooling. New York: Oxford University Press.

Giordano, G. (2005). How testing came to dominate american schools. New York:
Peterlang.

Graham, G., Parker, S., Wilkins, L. M., Fraser, R., Westfall, S., & Tembo, M. (2002). The
effects of high-stakes testing on elementary school art, music, and physical education.
The Journal of Physical Education & Dance, 73, 51-54.

H. Res. 1, 107th Cong, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002) (enacted). Public Law 107-110, No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (Short Title). [Electronic Version].

Hanning, B. R. (2002). Concise history of western music. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company, Inc.

Hilliard, A. G. (2000). Excellence in education versus high-stakes standardized testing. Journal
Of Teacher Education, 51, 293-304.

Jennings, J., & Rentner, D. S. (2006). Ten big effects of the no child left behind act on public
school s. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 110-113.

Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Lewis, A. C. (2003). Beyond testing. The Education Digest, 69, 70.

Mark, M. L. (1996). Contemporary music education. 3rd Ed. Belmont, CA: Schirmer.

Mishook, J. J., & Kornhaber, M. L. (2006). Arts Integration in an era of accountability. Arts
Education Policy Review, 4, 3-1 1.

Noddings, N. (2005). What does it mean to educate the whole child? Educational Leadership,
63, 8-13.

Paris, S. G., & Urdan, T. (2000). Policies and practices of high-stakes testing that influence
teachers and schools. Issues in Education, 6, 1-19.










Phelps, R. P. (2005). Defending standardized testing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.

Popham, J. W. (2001). The truth about testing. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

Thomas, M. R. (2005). High-stakes testing: Coping with collateral damage. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vogler, K. E. (2002). The impact of high-stakes, state mandated student performance assessment
on teachers' instructional practices. Education, 1, 39-51.

Wilkins, J. L. M., Graham, G., Parker, S., Westfall, S., Fraser, F. G., & Tembo, M. (2003).
Time in the arts and physical education and school achievement. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 6, 721-734.

Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (2000). The arts in education: Evaluating the evidence for a causal
link. Journal of~lesthet~il Education, 34, 3-10.

Yeh, S. S. (2001). Tests worth teaching to: Constructing state mandated tests that emphasize
critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 30, 12-17.

Yell, M. L. & Drasgow, E. (2005). No child left behind: A guide for professionals. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Christopher J. Heffner was born in Youngstown, Ohio. He received his Bachelor of Music

Education from Western Kentucky University in 1997, and served as band director for Todd

County Central High School in Elkton, Kentucky from 1997-2001. While on staff at Todd

Central, he served as director of the athletics and concert bands. Mr. Heffner also taught choir,

music appreciation, and humanities. Under his direction, the concert ensemble received

distinguished ratings at regional concert festivals, while the marching band qualified for state

regional competition from 1997-2000, with a State semi-final appearance in 1999. Mr. Heffner

also had the privilege of co-directing the vocal and dance variety show; 'TC Showcase' in 1998

and 1999.

In 2003, Mr. Heffner received his Master of Music in trumpet performance from the

University of Florida. In the fall semester of 2003, he began coursework at the University of

Florida for his doctorate in music education with an emphasis in wind conducting. While at the

university, Mr. Heffner was a graduate assistant with the Florida bands, where he was conductor

of one of the concert bands and graduate conductor of the symphonic band and wind symphony.

He was the instructor for the brass methods course for two years, and a teaching assistant with

the secondary methods course for one year where his responsibilities included observing student

teachers. Also during his time at the University of Florida, Mr. Heffner maintained a private

trumpet studio and mentored undergraduate conductors. Mr. Heffner also worked with the Gator

marching band for three years and was a co-conductor of the basketball bands for two. He was

co-principal trumpet in the University of Florida Wind Symphony for six years, University

Orchestra for two, and a member of the University of Florida Jazz ensemble for one. Conducting

teachers included Dr. David Waybright and Dr. John Carmichael. Trumpet instructors included

Dr. Joyce Davis and Dr. Marshall Scott.









Mr. Heffner remained an active trumpeter in Florida, performing with the Gainesville

Symphony Orchestra, Gainesville Philharmonic, and the Gainesville Brass Quintet. He is a

member of Music Educators National Conference, International Trumpet Guild, Phi Mu Alpha

Sinfonia, Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity, and an honorary member of both Kappa Kappa Psi

Honorary Band Fraternity and Tau Beta Sigma Honorary Band Sorority





PAGE 1

1 THE IMPACT OF HIGH-STAKES TESTING ON CURRICULUM, FUNDING, INSTRUCTIONAL TIME, AND STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN MUSIC PROGRAMS By CHRISTOPHER J. HEFFNER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Christopher J. Heffner

PAGE 3

3 To my Wife

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I take this opportunity to express my a ppreciation to the many people who made this research and the completion of my doctoral degree possible. First, I thank each of my supervisory committee members. I thank Dr. T imothy Brophy who was always available for the many meetings I requested during this proce ss. His patience, knowledge, and understanding were invaluable to me during th e pursuit of this de gree. I thank Dr. David Waybright for the opportunities that he has given me as a student and the life lessons that changed my perspectives as a person and Dr. Russell Robinson for giving me the teaching opportunities and experiences that have helped me grow as an educator. I th ank Dr. Clark for his leadership lessons that have given me a greater understanding of the human condition and have enhanced my abilities as an educator. I thank Matt Sexton for giving me conducti ng and teaching experiences while at the University of Florida. His unselfishness with the athletic and symphoni c bands allowed me to gain a high level of confidence w ith all varieties of college ensembles. I am thankful for the graduate conducting students who I have worked with throughout this degree. Without their encouragement and laughter, this experien ce would have not been as enjoyable. I thank the staff of Music Educators Nati onal Conference for thei r guidance through the research process. The MENC staff provided many helpful suggestions that aided in the evolution of my research. Thanks go to the dist rict and state arts supervisors that took the time to provide the information the led to the discovery of the impacts of high-stakes testing on music education. This degree would not have been possible without them. I thank Jay Jacobs. A true friend and office mate who answered my never-ending series of questions pertaining to the research process. I thank him for bei ng so patient and helpful to me during my doctorate.

PAGE 5

5 Finally, I thank my family members for their patience and support. To my wife Serena thank you for being so supportive during this pr ocess. Without your understanding, this degree would have been next to impossible. I thank mother and father for always believing in my abilities as a teacher and musician.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........9 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................12 Accountability................................................................................................................. ........12 Purpose of Study............................................................................................................... ......14 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....15 Delimitations.................................................................................................................. .........15 List of Terms.................................................................................................................. .........15 Significance of Study.......................................................................................................... ....16 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................17 Philosophical Rationales of the Importance of Music Education...........................................17 Theoretical Rationales of Standardized Testing.....................................................................19 Research....................................................................................................................... ...........22 Impact on Curriculum and Instructional Time................................................................23 Impact on Funding...........................................................................................................27 Impact on Music Students...............................................................................................28 Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing........................................................30 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........36 3 METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES.............................................................................38 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........38 Participants................................................................................................................... ..........40 Procedures..................................................................................................................... ..........40 Data Collection................................................................................................................ .......43 Reliability Procedures......................................................................................................... ....43 4 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .......45 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........45 Results........................................................................................................................ .............46 Survey Analysis................................................................................................................ ......47 Test Information..............................................................................................................47

PAGE 7

7 Impact on Curriculum Since 2001...................................................................................48 Impact on Funding Since 2001........................................................................................49 Impact on Instructional Time Since 2001.......................................................................49 Impact on Music Students...............................................................................................54 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........55 Procedure...................................................................................................................... ...55 Survey Results.................................................................................................................55 5 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................... ....68 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........68 Data Collection................................................................................................................ .......68 Discussion of Research Questions...................................................................................69 How has the music curriculum been im pacted since the passing of the No Child Left Behind act of 2001?............................................................................69 How has funding for music education b een impacted since the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001?.....................................................................70 How has instructional time been impact ed in music education since the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001?...........................................................71 How have students been impacted in mu sic education since the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001?.....................................................................72 Implications for Theory........................................................................................................ ..73 Issues......................................................................................................................... ..............74 Implications for Music Education..........................................................................................75 Future Research................................................................................................................ ......77 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .........78 APPENDIX A SURVEY......................................................................................................................... .......80 B IMPACT ON CURRICULUM BY STATE...........................................................................84 C IMPACT ON FUNDING BY STATE...................................................................................85 D IMPACT ON INSTRUCTIONAL TIME BY STATE...........................................................86 E IMPACT ON STUDENT PARTICIPATION BY STATE....................................................87 F PARTICIPANT AND TEST INFORMATION.....................................................................88 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. ..90 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................93

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Change in the number and variety of music classes since 2001........................................66 4-2 Change in funding for music programs since 2001...........................................................66 4-3 Change in instructional time since 2001............................................................................66 4-4 Music educators stopped instru ction to teach test material...............................................66 4-5 Music rooms used as testing sites......................................................................................66 4-6 Music educators required to teach Reading classes...........................................................67 4-7 Changed ensemble schedule to re hearse before or after school........................................67 4-8 Gave up planning period to teach ensemble......................................................................67 4-9 Students had to drop music class for Reading or Math.....................................................67 4-10 Students participating in mu sic classes in 2001 versus 2007............................................67 B-1 Supervisors indicating change in classes offered since 2001............................................84 C-1 Funding changes since 2001..............................................................................................85 D-1 Hours spent in music classes in 2001 versus 2007............................................................86 E-1 Changes in student participation since 2001......................................................................87 F-1 Years experience as a fine arts supervisor.........................................................................88 F-2 Years experience as a fine arts teac her before becoming an arts supervisor.....................88 F-3 Disciplines taught before b ecoming a fine arts supervisor................................................88 F-4 Supervisors indicating ad ministration of state test............................................................88 F-5 State test inclus ion of fine arts.......................................................................................... .88 F-6 Fine arts areas covered by high-stakes test........................................................................88 F-7 Participant information.................................................................................................... ..89

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1 The percentage of supervisors that indi cated their State Department of Education administered a high-stakes test..........................................................................................57 4-2 Percentage of supervisors indicating whether the high-stakes test had an arts section.....57 4-3 Percentage change in number and vari ety of music classes offered since 2001................58 4-4 Percentage of supervisor s that indicated a change in funding for music programs...........58 4-5 Number reporting increase s versus number reporting decreases in funding since 2001........................................................................................................................... .........59 4-6 Percentage of supervisors indicating elim ination of teaching positions due to reduced funding........................................................................................................................ .......59 4-7 Hours students spent in mu sic classes in 2001 versus 2007..............................................60 4-8 Supervisors indicating mu sic instruction stopped for te st strategy or test item instruction.................................................................................................................... ......60 4-9 The amount of class time lost to te st item or test strategy instruction...............................61 4-10 Percentage of supervisors indicating th e use of music rooms as testing sites...................61 4-11 Instructional time lost as a result of using music rooms as testing sites............................62 4-12 The percentage of supervisors indica ting music educators had to teach reading courses........................................................................................................................ ........62 4-13 Percentage of supervisors indicating music classes being removed due to music educators having to t each reading courses.........................................................................63 4-14 Supervisors indicating teachers having to rehearse a performance group before or after school................................................................................................................... ......63 4-15 Music educators giving up planning periods in order to rehearse an ensemble................64 4-16 Supervisors indicating students dropping music class for reading or math.......................64 4-17 Music student participation in 2001 versus 2007..............................................................65 4-18 Supervisors belief of relationship betw een student participation and high-stakes testing........................................................................................................................ .........65

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE IMPACT OF HIGH-STAKES TESTING ON CURRICULUM, FUNDING, INSTRUCTIONAL TIME, AND STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN MUSIC PROGRAMS By Christopher J. Heffner August 2007 Chair: Timothy S. Brophy Cochair: David A. Waybright Major: Music Education Since the enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (H. Res. 1, 2002), school administrators have felt the pressure of acc ountability. NCLB mandate s that 100% of students reach the proficient level in r eading and math on the state high-stakes test by 2013-2014. Almost all of the state tests that are used to measure school accountabili ty do not have a section devoted to the fine arts. The lack of fine arts inclus ion has caused schools to emphasize reading and math during the school day to the detriment of fine arts. To determine the degree of that impact, an online survey was created examining: How has the music curriculum been impacted since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? How has funding for music education been imp acted since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? How has instructional time been impacted in music education since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? How have students been impacted in music e ducation since the enactme nt of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001?

PAGE 11

11 The survey was sent to 2,011 dist rict and state arts supervisors in the United States. The survey remained online for ten days. Two hundred fourteen supervisors participated in the study representing 14,293 music e ducators from 38 states. Supervisors indicated that si nce 2001, high-stakes testing has negatively impacted the number and variety of music cl asses, funding for music programs, the amount or instructional time allotted for music programs, and the number of students participating in music classes.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Accountability Education has entered an age of accountabi lity. Schools, educators, and students are subjected to a barrage of tests from elementa ry age through graduation from high school. Kohn (2000) states that children in th e United States are tested more thoroughly than in any other country in the world. Many educators wind up feeli ng that their main purpos e in education is to raise test scores. As a result, the nation is w itnessing a diminution of at tention being given to any subject that is not covered on a high-stakes test (Popham, 2001). On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bu sh signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (H. Res. 1, 2002). This new law contai ns the most comprehensive changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act since it was enacted in 1965. NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002) contains four basic education reform principles: stronger acc ountability for results, increased flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents, and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work. The main purpose of the act is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtai n a high-quality education and reach proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments. Scores from state testing are monitored and compared from year to year. The adequate yearly progress or AYP helps states keep track of educatio nal progress so that their schools accomplish the objective of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002). AYP is dete rmined when test scores are compared from one year to the next and progre ss toward objectives are achieved. One of the objectives is to have 100% of students at a minimum of a prof icient level in reading and math by the 2013-2014 school year (Yell & Drasgow, 2005).

PAGE 13

13 Critics of the act state that it makes costly demands wit hout providing the resources to meet them. Others point to its bureaucratic complexity; its unattainable main goal; its motivationally undesirable methods (threats, puni shments, and pernicious comparisons); its overdependence on standardized tests; its demora lizing effects; and its corrupting influences on administrators, teachers, a nd students (Noddings, 2005, p. 8). What does this mean for music education? As a result of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002), many schools are placing an emphasis on th e subjects that are being test ed: reading-language areas, math and science. In a recent study of Virginia teachers researchers indicated that more than 80% had been influenced on what to teach as a result of standardized testing. The emphasis on tested material led to a decrea sed emphasis on non-tested curric ular areas (Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus, 2003). Researchers from another study from 2001 collected data from 4,200 teachers from across the nation. They indicated that 40% of teachers in high-stakes states reported that their schools test results influe nced their teaching on a daily basi s. Teachers from the study also reported that more time was being spent on content covered in the high-stakes test with less time being spent on non-tested content including music classes. Both parents and teachers in the study supported the use of standards in schools. Eighty-four percent of teachers surveyed, however, stated that schools pla ce too much emphasis on standardiz ed text scores (Lewis, 2003). With an emphasis on reading-language arts math, and science Jennings and Rentner (2006) add that schools are spending more time on reading and math at th e expense of subjects not tested. Many schools, in an attempt to raise test scores a nd meet achievement standards set by local and state boards of education, are decreasi ng the time allocated to subjects not tested as apart of the state assessments. These subjects in clude music education classes. It is the schools

PAGE 14

14 hope that by allocating more time to English, ma th and science, the schools will perform better on standardized tests (Wilkins et al., 2003). It is this attitude that is punishing mu sic education out of th e curriculum in public schools. Popham (2001) points out that there is a sh ift in curricular attent ion toward subjects that are featured on state tests. Th e pressure that is associated with school achievement causes educators to focus on content that will be tested, not on music edu cation. This exodus is seen in almost any setting where high-stakes tests domin ate (p. 52). The first content areas to be dropped are the music and art classes. Some edu cators believe that any time spent on non-tested subjects will cut into time that could be devoted to what is measured by the high-stakes test (Popham, 2001). Because of the NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002), schools that draw their students from a lower socio-economic area are spending large parts of their school days workin g through worksheets in an effort to boost standardized test scores while wealthier students are enjoying a varied curriculum with opportunities to enga ge in the arts (Noddings, 2005). NCLB (R. Res. 1, 2002) has increased sc hool accountability across the nation. The pressures of raising test scores are causing sc hools and teachers to emphasize content covered by the high-stakes test. In an effort to improve te st scores in reading a nd math, music classes are losing instructional time in the school day. Purpose of Study In the quest to reach a 100% proficient level by 2013-2014, public schools are emphasizing subjects that are contained in the States high-s takes test. Researchers have shown that school accountability has an impact on th e content schools emphasize. Th ere is currently no study that has specifically targeted the impact of high stak es testing on music educ ation. The purpose of

PAGE 15

15 this study is to determine the impact of state testing, school accountability and the reading and math emphasis on music education. Research Questions How has the music curriculum been impacted since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? How has funding for music education been imp acted since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? How has instructional time been impacted in music education since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? How have students been impacted in music e ducation since the enactme nt of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? Delimitations This study is not concerned with: The impact of high-stakes testing on any disciplines other that music. The feelings and attitudes of teachers, administration, and students for high-stakes testing and school accountability. The impacts of block scheduling on music programs. The impacts of advanced placement curriculum on music programs. List of Terms The following are provided to clar ify terms used within this study. High-Stakes Test Any test that a state uses as a measure of the schools adequate yearly progress. Accountability The States responsibility to educate. Adequate Yearly Progress or AYP A set of proficiency standards that progressively increase the percentage of stude nts in a district that must meet the proficiency standard. No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) An educa tion law passed in 2002. It mandates that all public school students will reach 100% student pr oficiency levels in reading and math by 2014.

PAGE 16

16 Significance of Study The pressures that are being felt by admi nistration and educator s to reach the 100% proficient level by 2014 are having an enormous e ffect on music education. Administrators and teachers are placing an emphasis on reading and math classes due to their inclusion on highstakes tests. As a result, in structional time, funding, and studen t participation in music classes are diminishing. This study is designed to explor e the degree of impact that high-stakes testing and school accountability are ha ving on music curriculum, fu nding, instructional time, and student participation across the nation. The results of this study will be used to enlighten music educators to the level of influen ce that high-stakes tests have on current educational practices and help administrators and educators develop new ways to assess students that do not place an emphasis on one curricular area.

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this study is to discover th e impact of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002) on music curriculum, funding, instructional ti me, and student participation in music programs. Since this law was enacted school administrations have felt the pressures of account ability. The purpose of this chapter is to pres ent a sampling of the literature that is pertinent to the study. The six sections in this study are: (a) philosophical rationales, (b) theoretical ration ales, (c) impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum and instructional time, (d) imp act of high stakes testing on music funding, (e) impact of high-stakes te sting on music students, (f) the unintended consequences of high-stakes testing, and finally a summary outlining how the sections relate to the study. Philosophical Rationales of the Importance of Music Education From as early as 500 B.C., music has intri gued theorists and philosophers. Plato and Aristotle studied the nature of music, its place in the cosmos, its effects on individuals, and its place in society. They both advocated a system of education that incorporated gymnastics and music. To Plato and Aristotle, this combinati on was the only way to produce the right kind of citizen. In Platos Republic he went so far to insist that th e two components be balanced. Too much music and a man becomes effeminate or ne urotic, while too much athletics makes a man uncivilized, violent, and ignorant. Aristotle added that music could be used for entertainment and intellectual enjoyment as well as education (Hanning, 2002). Middle Ages Philosophers, Martianus Capella an d Boethius gathered as much information from the collapse from the Roman Empire as possi ble to derive the seven liberal arts. Martianus The Marriage of Mercury and Philology listed the liberal arts as: grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric; then geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and harmonics (or music). The first three

PAGE 18

18 disciplines, verbal arts, were called the Triviu m. The final four, titled by Boethius, was the Quadrivium (Burkholder, Grout, & Palisca, 2006). Music has been shown to be a vital compone nt of education from the beginnings of recorded history. In a contrary notion, Noddings (2005) states that many feel that schools are at their best when focusing on primary academic goals Other institutions should be given the task of chasing the physical, moral, social, emotional, sp iritual, and aesthetic ai ms that are associated with the whole child. Those who make these arguments have not considered the history of our Nations education. The Massachusetts Schoo l Law of 1648 include d the grounds and principles of Religion (Mark, 1996, p. 4) as a staple of fundamental educational practices. Thomas Jeffersons Report of the Commissioners for the University of Virginia outlined the fundamentals of education as: morals, understa nding of duties to ne ighbors and country, knowledge of rights, and intelligence and faithfuln ess in social relations (Noddings, 2005). In 1918, the National Education Associ ation listed seven aims of e ducation. Those aims are: health, command of the fundamental processes, worthy home membership, vocation, citizenship, worthy use of leisure, and ethical ch aracter. Noddings (2005) states that there is one aim to add: happiness. These aims can be met through the inclusi on of music in educa tion. In 1838, Lowell Mason set out to prove that music education had a place in the school day. To be considered, music must benefit students in tellectually, morally, and physica lly. Contained in the Boston Musical Gazette was the School Committee report, wh ich listed the effects, music was expected to produce: In the language of an illustrio us writer of the seventeenth century, Music is a thing that delighteth all ages and beseemeth all states, a th ing as seasonable in grief as joy, as decent being added to actions of greatest solemnity, as being used when men sequester themselves from action. If such be the natural effects of Music, if it enliven prosperity or soothe

PAGE 19

19 sorrow, if it quicken the pulses of social happine ss, if it can fill the vacancy of an hour that would otherwise be listlessly or improfitably spent, if it gild with a mild light the chequered scenes of daily existe nce, why then limit its benign and blessed influence? Let it, with healing on its wings, en ter through ten thousa nd avenues the paternal dwelling. Let it mingle with religion, with labor, with the homebred amusements and innocent enjoyments of life. Let it no longer be regarded merely as the ornament of life. Let it no longer be regarded merely as the ornament of the rich. Still let it continue to adorn the abodes of wealth, but let it also light up with gladness, the ho nest hearth of poverty. Once introduce music into the common schools and yo u make it what it should be made, the property of the whole people. And so as time passes away, and one race succeeds to another, the true object of our system of Public Educati on may be realized, and we may, year after year, raise up good citizens to the Commonwealth, by sending forth from our schools, happy, useful, well instructed, cont ented members of soci ety (Mark, 1996, p. 6). These philosophical viewpoints are very relevant to this study. The importance of music in the curriculum has been documented since the begi nning of structured educa tion. It is the recent trends in school accountability that are imp acting the determination of what content is emphasized by teachers and administration. Theoretical Rationales of Standardized Testing At the turn of the twentieth century many critics of public education were searching for a means of assessment that would measure both student progress and teacher effectiveness. Giordano (2005) states that as World War I came closer, federal, state, and local governments asked public schools to do a better job of prep aring students for military service or wartime employment. The schools accepted this responsi bility, however, it became evident that a significant portion of students were not able to meet the higher scholasti c standards. If these goals were to be met, schools needed safe fac ilities, effective textbooks, and suitable curricula. In an attempt regain control of education, standa rdized tests were introdu ced. Standardized tests were originally introduced as aids for assigning gr ades in the early twentieth century. These tests were very popular among scientifically mi nded teachers. These teachers thought that standardized tests could easil y assess student progress while improving the public opinion of public education. Tradition-minded educators were upset that their grad ing policies were being

PAGE 20

20 challenged. Educators were also concerned with this form of assessment because the critics of education strongly felt that poor test scores was a direct indicator of teacher effectiveness. The strongest critics called for teache rs to pass these standa rdized tests in orde r to prove competence and retain their jobs. Giordano (2005) continues by stating that admini strators embraced tests as a cost effective means for measuring school achie vement. Parents thought tests c ould pinpoint their childrens learning problems and ensure scholastic remedi ation. The public hoped that tests would hold schools accountable to vote r-sanctioned directiv es. From the start of st andardized testing, some groups had their own agendas for promoting sta ndardized tests. Political conservatives concerned themselves with tests that covered na tional security or econo mic health. Employers wanted screening and placement tests that would improve the efficiency of their companies. Military leaders thought that te sts were important components of their training and management system. Publishers saw tests as opportunitie s to expand business w ith the public schools, colleges, commerce, and industry. As time progressed, the emphasis on particular aspects of education shifted. There are many accounts in American history that have led to the current theories of testing and accountability in the United Stat es. Since the launching of S putnik I in October of 1957, the United States has been in constant competition with other nations for the development and implementation of a superior educational sy stem. In the 1980s it was the first Bush administrations American Achievement Tests or AAT. The AAT reflected the content of the New World Standards which tested knowledge of English, mathematics, science, history, and geography. In the 1990s it was th e Clinton administrations Vol untary National Test or VNT.

PAGE 21

21 The VNT tested knowledge listed in the new cont ent standards in the subjects: English, U.S. history, mathematics, science, civi cs, and the arts (Bourque, 2005). So why are standardized tests being used as a measure of student and teacher progress and achievement? Kohn (2000) states that there are many motivations for the use of standardized tests as a measure of accountability by schools. High-stakes tests give schools a simple method of measuring progress. The aut hor states that this method ga ined popularity after the Reagan Administration released its famous A Nation at Risk report in 1983. Acco rding to this report, the United States was accused of producing medi ocre students. Americas students were not measuring up to their foreign counterparts. Th e report called for a commitment to placing education as one of the Nations priorities. A Nation at Risk called fo r schools to adopt higher and measurable standards for academic progress. As a result, states began work on creating academic standards for student achie vement (Yell & Drasgow, 2005). Along with simple accountability, Kohn (2000) feels that there ar e ulterior motives influencing the use of high-stakes tests. On e motive is the promotion of privatization of education. The author states that by placing an emphasis on test s and scores, content in public schools centers primarily around what is to be tested. This is me ant to cast a negative light on public school education and, in turn, promote priv atized education. Another motivation for using high-stakes tests is money. Cor porations that design and build a nd score the exams are pulling in huge profits. These same companies also sell teaching materials that are designed to help schools raise test scores on their own tests. Many times schools c hoose tests that are the easiest to administer, unfortunately for scho ols, the tests that are easy to administer are the ones with the worst content. Flinders (2005) points out that private companies have been responsible for testdevelopment, scoring, and providing the test-prep curricula that are intended to accompany the

PAGE 22

22 exams. There are times these private co mpanies are problematic. In 1997, Kentucky experienced a delay in results reporting. The testing company ha d to be fired due to scoring mistakes. Scoring mistakes were also reported in New York, mistakes that keep children from graduating. Berube (2004) states that Virginia officials choose its high-stakes test because; it is cheap, it is easy to read, and it is simple to grade (p. 264). Politics are another motivation fo r the use of high-stakes tests. Testing gives politicians a platform to exhibit their concern about school ac hievement. High-stakes tests are a favorite of politicians because they offer a quick a nd easy way to chart progress (Berube, 2004). This review of literature has established the importance of music education in the curriculum and determined why standardized te sting is widely accepted as an appropriate measure of learning in the United States. This information is important when considering the impact of high-stakes, standardized testing on music education. Research The research presented examines how school ac countability and adequate yearly progress, has taken a toll on school curriculum. The resear ch will indicate that high-stakes testing is causing a shift in emphasis toward subjects that ar e tested. This, of course, is pushing music education out of the school curriculum. Many States do not include a music assessment portion on their respective high-stakes test. The literat ure will provide information that supports the views that music education is losing the battle for inclusion in the school day. The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing, examines issu es related to education that are created by the use of high-stakes standardized testing. Thes e unintended consequences include the diminution of teacher and student morale, an increased student dropout rate, and lowered achievement on National standardized exams like the SAT. Th ese unintended consequences relate to music education on a fundamental level. When students drop out of school, they can no longer

PAGE 23

23 participate in music classes. The final portion of the literature review examines the impact of high-stakes testing on music education, which is the basis of this study. Impact on Curriculum and Instructional Time School accountability as a result of NCLB (H Res. 1, 2002) has had a severe impact on music education in the Nations schools. Sc hool accountability is causing a teaching emphasis on tested content. This emphasis is causing schools to spend less time and money on arts education. Wilkins et al. (2003) state that there are many research studies, over a long period of time, that indicate more instructional time lead s to improved achievement. Increasing time in which students engage in educationally important activities has important implications for the curriculum. Subjects that are not included in the states high-stakes test are being forced to give up instructional time so that schools may better prepare for test content. School accountability has inspired a fundamentalist movement in edu cation that, often times, motivates teachers to teach to the test. In contradiction to that st udy, Wilkins et al. (2002) st ate that: Principals who decide to eliminate or reduce time allocated to art, music, or physical education, with the expectation that test scores will improve, have no basis for this expectation (p. 52). The reason that schools and administrators cont inue to emphasize tested material may be caused by the consequences inflicted if the sc hool does not meet requirements. The mandates and punishments that occur as a result of schools not reaching achievement goals create a sense of pressure on teachers and administration. Flinde rs (2005) reported that Texas schools could be shut down for repeated low performance on high -stakes tests. These pressures related to accountability are creating a huge shift in what content is bei ng covered in schools. Even when music is covered on a high stakes test, the scores are not weighed equally w ith core content. In Kentucky, music is tested as part of a larger ca tegory titled humanities. The humanities portion of Kentuckys high-stakes test counts for 7.13% of the schools accountability score. English

PAGE 24

24 counts for 14.25% of the accountability score on the same test. Flinders ( 2005) feels that testing music causes a great disadvantage to the discipline. He states that actual music performances are being replaced by written exams. Teachers in North Carolina felt powerless in the face of high-stakes accountability to teach outside of the test. Many felt that they were turning their backs on methods of teaching that they believed would be successful and appropriate for a wide range of children. Teachers knew that although their students were perf orming better on the North Carolinas A+ Schools Program, the students were being exposed to a constric ted curriculum (Murillo & Flores, 2002). This theoretical rationale is the basis for this study. The concern f acing education is that all students must reach a proficient level by the 2013-2014 school year. The pressures of accountability have caused an emphasis on tested material in schools. Emphasizing tested material is limiting students exposure a nd ability to partic ipate in the arts. The lack of emphasis on music education can be linked to public and school perception of the arts and specifically music e ducation. Eisner (2000) states th at there are many influences on arts policy that are based on public perception. Eisner cites the impact of testing as a major influence of arts policy. Test sc ores drive curriculum because what is tested is what is taught. And since the arts are not tested, they can be ne glected with greater immunity than those fields that are (Eisner 2000, p. 5). Bresler (2005) suggests that the low regard for music in schooling is based on the recognition of its affective powers, instead of recognition of its in tellectual properties. In other words, a view of music as nonintellectua l stems from the difficulty of grasping the interdependence of cognition and affect (p. 25) A study initiated by th e Getty Institute and supported by the College Board examined five p ublic high schools that in tegrated the art into

PAGE 25

25 academics. The five schools were chosen based on their diverse student populations and administrative support of the arts. In the first out of four studies, the research indicated that teacher morale increased as a result of arts inclusi on in schools. The teachers regarded their role as a developer and not an implementer. Student s were exposed to a more social and personal structure of class content that linked past and present while comp aring distant cultures with that of their own. The second study examined how the learning opportunities provided by an arts curriculum affected students learning and attitude s. It was determined that; students in higharts groups performed better than those in low-arts groups on measures of creativity, fluency, originality, elaboration, and resistan ce to closure (p. 27). The th ird study centered on at-risk students and lasted ten years. The researcher s studied the students learning and language development. By giving students the control to make rules, experiment, and take inspiration from various sources, the resear chers witnessed impressive langua ge development (p 28). The fourth study sought to improve students self-regulation skil ls. Researchers witnessed heightened self-regulation skills in arts classes an d less in academic classes. The results of this research were attributed to: a physical and em otional climate conducive to active learning; goals set collaboratively by the teacher and students that result in a performance; lessons that require active participation; and teacher expectations that manifest high standards for all. Popham (2001) states that: Becau se todays educators are unde r such intense pressure to raise their students scores on hi gh-stakes tests, we are witnessing a nationwide diminishment of curricular attention toward any subject that is nt included on a high-stak es test (p. 121). Educators often times feel that if their number one priority is to raise test scores, why should they waste time on content that is not tested. Popham (2001) continue s that the first subjects that suffer in schools are music and art. Some teachers ar e so enamored with test scores that they feel

PAGE 26

26 that arts classes will cut into time that could be devoted to te sted material. Even the core subjects suffer as a result of testing. In many cases, the level of mathematics in high-stakes testing deals only with the lower level cognitive ch allenges, so few classrooms push students into the highlevel mathematical skills. The result of this focus is a reduced and diminished education in all curricul ar areas for students. It is not only the arts classes that suffer as a result of high-stakes testing. Birk (2003) discusses an example of a history curriculum entitled Facing History and Ourselves (FHAO). FHAO is a social justice curri culum created in 1976 that is taught in 6,000 schools across the country. The purpose of social-justice education is to help students get a better understanding of the world and their place in it. The social just ice curriculum teaches inte rpersonal skills. Birk (2003) continues that FHAO has been shown to decrease racism and fi ghting among students and to increase social maturity, according to two st udies sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. High-Stakes testing is jeopardizing social justice curri cula. State mandated tests aim to enhance learning, teaching a nd accountability. In many cases, high-stakes tests may be hampering all three. Multiple-choice tests typically do not reward inquiry or analysis, so courses that emphasize such in-depth lear ning are often pushed to the margins of the school day. The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) makes it challenging to use social justice curriculum. FHAO uses holocaust studies to teach students the importance of critical thinking in understanding and prot ecting the rights and responsibili ties of all. The MCAS does not cover Germany from the 1920s to the 1940s. Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus (2003) report that te achers surveyed in Virginia, Arizona, and Kentucky show that teachers ar e placing greater emphasis on cont ent covered by their respective high-stakes test. After four years of research, Jennings and Rentner (2006 ) state that schools are

PAGE 27

27 spending more instructional time on reading and math. Sevent y-one percent of elementary school districts are reducing time spent on subjec ts not covered on their high-stakes test. In 2005 Chapman and Golding (2005) conducted a survey to determine the influences of art instruction in school s. Four hundred fifteen teachers re sponded to the survey representing almost 150,000 students. In one section of the surv ey, educators were asked to indicated trends and issues affecting their work. Pressure to improve test scores and formal assessments/tests ranked near the top. Inadequate budget and s upplies, short class periods, and a lack of administrative support were also included at problems cited by art educators. Several teachers went so far as to cite NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002) as a problem. Mishook & Kornhaber (2006) state that research has shown decreases in time allotted for arts instruction. A report by the Center for Basic Education concluded that 25% of the principals surveyed in Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, an d New York indicated a decrease in arts instruction, whereas just 8% reported an increase. High mi nority schools showed a 36% decrease in arts instruction with one-third of the principals re porting a large decrease in arts instruction. Impact on Funding Chapman (2004) states that th e arts were initially include d in NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002). Funds for the arts were cut in 2003 on the ground s that the Bush Admini stration has a policy of terminating categorical programs with limited impact in order to fund higher priorities. Chapman continues by stating that arts programs are especially vulnerable to cuts in the many states already in financial troub le, and in public schools where 35% or more of students are atrisk for academic failure. In early 2004, a Council on Educa tion indicated that: Twenty-five percent of principals had cut arts education and 33 percent anticipated reductions. In schools with high-minority populations, 36 percent re ported decreased and 42 percent anticipated them in the near futu re. Only 10 percent reported increased or

PAGE 28

28 anticipated these. In states with high-sta kes tests before NCLB, 43 percent of teachers reported that they had decreased a great deal the time spent teaching fine arts, with the greatest impact in elementary schoo ls and then middle schools (p. 10). Ashford (2004) states that t odays schools are experiencing in creasing pressu res to shift resources from the arts to areas of Reading and Math. One Kentuc ky educator stated the arts get short shrift when there is limited money and, with NCLB, theres a huge push for Reading and Math (p. 22-23). The arts educ ation coordinator for Americans for the Arts states that the incentive to offer arts classes is not strong considering its lack of inclusion on tests, expense, special facilities, and long-term commitment by students. The senior project associate for partnership development at the Ar ts Education Partnership stated : We are hearing that time might be taken away from the arts for reading an d math. But we dont have hard data that arts budgets are being cut (Ashford, 2004, p. 22). Impact on Music Students High-stakes tests are havi ng a considerable impact on public education. School accountability has shifted teacher and administra tion priorities from the quality of student education to the yearly progress of students sc ores. In an attempt to have 100% of students reach the proficient level in reading and math, by the 2013-2014 school year, educators have placed an emphasis on core-content areas. This is having a detrimental effect of both educators and students. Conrad (2006) points out that current music education focu ses on select students. The cause of its selectiveness is it s performance-based curriculum. Most high schools offer a band and chorus class but few offer courses in musi c history, music theory, or music appreciation. Unfortunately, the emphasis on core subjects has reduced the opportunities for music programs to incorporate a comprehensive approach to music education. A comprehensive music curriculum examines not only the music, but its c ontext in history. Fowl er (1996) states: when

PAGE 29

29 music education concentrates so lely on performance, its educa tional potential is compromised and its impact is diluted (p. 130). What administrators are failing to realize, is that there are benefits to including music education in the school day. Buchbinder (2003) discusses a 1988 National Educational Longitudinal Survey led by James Catterall of th e University of California, Los Angeles. Catteralls research followed the progress of 25,000 middle and high sch ool students over a 10year period. Catterall separated students into two categories: High-arts involvement and Lowarts involvement. High-arts stude nts were students that participat ed in at least two arts classes per week plus extracurricular ar ts. Low-arts students were students with no arts or very limited arts participation. Results from the study indicated that high -arts students performed better on standardized tests than students with low-arts involveme nt. Almost 67% of high-arts 8th graders scored in the top half on standardized tests, compared to 43% of low arts students. By their sophomore year, 73% of those same high-arts students scored in the top half on standardized tests, compared to 45% of the low-arts students. Cateralls study indicated that students are twice as likely to ha ve low-arts involvement if they are from a low socioeconomic background. It should be noted that high-arts students from a low socioeconomic background performed better than their coun terparts on standardized tests along with math, reading, history, and geography. Eady & Wilson (2004) studied the effects of music on academic achievement. The authors discovered that students who used commercial musi c as part of a language arts packet scored significantly higher in regards to continuing motivation. Studen ts that received the music condition were more likely to con tinue working on tasks away from the instructional context.

PAGE 30

30 Other research gathered indicated that music se rved as a beneficial component for success in: teaching reading, social studies, science, and even improving attitude toward history. Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing Emphasis on high-stakes testing affects schools in various ways. Thomas (2005) outlines some of the collateral damage due to high-stakes testing. Due of a lack of critical thinking on their states high-stakes test, Mi ssion Hill School in Boston requires their students to present and defend their work twice a year in public exhibitions. These dem onstrations give students the opportunity to demonstrate why material is re levant, and demonstrate that they understand diverse points of view. High stakes testing also aff ects students in more detrimental ways. Thomas (2005) continues by stating in 2003, 12% of Nevada hi gh school seniors who had completed all school requirements were not eligible to graduate becaus e they had failed the math portion of the states graduation exam. Forty percent of students statew ide had not taken algebra or geometry because of teacher shortages. Often times there are inconsistencies in test standards. Students in a Boston school had 35% of students earning an advan ce status dropping to 3% in a s hort time. One student who had earned advanced status on the Stanford exam droppe d to the failure category on the state exam. Thomas (2005) states that physical e ducation classes are being eliminated: In 2003, it was reported that a quarter of U.S. children were obese. This figure had doubled from the previous decade. The study also focused on diseases associated with obesity and inactivity. Diabetes, attention-de ficit disorders, card iovascular malfunction were increasing rapidly. Poor eat ing habits and lack of exercise were cited as two principal causes of the obesity trend. Analysts estimated that three-fourths of high school students currently had no physical educa tion of any sort. As stat es placed more emphasis on passing standardized tests, time and money we re being taken from physical education and used for teaching pupils te st-taking skills (p. 7).

PAGE 31

31 Thomas (2005) continues by stating that in ea rly 2004 growing numbers of states reported that half or more of their schools were failing to reach the federal governments NCLB standards. Attitudes of teachers are also suffering. A study of teachers opinions by a nonpartisan research group reported that most of the 1,345 teachers surveyed said they were unfairly blamed for school short-comings, we re being undermined by parents, and were distrustful of administration. In one of the most extensive surveys to date States were divided into low, moderate, or high categories depending on th eir emphasis on high-stakes te sts (Lewis, 2003). The study polled 4,200 teachers in 2001 from across the Nati on. As the stakes increased so did the emphasis on the test. Forty percent of teachers in high-stakes states report ed that their schools test results influenced their teaching on a daily basis compared to 10% in low stakes states. Teachers from all three categories reported that more time was bei ng spent on subjects that were tested and less time on other areas. These other areas include fine arts, physical education, and foreign languages (Lewis, 2003). Studies have shown that highstakes tests increase stress and decreased morale among teachers. In regards to students, high-stakes test s have caused increased le vels of anxiety, stress, and fatigue (Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus, 2003). Barksdale-Ladd and Thomas (2000) interviewed educators from two stat es. I response to pressures fe lt by teachers, they had this to say: The pressure is on. I feel pressure, pa rtly from the constant memos. I internalize the pressure, and it is always with me (p. 390). Another said: Its awful. I just cringe every time I walk in the teachers room because these tests are the only topic of conversation in there, and it rais es your anxiety just to hear how scared everybody is. A few years ago, I really loved teaching, but this pressure is just so intense. Im not sure how long I can take it (p. 390).

PAGE 32

32 Many teachers feel that there teaching practi ces are becoming worse instead of improving as a result of high-stakes test preparat ion. One educator had this to say: Im not the teacher I used to be. I used to be great, and I couldnt wait to get to school every day because I loved being great at what I do. All of the most powerful teaching tools I used to use every day are no good to me now because they dont help children get ready for the test, and now it makes me like a robot in stead of a teacher. I didnt need a college degree and a masters degree to do what I do now. They dont need real teachers to prepare children for tests and, in fact, I think they could just devel op computer programs to do this (Barksdale-Ladd, & Thomas, 2000, p. 392). Increasing scores on a state test does not repr esent gained knowledge in core content. Koretz and Barron (1998) found s ubstantially increased scores on the math portion of the KIRIS high-stakes test in Kentucky than on the math portion of the National Assessment of Education Progress. Improved performance on hi gh-stakes test does not necessa rily reflect broader gains in student knowledge (Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus, 2003). In a conversation with her prin cipal, Berube (2004) boasted about her sixth-grade science students for learning Einsteins theo ry of relativity, as evidenced by student discussions, projects, and papers. The response: Well thats fine, but can they pass the test (p. 264). The test that the principal was referring to was the high-stak es, multiple-choice, standardized state test. Berube states that it is not the standards that are the problem. It is how they are measured that is hurting education. These tests subdue teachers and administrators creativity, threaten job security and only demonstrate that students have memorized facts. Berube wanted to see just how much the Virginia high-stakes test was hampering student creativity. She followed the progress of eighty students that were split into six different classes with teachers who used either constructivist (student centered) teaching methods or a mixtur e of lecture, discussion, and student discovery as a means of teaching. The study indicated that 76% of the students who had passed the Standards of Learning failed a compre hensive exam, which asked students to explain their answers. Yeh (2001) feels that a new breed of high-stakes tests should be developed.

PAGE 33

33 These tests should emphasize cri tical thinking. Argumentation is one way to support critical thinking on tests. From an early age, students are willing and ab le to argue their particular points. Yeh states that by usi ng argumentation, students are expect ed to use facts to defend their opinions instead of recalling them Content on the test would in clude real life problems that students could examine. In Michigan, schools that perform well on highstakes tests are awarded Golden Apples. Golden Apples are financial rewards for schools that score well on high-stakes tests. Golden Apples are designated by the Gove rnor and announced to the news media. Who stands to gain from this award? Well, it is the teachers, prin cipals, aides, janitors, and all school personnel. The problem with financial rewards, are that on the surface it would appear that teachers and students are not trying hard enough to accomplis h educational goals (Paris & Urdan, 2000). Studies have shown that teachers are under pres sure to raise student scores on high-stakes tests. In Maryland, 88% of teach ers surveyed felt that they we re under increased pressure to improve student performance on the state test. Ninety-eight percent of teachers in Kentucky responded similarly when asked the same ques tion (Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus, 2003). Financial rewards given to school s that perform well on tests ha ve sent the wrong message. States such as Michigan, Georgia, California, and Kentucky reward teachers financially for increased scores on high-stakes tests. These fi nancial rewards erode st udents motivation. The message that is sent to students is that get ting good grades, trying their hardest, and succeeding in school is money. By using financial rewards, schools are se tting up an extrinsic rewards motivation, instead of an intrinsic w ill to learn (Paris & Urdan, 2000). The researchers continue that the extrinsi c motivation of money causes undue pressure on teachers and students. Pressure for students to improves test scores often results in decreased

PAGE 34

34 motivation, performance, and quality of learni ng among students. When teachers are paid to improve test scores, or are threatened with punishment when students scores do not improve, teachers develop a feeling of coercion. Teachers then develop teaching strategies that are based on raising test scores and not st udent learning. From the student point of view, they begin to question the teacher integrity. Paying for results se nds a message that the test is a valid indicator of skill and the major measure of academic accomp lishments. Not all schools are equal. The socio-economic background of school s varies intensely. Grading schools with vastly diverse populations on the same scale is unf air to students. The rich are rewarded while schools that are continually improving may not qualify for rewards. Finally, moneta ry motivation is not fair to teachers who put effort into their jobs but are not rewarded. Teachers who work diligently may become bitter when counterparts at other schools may put in less effort and rewarded more substantially. Teachers begin to compete for jobs in rich schools (Paris & Urdan, 2000). Other research shows that stud ents are greatly affected emo tionally by high-stakes tests. Arizona teachers reported that students experien ced: headaches, freezing during parts of the test, irritability, incr eased aggression, stomach problems, crying, truancy, refusing to take the text, and vomiting. Texas teache rs reported students experienci ng: headaches, upset stomach, irritability, increased aggression, freezing up, vo miting, crying, refusing to take the test, and truancy, often or always in a survey (Paris &Urdan, 2000). Amrein & Berliner (2003) state that students become less intrinsically motivated and less likely to engage in critical thinking when emphasis is placed on test scores. When the pressure is on, teachers do not allow students to explore the concepts and subj ects that interest them. Attaching stakes to tests appare ntly obstructs students path to becoming lifelong, self-directed learners and alienates students from their ow n learning experiences in school (p. 33).

PAGE 35

35 Dropout rates in the United States are up 4-6% in schools that require high school graduation exams. Another study reported that students in the bo ttom 5% of states with highstakes tests were 25% more likely to drop out of school that peer s in schools wit hout high-stakes tests. Eight-eight percent of the st ates with high school gradua tion tests have higher dropout rates than do states without gr aduation tests. In 62 percen t of these states, dropout rates increased in comparison with the rest of the nations after the state implemented high-stakes graduation exams. In addition, the top 10 stat es with the weakest grade 9-12 continuation ratios all administered high-stakes tests ove r the years for which data were available (Amrein & Berliner, 2003, p. 34). In addition to the increased drop out rates, th e percentage of student s receiving a General Educational Development (GED) cred ential has risen in the last ten years. In North Carolina, the proportion of students under the age of 20 taking the GED increas ed by 73 percent between 1986 and 1999. In Georgia, almost twice as many teenagers earned a GED in 2000 than in 1990. Since 1997, about 50,000 students have been retain ed in Chicago due to low-test scores. Researchers found that students were 12% more lik ely to drop out before graduation as a result of being retained. Ninth-grade students fr om racial minority and low socio-economic backgrounds are being retained at an extraordinary rate in Te xas. The Texas Assessment of Academic Skills is administered to tenth grade students. Many teachers retain students for fear that they will perform poorly on the high-stakes test. Reports es timated that half of all minority students enrolled in Texas high sc hools are technically enrolled as freshmen. Some are ninth graders for the first time, while others have been retained once or even twice (Amrein & Berliner, 2003). Amrein and Berlliner (2003) al so discovered that 67% of the states that use high school graduation exams repor ted decreased in ACT performa nce after having implemented such exams. Along with deteriorating ACT averag es, declines were also reported in the number of students passing and partic ipating in AP classes.

PAGE 36

36 Summary There is an emphasis on school accountability as a result of NCLB (R. Res. 1, 2002). Researchers have outlined concerns on the impact s of high-stakes testing on school curriculum, instructional time, funding, music students and the unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. The impacts of high-stakes tes ting on curriculum and instructi onal time are evident. State tests emphasize achievement in reading and math. Administration is not given much incentive to support a music curriculum in public schools. In addition to the reduction of music curriculum in schools, the amount of instructional time in existing music classes is being reduced. Music students are feeling the impacts of hi gh-stakes testing and school accountability. Many times the students who would benefit from music classes the most had to drop music classes in order to take extra reading and math remediation to improve test scores. Researchers have also presented facts about the unintended conseque nces of high-stakes testing. It is important to have an understandi ng of these consequences as an educator. Students in todays schools are feeling a greater sense of stress and pressure. This combined with the dissolution of many music programs is causing mora le of both students and teachers to plummet. Because of this, there has been a rise in the number of students choosing to drop out of school and pursue their GED. These unintended conseque nces are having an indirect impact on music education. When students perform poorly on read ing sections of the hi gh-stakes test, music educators are often times asked to teach remediati on courses. This causes the music educator to give up planning periods and even music classes. Through this examination of literature it can be determined that high-stakes testing and school accountability have had a negative impact on music education. What cannot be determined is the degree of this impact nati onally. This research study was designed to

PAGE 37

37 investigate the degree of impact in music curr iculum, funding, instruct ional time, and music students on a national level.

PAGE 38

38 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of high-stakes testing on music education. After extensive examin ation of related literature, four areas of concern surfaced: The impact of high-stakes testing on music curricul um, funding, instructional time and participation by students. High-stakes testi ng and school accountability has caused a shift in curricular emphasis toward Math and Reading, primarily due to the stipulations of the NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002). Wilkins et al. (2003) stated that many re search studies had indicated more instructional time being allotted to subjects included on the St ate, high-stakes test. The National emphasis on school accountability has inspired a fundamenta list movement in education that is causing educators to teach to the test. Most schools do not include a musi c or fine arts portion in the State test. Even when music is included on th e State, high-stakes test, the importance of the subject is not completely realize d. Flinders (2003) stat es that the Kentucky State test includes music as a portion of the larger category: humanities. The humanities portion of the state test counts for 7.13% of the schools accountability score. As a comparison, English counts for 14.25% of the accountability score on the same test. These reasons are why the section pertaining to the impact of highstakes testing on music curricul um was included in the survey. It is important to gain a National level of inform ation related to this impact on music curriculum. With the lack of arts inclusion on State tes ting and the emphasis of the school curriculum on tested material a section to the survey was adde d to determine the severity of impact of highstakes tests on music curriculum. Chapman (2004) states that funds for the arts were cut in 2003 because the Bush Administration has a policy of terminating categori cal programs with limited impact in order to

PAGE 39

39 fund high priorities. The requirement that a ll schools reach 100% proficiency, by the 2013-2014 school year, in Reading and Math has rearranged the priorities in public schools. Schools that enroll a higher amount of at-risk students beco me even more vulnerable to reductions in arts areas in order to finance programs covered on the high-stakes test. Test scores are determining the curriculum. In early 2004, a Council on Education stated that 25% of principals had cut arts education and 33% that anticipated reductions in funding. With this information, it was important to include a section devoted to funding for music programs in the impact of highstakes testing on musi c education survey. The third area of concentration in the survey focused on the impacts of high-stakes testing on instructional time for music classes. Resear ch has shown decreases in time allotted for arts instruction. A report by the Cent er for Basic Education conclude d that 25% of the principals surveyed in Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, an d New York indicated a decrease in arts instruction. Schools with a highe r population of minority students indicated a 36% decrease in arts instruction with one-third of the principals reporting a larg e decrease in arts instruction (Mishook & Komhaber, 2006). Chapma n (2004) also included in the report from a Council on Education that 43 percent of teachers indicate d that the time spent teaching fine arts had decreased significantly. This reduction had occu rred before the enacting of the NCLB act of 2001. This information led to the inclusion of a section devoted to the impact of high-stakes testing on music instructional time since 2001. The final section of the survey was designed to measure the impact of high-stakes testing on music students. More specifically, the curric ular decisions that st udents had to make in response to the heightened emphasis on readi ng and math. When stude nts perform poorly on reading and math portions of State tests, they are required to take remediation courses. In order

PAGE 40

40 to make time for these courses students, often times have to withdraw from music classes. With the curricular emphasis on tested materials, a section of the survey was created to determine the degree of impact of high-stakes testing on music students. Through research, four areas of concern surfaced in regards to State te sting. State testing has had an impact on music curriculum, funding for music programs, music instructional time, and students participating in music classes. What has been lacking in the research is information about the impacts of State testi ng in these four areas from across the Country. This survey was created to gain a National perspect ive on the severity of the impact s of high-stakes testing. Participants For this study, it was important to use particip ants that had a comprehensive perspective on the music programs in their area. District and stat e arts supervisors were chosen as participants based on their knowledge of and interaction with music programs and music educators. Polling the district and state arts superv isors would provide the researcher with specific information from an extensive geographical area. The Informati on Resources Director wa s contacted at Music Educators National Conference (MEN C) to obtain permission to cont act the current district and state arts supervisors. There were 2,011 district and state level superv isors registered with MENC at the time of the study. Procedures Based on the review of literature, a survey was created that asked district and state arts supervisors to provide information about the imp act of high-stakes test ing on music education. The survey consisted of twenty-five questions and was divided into six sections: Personal information, high-stakes test information, the impact of testing on cu rriculum since 2001, the impact of testing on funding since 2001, the imp act of testing on inst ructional time since 2001, and the impact of testing on music students since 2001.

PAGE 41

41 The survey contained of a variety of questions; closed-response, open-ended, and contingency questions. Following these six divisions, participants had an opportunity to include any additional comments on their views on the imp act of high-stakes testing on music education. The personal information section of the su rvey listed five questions asking: How many years have you been an arts supervisor? Are you a district orsState level supervisor? Were you a fine arts teacher before becoming an arts supervisor? If so, how many years did you teach, and which art form did you teach? In which State do you supervise? How many music educat ors do you supervise? With the variety of State tests administered, some information about the State, high-stakes test was required. Supervisors were asked: Does your State Department of Ed ucation administer a high-stake s test? If yes, continue. If no, please submit your survey now. Does the high-stakes test have a section devoted to the arts? If yes, what content areas are co vered? Check all that apply. Music Theory Music History Music Appreciation Jazz History/Improvisation Other The third section of the survey contained only one question about the impacts of highstakes testing on curriculum sin ce 2001. The question: Has ther e been a change in the amount and variety of music classes offered since 2001 ? Supervisors were gi ven the opportunity to indicate an increase, decrease or no change in the variety and number of music classes offered since 2001.

PAGE 42

42 To determine an impact on Funding since 2001, Supervisors were asked three questions about funding for music programs over the la st seven years. The questions were: Has funding for music programs changed since 2001? If yes, could you please estimate a per centage of increase or decrease? Have any teaching positions been eliminated because of reduced funding since 2001? The fifth, and largest, portion of the survey as ked the supervisors to li st any changes in the amount of instructional time given to students since 2001. With curricular emphasis on content tested on high-stakes tests, music instructional ti me has been the largest area of impact based on previously discussed literature Supervisors were asked: What is the difference in amount of hours stude nts spent in music classes in 2007 versus the amount of hours students sp ent in music cl asses in 2001? Have music educators had to stop instruction dur ing their music class in order to teach students a test strategy or prepare for a test item? If yes, how many hours of in struction do you estimate musi c educators lose per year? Are music rooms used as testing sites? If yes, how many hours of inst ruction per year do you estimate music educators lost as a result? Have music educators been required to teach Reading classes? If yes, how many music classes have been rem oved from the program in order to allow music teachers to teach Reading? Have music educators changed their schedules in order to each a performance ensemble before or after school due to lost class time as a result of increased teaching requirements in Reading and Math? If yes, can you estim ate a percentage of mu sic educators in your District or State (based on supervis or level) that this has impacted? Have music educators given up planning periods to teach ensembles because their regular ensemble time is devoted to Reading and Math remediation? The sixth and final section focused the attent ion of the supervisor on the impact of highstakes testing on music students. Supervisors were asked:

PAGE 43

43 Have music students had to drop a music class in order to take a c ourse in Reading or Math? How does the amount of students participati ng in music classes in 2007 compare to the amount of students participating in music clas ses in 2001? Please estim ate a percentage if you are able. Do you feel that this change in participation can be attrib uted to high-stakes testing? Supervisors were given the opportunity, at the end of the survey, to include any additional comments on the impacts of high-stakes testing on music education. This gave the supervisors an opportunity to voice opinions and provide info rmation that may have been left out of the survey. Data Collection The survey was created and posted online on a popular survey hosting website. A link to the survey was sent to the Information Resources Director of MENC. It was determined that participation in the survey may be stronger if he link to the survey came from an internal source at MENC. A survey link was sent to the Inform ation Resources Director and then forwarded to 2,011 District and State fine arts supervisors. The survey was opened May 21, 2007, remained active for ten days and was closed May 30, 2007. Supervisors were asked to follow a link to the online survey where they were taken through the 25 questions. The survey was estimat ed to take the participant 5-10 minutes to complete and participation was anonymous. Reliability Procedures In order to establish reliability and validity, trial versions of the survey were sent to District supervisors in Florida and administrators at MENC. Th e Florida supervisors and MENC administrators were asked to complete the su rvey and offer ideas for formatting and content change in the survey. The Florida District supe rvisors returned the surv ey with many useful

PAGE 44

44 comments on structure and content. The ques tions: Have music educators had to stop instruction during their music class in order to teach students a test strategy or prepare for a test item? and Are music rooms used as testing sites ? were added based on district arts supervisor comments. Music educators from Gainesville, FL had also voiced concerns about having music classes removed from schedules in order to te ach reading and math remediation. One local music educator indicated having to move music ensemble rehearsals before and after regular school hours. The information provided by Di strict Supervisors in Florida, MENC representatives, and public school music educator s in combination with the research on highstakes testing already examined helped solidify re liability and validity of the content included in the survey. The survey went through numerous revisions in order to develop a tool that was concise, relevant, and capable of providing valuable inform ation about the impacts of high-stakes testing on music education throughout the nation.

PAGE 45

45 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of high-stakes testing on music curriculum, funding, instructional time and student participation in the United States. Music Educators National Conference (MENC) was asked to provide a list of current district and state level arts supervisors. Surveying district and state arts supervisors a llowed the researcher to address broad and specific issues impacting current music educati on practice. Supervisors were sent a link to an online survey consisting of twenty-five multiple choice, open-ended and essay questions. The survey was divide d into six sections: Participan t information, test information, impact on curriculum, impact on funding, impact on instructional time and the impact on music students. At the conclusion of the survey, s upervisors were asked to provide any additional information regarding high-stakes testing. In the first section, supervisors were asked to provide personal information. They were asked to indicate at what level th ey supervised (district or state), the state in which they are located, the number of years experience as a superv isor and number of year s experience as a fine arts teacher before becoming an arts supervisor. Supervisors were then asked to provide inform ation regarding the stat es high-stakes test. The first question whether the representative st ate offered a high-stakes test. If supervisors indicated that no high-stakes test was administ ered, they were asked to submit the survey immediately. The remaining supervisors were aske d to include whether the state test included a section devoted to the Arts. If the high-stakes test did include an arts section, supervisors were then asked to indicate (from a list) which arts classes were tested.

PAGE 46

46 To determine the impact of high-stakes tes ting on music curriculum supervisors were asked whether the number and variety of music cl asses had increased, decreased, or remained the same since 2001. Supervisors indicating a change in curriculum were asked to provide a percentage of increase or decrease in the num ber and variety of classes offered since 2001. To determine the impact of high-stakes testi ng on funding, supervisors were asked if there had been any change in funding since 2001. If there had been a change, was the change an increase or decrease and had any teaching posit ions been eliminated due to reduced funding since 2001. Supervisors were asked to indica te the impact of high-stakes testing on instructional time. They were asked to compare the amount of instructional time for music in 2001 versus instructional time in 2007. Supervisors were also asked to indicate whet her teachers were losing instructional time in order to teach students test st rategies or test items. Other possible impacts included in the survey were using music rooms as testing sites, music educators having to teach reading and the changing of en semble rehearsal schedules. In order to determine the impact of high-stak es testing on student pa rticipation, supervisors were asked whether a music student had dropped a music class in order to take a course in reading or math. Supervisors were also asked to compare the amount of students participating in music classes in 2001 and 2007. Finally, supervisor s were asked if a cha nge in participation could be attributed to high-stakes testing. The survey was sent on May 21, 2007 to 2,011 supe rvisors. The survey remained online for ten days and closed on May 30, 2007 (see Appendix A). Results The survey link was sent to the District and State Arts supervisors on May 21, 2007. MENC reported that there were 2,011 current supervisors in thei r database. One hundred ninety-

PAGE 47

47 six of the e-mails were not successfully sent due to outdated e-mail addr esses, resulting in 1,815 e-mails successfully sent to the arts supervisor s. The survey was online for ten days and was closed on May 30, 2007. Two hundred fourteen s upervisors of the 1,815 participated in the study (12%). Ninety-one percent of the part icipants were District level supervisors with a mean of 9 years of supervising experience a nd 9% of the participants were State level supervisors with a mean of 8 years supervising experience. Ninety-n ine percent of the participants reported having teaching experience before becoming an arts s upervisor with a mean of 19 years teaching experience. Supervisors from the following States particip ated in the survey: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgi a, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Yor k, Nevada, North Carolina, Oh io, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. State an d district supervisors particip ating in this study represented a total of 14,293 (see Appendix F fo r participant information). Survey Analysis Test Information Supervisors were asked if thei r State Department of Educatio n administered a high-stakes test (see Figure 4-1). Ninety-one percent indica ted that a high-stakes test was administered in their State, 9% of supervisors indicated that no hi gh-stakes test was administered in their State. Supervisors were then asked if the high-stakes test had a section de voted to the arts (see Figure 4-2). Almost 92% of superv isors indicated that the high-stak es test did not have a section devoted to the arts, 6% indicated that the st ate test had a section devoted to the Arts.

PAGE 48

48 All of the supervisors who indicated that th eir state high-stakes test included a section devoted to the arts stated that music theory was included in the arts sect ion. Seventy-one percent included music appreciation, followed by music hist ory (57%), jazz histor y/improvisation (43%), and music technology/music educat ion (29%) (see Appendix F). Impact on Curriculum Since 2001 Supervisors were asked if ther e had been a change in the amount and variety of music classes offered since 2001 (see Figure 4-3) Thirty-two percent of s upervisors indicated that the number and variety of music cl asses has decreased since 2001. Thirty percent of educators indicated that the number and vari ety of classes had increased si nce 2001 and 21% of supervisors reported that there was no change in variety or number of music cl asses offered since 2001 (Table 4-1). In reference to the impact of high-stakes testing on cu rriculum, participating supervisors stated: The more we try to fix problems by tutoring and pumping a million dollars of education into aims tutoring for example, maybe we should work on fixing the curriculum and use that money elsewhere. The more high-stakes te sting there is the less students we will have. --AZ Compared to other situations, our school districts music progr am has been very fortunate in that we have not been greatly affected by the high-stakes testing. However, we do feel the impact in scheduling and the emphasis put on the testing and teaching to the test approach. We have had to integrated con cepts of learning into our curriculum, but compared to other situations, that has not been extreme. --NY High-stakes testing is killing the Arts and Music programs in the State of Louisiana. Too much emphasis is being placed on test scores rather than the needs of our children. Those students in the Art and Music programs ar e the ones that have good grades and are motivated to do well on the high-stakes test. --LA Testing and emphasis on the academic side of st andards have diminished the relevance of the arts in education. --MO State mandated testing results in schools are causing a ranking system Because of this, administrators are asking teachers to include reading and writing skills in all classes. Another facet of this problem, is the honor s classes that are offered against music classes. Parents feel all of th eir kids need to take advanced level classes which can have a

PAGE 49

49 weighted GPA, allowing their kid to have a higher GPA, and a highe r class ranking. A 4.0 GPA is nothing today, some students have a 4.2 or higher. Music classes get pushed aside for honors classes. Foreign Language requirement s also knock kids out of having room in their schedule for music. --OK Music is a Core-Curriculum class but is not treated as such in many places I know. --AZ The impact of high-stakes tes ting on music curriculum by state can be seen in Appendix B. Impact on Funding Since 2001 Supervisors were asked if funding for music programs had changed since 2001 (see Figure 4-4). Sixty-five percent of s upervisors reported a change in funding since 2001. Thirty percent stated that there had been no change in funding for music classes since 2001 and 5% indicated no knowledge of any change. Forty-six percent of supervisors indicated an increase in funding for music programs, 54% reported a decrease in funding since 2001 (see Figure 4-5). Had any teaching positions been elimin ated due to reduced funding since 2001 (see Figure 4-6)? Fifty-nine percent of supervisors indicated that no positions had been eliminated as a result of reduced funding since 2001. Thirty si x percent of supervisor s reported that music teaching positions had been eliminated due to reduced funding. Of the 36% of supervisors that reported eliminated music teaching positions, 40% stated that more than one position had been eliminated due to reduced funding (Table 4-2). A participating supervisor stated: There have been significant changes to the mu sic offerings in our district as a result of higher emphasis on testing. 2007-2008 will see ev en more of this, as potential music students are double-dosed on read ing and math instruction. Mu sic teachers continue to lose budget resources and staffi ng levels while math and read ing departments see increases every year in staffing and budget. --CO The impact of high-stakes testing on f unding by state can be seen in Appendix C. Impact on Instructional Time Since 2001 Supervisors were asked to estimate the amount of hours students spent in music classes in 2007 versus the amount of hours students spent in music classes in 2001 (see Figure 4-7). Forty-

PAGE 50

50 two percent of supervisors repo rted that there was no change in the amount of time students spent in music classes in 2001 versus 2007. Thirty -nine percent indicated that more hours were spent in music classes in 2001 and 7% reported mo re hours spent in music classes in 2007 (Table 4-3). Supervisors were asked if music educators ha d to stop instruction dur ing their music class in order to teach students a test strategy or pr epare for a test item (see Figure 4-8). Fifty-two percent of supervisors indicated that educators had to stop instructional time to teach a test strategy or test item, 44% repor ted no interruption in instructi onal time, and 4% did not know that information (Table 4-4). The 52% of supervisors that had reported a lo ss of instructional time were then asked to estimate the number of hours per year music educat ors lose for test prepar ation (see Figure 4-9). Thirty-one percent of supervisor s indicated that music educator s lose 1-5 hours per year as a result of test strategy and test item preparati on. Twenty-seven percent reported a loss of 6-10 hours per year, 30% reported 11-15 hours per year and 13% indicated more that 15 hours of instructional time lost per year due to teaching state test strategies or items. Supervisors were asked if music rooms were us ed as testing sites (see Figure 4-10). Sixtyone percent of supervisors indicated that music rooms were not used as a site for administering a high-stakes test. Thirty-two per cent reported that music rooms were used as testing sites and 8% did not know that information (Table 4-5). Those supervisors indicating the use of music rooms as testin g sites were then asked to estimate the amount of instructional time lost per year during testing (see Figure 4-11). Thirtyfive percent reported 1-5 hours per year, 33% estimated 6-10 hour s per year, 21% indicated 1115 hours, and 12% reported instructiona l losses of over 15 hours per year.

PAGE 51

51 Have music educators been required to teach reading classes (see Figure 4-12)? Seventy percent of supervisors indicated that music educator s were not required to teach a reading class. Twenty-six percent of supervisors reported that music educators were requi red to teach a reading class (Table 4-6). The 26% of supervisors that indicated musi c educators teaching reading, were asked to estimate how many music classes had been remove d from the program in order to allow music educators to teach Reading (see figure 4-13). Fo rty-two percent estimated that no classes had been removed, 29% estimated 1-2 classes, 24% es timated 3-4 classes, and 5% estimated more than four classes had been removed from the daily schedule. Supervisors were asked if musi c educators have had to change their schedules in order to teach a performance ensemble before or after school due to lost class time as a result of increased teaching requirements in reading and math (see Figure 4-14). Forty-ei ght percent responded that music educators did not change schedules, 41% indicated that music educators did have to change schedules to accommodate increased teac hing requirements in re ading and math (Table 4-7). Supervisors were asked in the final ques tion measuring the impact of state tests on instructional time if music educators have had to give up planning periods to teach ensembles because their regular ensemble time is devoted to reading and math re mediation (see Figure 415). Sixty percent of supervisors stated that music educators did not give up planning periods, 25% reported that music educators did give up planning periods (Table 4-8). Participating supervisors commented on the impacts of high-st akes testing on music instructional time. Supervisors stated: Elementary instrumental pull-out music lessons have seen a decrease in recent years. Without specific data to back it up, the music t eachers feel that the higher stress level in

PAGE 52

52 classroom with regards to testing, some from teachers, some from parents, has contributed to fewer students signing up for the pullout lessons. The cla ssroom teachers are concerned they do not have enough time to pr epare the students thoroughly for the State tests, and some parents follow th is line of thinking. Decreas ed numbers at the elementary level will of course impact participati on levels at the secondary level. --NJ Raising test scores in our cor poration is a high priority. Ever ything else takes a back seat. -IN It seems that Illinois has placed strong emphasi s on the core subjects, i.e., math, science, reading, etc., and has basically igno red music and the other arts. --IL Im afraid that a major blow to music educat ion is coming to Louisiana. The board that governs public education is goi ng to require, in 2008-2009, that all incoming high school freshmen take added core subjects, thereby limiting the number of electives they may take. Even now, many freshmen must delay taking PE and foreign language courses until their sophomore or junior years to stay in band or choir. --LA We are having to look at our intermediate schools and their schedules, as the focus on mathematics and English-Language Arts has th em creating double block periods for these classes, which eliminates space for elective cl asses, including music. Elementary schools in program improvement years 4 and 5 often go to blocks of time for math and ELA and this causes scheduling issues for the elemen tary music teachers in doing pull outs for instruction as well as scheduling classes to come to general music times. --CA Due to increased time required for reading, ma th and science classes, there is less time available now for students to take advantage of elective courses. This has had a negative impact of enrollments, especia lly for students who, at one time would have liked to take four full years of music at the high school level. --IL The impact of testing has been felt mainly at the middle school level with large performing ensembles. A new schedule devised to boost ac ademic areas being tested has resulted in substantial loss of rehearsal time. --NY The comments heard from Maryland music educators most often have to do with scheduling practices and diminished time for pull-out programs because of additional required time for students in reading/ language arts and mathematics. --MD All related arts classes are pl aced on hold for the duration of th e State test, grades 3-9. --SC As stated earlier, the need for remediation has caused the greatest amount of concern. Music class time, and in particular performan ce music class time, has been the target time to remediate. Many teachers also complain of the loss of teaching time that is spent on assisting the English and Math department in making sure that students are competent in those areas. Indiana currently only tests those two subject ar eas. Funding is based upon those test scores. The start of the school year has also become dependent on the fact that this testing occurs in September. Many school districts now are starting school a full month sooner than before. The effects of this system affect not only those in need of

PAGE 53

53 remediation, but those that share class time with the remediate students as fellow classmates. There are some major issues f acing our music teachers and potential language changes to middle level curriculum c onfirm the reason for concern. --IN In Arizona, the AIMS exam focuses primar ily on Math, Reading, and Writing (Science next year) and does not include th e fine arts yet. The primary impact for me has been our district has raised the number of mandatory classes students must ha ve (i.e. 3 years of math, 3 years of science) which limits the num ber of electives a student can takewhich means I may not get a students until their sophom ore or junior year (unless they choose to go to summer school) and there is a year or two of catching up. Which ultimately influences music selection and quality of the ensemble. --AZ The major impact is seen through classroom teachers attitude toward music. It is now seen as negative impact on classroom instruction in the content areas tested. Parents are also using the test data as a reason to stop their childs participation in instrumental music programs and after school lessons. --MA Music classes are expected to provide 10 mi nutes daily of reading or math time for students to work on these skills rather than using music techniques to enhance the fluency in reading or fraction concepts for math. We now face another obstacle with a program called the Hathaway Scholarship that offers tuition monies to students who meet curriculum criteria that does not include the arts As a result, students will be less likely to enroll in arts classes or other elective programs. --WY All incoming freshmen must take 2 math cla sses which leaves NO time for band or chorus. They have them scheduled to be in ba nd or chorus for HALF of a year. --MA Its killing us no time for music. --MO Elementary teachers are asked to teach reading and math to cover for the classroom teacher when there is a team meeting. Five to ten mi nutes have been cut from each music class to accommodate more reading, math and science. Middle School chorus positions are being regularly cut to hire more science and readi ng as well as class reduc tion requirements. --FL Principals will hire an additional math or readi ng teacher in lieu of a music teacher. Music teachers are being used to teach remedial math and reading classes for which they have no training. --SC The real impact in Californi a is the length of the school day. With only six periods available, music is relegated to zero period at the secondary level. Some students cannot get to school at 7:45 AM so they wind up dr opping music. The six period day has also affected the range of music classes since onl y one band, one orchestra and one chorus can be offered at zero period. There is no space for additional ensembles to meet. --CA Music in our Middle School is affected the most. All Band and Chorus students meet before or after school as there is no room to schedule these classes due to double math and English classes. --NJ

PAGE 54

54 One supervisor turns the schedule change into positive outcomes: Lessons and sectionals at the High School have been eliminated forcing these to take place before or after school. Despite facing similar problems to other arts educators, we have gone into this with a win-win type attitude and come out on the better end of every negotiation we enter. The arts have gotten st ronger because we have taken every negative proposal and demanded a counter-balance sta ff increase, new computer equipment to increase efficiency and enrollment in elective courses, etc --CT The impact of high-stakes tes ting on instructional time by stat e can be seen in Appendix D. Impact on Music Students Have music students had to drop a music class in order to take a course in reading or math (see Figure 4-16)? Supervisors reported that 77% of music st udents have had to drop a music class in order to take a reading or math course Seventeen percent of music students have not had to drop a music class in order to take a reading or math course (Table 4-9). Supervisors were asked how th e amount of students participa ting in music classes in 2007 compares to the amount of students participati ng in music classes in 2001 (see Figure 4-17). Fifty-two percent of supervisors indicated that more students participated in music classes in 2001 than in 2007. Twenty-four pe rcent indicated that more st udents participated in music classes in 2007 than in 2001 and 11% reported no change in participation (Table 4-10). The final question of the survey asked if the ch ange in participation could be attributed to high-stakes testing (see Figure 4-18). Fifty-five percent of superv isors felt that the change in participation could be attributed to high-stakes testing. Twenty seven pe rcent of supervisors felt the change in participation was not attributed to high-stakes testing. Pa rticipating supervisors commented on the impacts of state testing on student participation: Students with low academic performance have to drop their electives to take Ramp-Up Math and Ramp-Up Reading classes for at least one semester. --WA Students at risk are no longer being allowed to participate in the arts as they need to take so many AIS classes. Our arts classes are, on ce again, becoming something only offered to the more privileged. --CO

PAGE 55

55 The now-required double math and double readi ng classes coupled w ith pull-out tutoring have severely cut into instru ction time for music classes. Students are being squeezed out of music (and other arts) classes for the sake of preparing or taking the plethora of tests. -KS The primary negative impact that high-stake s testing has on our music program is the relatively new challenge of performance and re cruitment tours. We have a difficult time getting principals to support ar ts assemblies or other activitie s that require students to be excused from the regular classroom. Seat time in the regular classroom has become an overwhelming obstacle. --MT All of our instrumental lesson groups are not allowed to be taken from math classes making scheduling extremely difficult. It is going to be worse next year when a new reading initiative is enacted a dding reading to the list of classes off limits for lessons. Several students who would exce l and benefit from music are not allowed to take it due to academic intervention in math and reading. At so me point we need to look at what is in the best interest of the student and not how the district looks for the newspaper showing our testing results. --NY Students are being given so much homework that they do not find time or energy to practice instruments. Practice time has droppe d considerably since 2001 resulting in lower retention and lower skill level in our ensemble s. Students are under constant pressure from classroom teachers to skip lessons, take lessons after school so that th ey can stay in class and learn the test content. Most of our dropout s in grades 4-8 are due to the need for more time in class to do better in academics i.e. te st. Teachers are under great scrutiny to have their students perform well on the tests. In New York, we have Stat e and NCLB testing. Our kids are tested 3-8 then have to pass 5 High School Regents exams to graduate. It is too much!! --NY The impact of high-stakes testing on student participation can be seen in Appendix E. Summary Procedure Survey sent to 2,011 district and stat e arts supervisors across the Nation. Supervisors were questioned about impacts of state high-stake s testing on music curriculum, funding, instructional time and student participation. Two hundred fourteen supervisors responded representing 14,293 music educators from 38 States. Survey Results Ninety-one percent of supervisors indicated that their State administer ed a high-stakes test. Ninety-two percent reported no se ction devoted to the fine arts.

PAGE 56

56 Thirty-two percent of supervisors reported a de crease in the number and variety of classes offered since 2001. Fifty-four percent of superv isors indicated a decrease in funding for music programs since 2001. Thirty-six percent of supervisors reported the loss of at least one teaching position as a result of reduced funding for music programs since 2001. Thirty-nine percent of supervis ors indicated more time spent in music classes in 2001 than in 2007. Fifty-two percent of supervisors stated that educators had to stop in struction during music class to teach a test strategy or test item. Thirty four percent of supervisors reported th e use of music rooms as testing sites resulting in lost instructional time. Twenty-six percent of supervis ors indicated that music educat ors were required to teach a Reading class resulting in loss of music instructional time. Forty-one percent of supervisors indicated music educators had to teach a performance ensemble before or after school due to in creased requirements in reading and math. Twenty-five percent of supervisors stated e ducators gave up planning periods to teach a performance ensemble because regular rehear sal time was devoted to reading and math remediation. Seventy-seven percent of supervisors reporte d that music students had to drop a music class in order to take a c ourse in reading or math. Fifty-two percent of supervisors stated that mo re students participated in music classes in 2001 than did in 2007. Fifty-five percent of the supervisors indicated th is change in participation was attributed to high-stakes testing.

PAGE 57

57 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Test Administerd No Test Administered Figure 4-1. The percentage of s upervisors that indicated their State Department of Education administered a high-stakes test. 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% Section for the Arts No Section for the Arts Don't Know Figure 4-2. Percentage of superv isors indicating whether the high-st akes test had an arts section.

PAGE 58

58 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% Number and Variety has Increased since 2001 Number and Variety has Decreased since 2001 No Change in Number and Variety since 2001 Figure 4-3. Percentage change in number a nd variety of music classes offered since 2001. 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% Change in Funding No Change in Funding Don't Know Figure 4-4. Percentage of superv isors that indicated a change in funding for music programs.

PAGE 59

59 42% 44% 46% 48% 50% 52% 54% Increased percentage in Funding since 2001 Decreased percentage in Funding since 2001 Figure 4-5. Number reporting in creases versus number reporti ng decreases in funding since 2001. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% No positions eliminated due to reduced funding Yes positions eliminated due to reduced funding Don't Know More than one music position eliminated Figure 4-6. Percentage of supervisors indicating elimination of teaching positions due to reduced funding.

PAGE 60

60 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% More hours spent in music classes in 2007 More hours spent in music classes in 2001 Don't Know No Change Figure 4-7. Hours students spent in music classes in 2001 versus 2007. 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% Have stopped Instruction Have Not Stopped Instruction Don't Know Figure 4-8. Supervisors indica ting music instruction stopped fo r test strategy or test item instruction.

PAGE 61

61 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 1-5 hours lost per year 6-10 hours lost per year 11-15 hours lost per year More than 15 hours lost per year Figure 4-9. The amount of class time lost to test item or test strategy instruction. 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% Music rooms used as testing sites Music rooms Not used as testing sites Don't Know Figure 4-10. Percentage of supervisors indicat ing the use of music r ooms as testing sites.

PAGE 62

62 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 1-5 hours lost per year 6-10 hours lost per year 11-15 hours lost per year more than 15 hours lost per year Figure 4-11. Instructional time lost as a re sult of using music rooms as testing sites. 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% Required to teach Reading class Not required to teach Reading class Don't Know Figure 4-12. The percentage of supervisors indicating music educators had to teach reading courses.

PAGE 63

63 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% Zero Classes Removed 1-2 Classes Removed 3-4 Classes Removed More than 4 Classes Removed Figure 4-13. Percentage of supervisors indicat ing music classes being removed due to music educators having to t each reading courses. 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% Have changed schedule Have Not changed schedule Don't Know Figure 4-14. Supervisors indicating teachers havi ng to rehearse a performance group before or after school.

PAGE 64

64 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% Have given up planning periods Have Not given up planning periods Don't Know Figure 4-15. Music educators gi ving up planning periods in or der to rehearse an ensemble. 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% Have had to drop a Music Class Have Not had to drop a Music class Don't Know Figure 4-16. Supervisors indi cating students dropping music class for reading or math.

PAGE 65

65 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% More Student Participation in 2007 More Student Participation in 2001 No Change Don't Know Figure 4-17. Music student par ticipation in 2001 versus 2007. 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% Change Attributed to highstakes testing Change Not Attributed to high-stakes testing Don't Know Figure 4-18. Supervisors belief of relationshi p between student partic ipation and high-stakes testing.

PAGE 66

66 Table 4-1. Change in the number and va riety of music classes since 2001 Classes Percentage Number Increased 31.8 Variety Increased 28.6 Number Decreased 38.1 Variety Decreased 26.2 No Change in Variety 21.4 No Change in Number 20.6 Table 4-2. Change in funding for music programs since 2001 Funding Percentage No Change 29.6 Change 65.6 Increase 46.8 Decrease 55.7 Dont Know 4.8 Table 4-3. Change in instructional time since 2001 Instructional Time Percentage More in 2007 6.8 More in 2001 39.3 No Change 41.9 Dont Know 12.0 Table 4-4. Music educators stopped in struction to teach test material Stopped Instruction Percentage No 43.6 Yes 52.1 1-5 hours lost per year 31.3 6-10 hours lost per year 26.6 11-15 hours lost per year 29.7 More than 15 hours per year 12.5 Dont Know 4.3 Table 4-5. Music rooms used as testing sites Used Percentage No 60.7 Yes 31.6 1-5 hours lost per year 34.9 6-10 hours lost per year 32.6 11-15 hours lost per year 20.9 More than 15 hours lost per year 11.6 Dont Know 7.7

PAGE 67

67 Table 4-6. Music educators requi red to teach Reading classes Taught Percentage No 69.6 Yes 26.1 0 classes removed from music program 42.1 1-2 classes removed from music program 29.0 3-4 classes removed from music program 23.7 Dont Know 4.4 Table 4-7. Changed ensemble schedule to rehearse before or after school Changed Percentage Yes 41.4 No 48.3 Dont Know 7.8 Table 4-8. Gave up planning period to teach ensemble Gave up Period Percentage Yes 24.8 No 59.8 Dont Know 15.4 Table 4-9. Students had to drop mu sic class for Reading or Math Dropped music class Percentage Yes 77.4 No 16.5 Dont Know 6.1 Table 4-10. Students participating in music classes in 2001 versus 2007 Participation Percentage More students in 2007 23.5 More students in 2001 52.0 No Change 10.8 Dont Know 16.7

PAGE 68

68 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Introduction A survey was created to obtain information on the impacts of high-stakes testing on the music curriculum, funding, instruc tional time, and student particip ation in music programs. A link to the survey was sent to 2,011 District and State arts supervis ors. The survey consisted of 25 questions divided into six se ctions. After providing some pers onal and test information, the participants were asked to answ er questions pertaining to the impacts of high-stakes testing. These questions focused on music curriculum, fu nding for music classes, music instructional time, and music students, in the participants State or District. These four sections were chosen based on research of related l iterature. Researchers show a curricular shift in emphasis to subjects covered by the State high-stakes tests, primarily reading and math. The increase of emphasis in reading and math causes less time and money invested in music programs and students that perform poorly on st ate tests have to drop music clas ses to spend additional time in remediation. Supervisors were given the oppor tunity to provide any additional information related to high-stakes testing at the end of the survey. The survey was online for ten days. This chapter contains discussion about data collection, findings, the implications for theory, issues, and implications for music educati on. At the end of the chapter, I will provide personal thoughts and information based on resear ch questions and data collected from the impact of high-stakes testing on music education survey. Data Collection A link to an online survey was sent to 2,011 Di strict and State arts supervisors across the Nation. Permission to send the survey to th e supervisors was granted by the Information Resources Director from Music Educators Nati onal Conference (MENC) One hundred ninety-

PAGE 69

69 six of the e-mails were undeliverable. One thousand eight hundred fifteen e-mails were successfully sent to the district and state arts supervisors. The electronic survey was very useful and provided the opportunity to reach the supervisors quickly and efficientl y. Possible impacts to using this method of research were the inactivity of supervisor e-mail accounts and superv isor attitude to online surveys. The survey on the impact of high-stakes testing was administer ed immediately following another online survey during the month of May. With th e inundation of electroni c surveys, the number of participants may have been negatively impacted. No ne gative comments were indicated by participating supervisors during the survey for having admini stered the study in this fashion. Two hundred fourteen supervisors participated in the study (12%). This percentage of State and District level supervisors represented 14,293 music educators fr om across the Country. The participation provided the researcher with a diverse representation of the imp acts of state testing on music programs. Discussion of Research Questions In this section the research questions that were presented in the first chapter are reexamined. The questions are stated below with discussion following. How has the music curriculum been impact ed since the passing of the No Child Left Behind act of 2001? Music curriculum has been negatively impacted as a result of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002). A majority of supervisors (53%) indicate that the number and variety of mu sic classes had either decreased or not changed since 2001. One-third of the supervisors indicate that music classes have decreased in number and variety since 2001. These findings are similar with the studies presented earlier in the literature review. Wilkins et al. (2003) stat e that there are many research studies that indicate more instructional time leading to improved achievement. High-stakes

PAGE 70

70 testing has forced schools to focus on tested conten t. Subjects that are not included in the States high-stakes test are being forced to give up inst ructional time so that schools may better prepare for test content. Teachers are teaching to the te st. Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus (2003) state that teachers surveyed in Virginia, Arizona, and Ke ntucky showed that teachers are placing greater emphasis on content covered by their respective high-stakes test. When schools feel the pressure of accountabil ity, curriculum shifts to content covered on State high-stakes tests. Ninetyone percent of supervisors survey ed indicate that their State highstakes test did not contain a sect ion devoted to the arts. Administ rators are not held accountable for the inclusion of arts in the school curriculum. These results allow the researcher to conclude that the value of arts by administrators is diminish ing in the public schools. How has funding for music education been impa cted since the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? Funding for music education has been negatively impacted as a result of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002). The arts were originally included in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. In 2003 the arts were removed based on the Bush Administra tions policy of the termination of categorical programs with limited impact in order to fund higher priorities (Chapman, 2004). Chapman states that funding for arts programs has decreased since the creation of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002). This study on the impacts of high-stakes tes ting on music education revealed that funding for music programs has been negatively impacted. Over half of the supervisors that participated report a decrease in funding for music programs since 2001. Some supervisors indicate that music programs were functioning on the same budgets for the past several years. Not only are music programs losing funding they are also losi ng educators. The reductions in funding have led to the elimination of music teaching positions. In some States, supervisors state that multiple teaching positions had been eliminated from th e music programs. These reductions in funding

PAGE 71

71 for music programs are fundamentally linked to th e lack of inclusion on State testing. School administrations fund subjects that play a role in school accountability before funding programs that do not. Music education is not being valued for its benefits for students and is subsequently being removed from schools in the Nation. How has instructional time been impacted in music education since the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? Music instructional time has been negatively impacted due to NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002). The largest portion of the survey was devoted to the impacts of hi gh-stakes testing on instructional time since 2001. The educators and supervisors that were interviewed during the survey development process indicat ed that instructional time for music was suffering the most. One researcher indicates that the first subjects to suffer as a result of testing are the fine arts (Popham, 2001). Mishook & Kornhaber (2006) reve al that principals su rveyed in Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, and New York indicated a decrease in arts instruction with one-third of the principals reporting a large decrease in arts instruction. The results of this study indica te that the amount of instructio nal time for students has been negatively impacted as a result of high-stakes testing. Supervisors were asked to provide information about loss of instruct ional time due to: teaching test items, losing rooms to be used as testing sites, music educators having to teach Reading, and changing class schedules. At least one-fourth of the supe rvisors state a loss of instructional time. The supervisors that participated in this survey report: Music educators have had to stop instructional time in order to teach students test items and strategies resulting in loss of class time. Music rooms are being used as testing sites resulting in the loss of instructional time. Music educators are required to teach Read ing classes resulting in the loss of music classes.

PAGE 72

72 Music educators have had to change schedules in order to teach a performance ensemble before or after school due to lost class time as a result of increased teaching requirements in Reading and Math. Music educators have given up planning periods to teach ensembles because their regular rehearsal time is devoted to Reading and Math remediation. Students spent more time in music classes in 2001 than in 2007. The most significant issues facing music educators in relation to instructional time are: having to teach test items/strate gies, and having to rehearse a pe rformance ensemble before or after school. This study indicates that music educators are lo sing significant instructional time due to high-stakes testing. How have students been impacted in music educ ation since the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? Music students have been negatively impact ed since the passing of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002). The last section of the su rvey centered on music student pa rticipation in music classes. Supervisors were asked if music students had to drop a music class in order to take a course in Reading or Math. The results of the study indicate that high-s takes testing ha s had a negative impact on student participation. Th e largest percentage of supervis ors that participated indicate that students had dropped music clas ses in order to take additional classes in Reading and Math. Supervisors also indicate that more students participated in music classes in 2001 than did in 2007. When the supervisors were asked if they felt the change in stud ent participation was attributed to high-stakes testing, a majority stated yes. The minority of supervisors that did indicate more students participating in music cl asses in 2007 than in 2001 state that the increase in participation may not be attrib uted to high-stakes testing. After discussing the impact s of high-stakes testing on curriculum, funding, and instructional time, it is not surprising that student participation was negatively impacted as well. More than three-quarters of the supervisors i ndicate that music students have dropped a music

PAGE 73

73 class in order to take a Reading or Math course Comments from the supe rvisors in the previous chapter indicate that students have had to spend additional time in Readi ng and Math in order to help raise test scores. It is not that students are developing a love for Reading and Math, these students are being required, by couns elors and administrators to sp end more time in these core content areas in order to improve test scores. Administrative sanc tions as a result of low-test scores are determining the curriculum, instructio nal time, funding, and student participation in schools. Implications for Theory Standardized testing was developed at the begi nning of the twentieth century. Critics of public education were searching for a means of assessment that would measure student progress and teacher effectiveness. Educators examined this form of testing with mixed reviews. Scientifically minded teachers thoug ht that these tests could eas ily assess student progress while improving the public opinion of public education while the trad itional-minded educators were upset that their grading policies were being challenged. The gene ral public has been the biggest supporter of standardized testing believing that standardized tests ar e a strong indicator of teacher and school effectiveness (Giordano, 2005). Giordano (2005) also states that standardized testing was embraced by administrators due to its cost effectiveness as a means for measuring school achievement. Parents indica ted that the use of standardi zed testing could be used to pinpoint learning problems in students and outline needs for remediation. Politically, government officials became more interested in st andardized tests that co vered national security and economic health. One hundred years later, education in the Un ited States is shrouded in a new age of accountability, standardized testing is now being used as a means to measure success in teachers and students by school administrato rs. High-stakes tests give schools an efficient method of

PAGE 74

74 measuring progress. Researchers state that high -stakes testing has been used for a variety of reasons including: the promoti on of privatized education, prof it for test manufacturers, and politics (Kohn, 2000). Standardized testing is bei ng used today in much the same fashion it was when it was created. The differences today are in the levels of significance that the scores hold. The problems in education does not lie in the use of standardized state testing, but how heavily administrators use the scores from state testi ng to measure student achie vement. Standardized tests were developed as an easy and economical way to measure school and teacher effectiveness, but the enactment of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002), has a created a whole new level of accountability in public schools. With the federal mandates in reading and math, and the lack of arts inclusion on the state high-st akes tests the results of this survey are not very surprising. What is frightening is the severity of imp act that high-stakes te sting is having on music education. Music educators are fight ing to justify music and the othe r fine arts curriculum in an educational system that does not hold the te aching of the discipline accountable. Issues Reading and math skills are very important to students but our educational system may be placing too much emphasis on thes e subjects. The issues for mu sic education created by school accountability and high-s takes testing are: Reduced funding for music education. Reduced instructional time for music education. Reduced number and variety of music classes. Reduced student participation in music. There needs to be a re-evaluation of how sc hools are held accountable for student learning. The problem for music education lies in the em phasis that is placed on state tests mixed with musics difficult nature to assess using a paper and pencil test.

PAGE 75

75 In order to measure student learning, a new co mprehensive portfolio needs to be developed that measures school achievement in all areas. Standardized tests could still be used for the core content subjects with inclusion of an arts a nd humanities section, much like the section that exists on the Kentucky state high-stakes test School success should be based on student achievement in all disciplines. In order to measure achievement for performance ensembles, school groups could participat e in sanctioned state assessmen t festivals. Most schools performance groups already particip ate in district, regional, or st ate festivals. The performance assessment would function much the same as it curre ntly does. A critique exists in all states designed to measure the quality performance of performance ensembles. Judges for the performance assessment concerts would be distin guished band directors from other districts, states, and colleges using the sc ores from these sanctioned events to determine annual progress or achievement of the performance ensembles. Th ese results would then be added as a section in a school-wide assessment portfolio, which could be sent to the State Depa rtment of Education for review. Implications for Music Education The results of this study, on the impacts of high-stakes testing on music education, report that music education is being negatively imp acted due to accountability and the curricular emphasis on reading and math. The study showed th at some issues were more apparent than others. A majority reported decrease in funding and participation. Seve nty-seven percent of supervisors reported that music students had drop ped a music class in order to double-up or take remedial classes in reading and math. The va riety and number of musi c classes have been reduced in schools and the actual in structional time is taking a hit in order to teach test strategy and test items. Music educators have changed th eir schedules in order to continue the inclusion

PAGE 76

76 of a performance ensemble in the music program. These are some suggestions to help change the legislations philosophy on the ne ed for music education in schools: Inclusion of a music portion on the state level high-stakes test. Integration of music into core subjects. Improving music education advocacy. By including a music portion on the State hi gh-stakes test, the subject gains instant credibility with the St ate Department of Education ensuri ng funding and instructional time in schools. Even if the music section did not weig h as heavily as readi ng or math, music would play a role in determining school success, and could not be ignored by sc hool administration. Integrating music into the core curriculum is important to the success and longevity of music in schools. Music education is left out of the testing process because of its difficult nature of evaluation. If music is not being included on the State high-stakes test, it is not going to be funded and taught. A partic ipating supervisor, stated: We must provide the general public with clean, clear research-based reasons and connections of how music and the arts contri bute to deeper conceptu al understanding in other content as well as deve loping group processes and creativ e thinking. This must be concrete information that is spread across the Nation. Argabright (2005) states that because the current trend in education focuses on student achievement, curricular integrati on is essential to prevent redu ctions in music education. Argabright lists musics contributions to a childs total educ ation. Music can be used for: Improving spatial reasoning ability, which enhances ma th and science skills. Developing the ability to understand and use symbols in new contexts. Helping students develop dec oding and interpretation skills. Increasing students vocabul ary and language skills. Fostering student creativity.

PAGE 77

77 Allowing students to exerci se problem-solving skills Encouraging self-discipline. Educating teachers of core content classes will help promote music education and take the fear out of incorporating music activities in the non-music cla ssroom. It is up to the music educators to take the initiative in promo ting music education across the curriculum. Improving music advocacy is a necessary step in promoting music education in public schools. Elpus (2007) states that music educat ors cannot expect policym akers to understand why music is important to students. Public pol icy is based on accurate knowledge and informed judgment. Elpus continues by sta ting that advocacy helps others to understand music educators beliefs and commitments. Elpus states: Teachers in the field bear responsibility for improving music education advocacy as well. It is infinitely easier to advocate on behalf of strong school music programs that offer comprehensive, sequential instruction than it is to advocate for music programs of substandard quality (p. 17). No one understands the importance of music education for students more than music educators. The benefits of music education mu st be communicated to State Departments of Education as well as the National Legislation. Future Research Research that correlates test scores with st udents who have spent additional class time in remedial reading and math classes should be examined. Are the remedial courses and the doubling-up on core subjects improving scores on high-stakes tests? I believe it would be interesting to determine if these methods are work ing in schools. Anothe r area of research could be an examination of test scores from the schools that have reported an incr ease in music and arts participation since the enactment of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002).

PAGE 78

78 Block scheduling and the inclusion of college credit classes for high school students should be examined as further impacts in student partic ipation in music classes. Supervisors that participated in this study incl uded concerns for students and thei r need to enroll in advanced placement classes to boost high school grade point averages for college entrance requirements. Finally, an area of future research could be a correlation between th e ability of the music director and the success of the music programs. There are several music programs in each state that are thriving in the face of state high -stakes testing. Are the impacts felt in music programs the fault of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002), or is this legislation being used as a scapegoat for educators? Conclusions Through an examination of the results of this survey, the following conclusions can be stated: Students were offered a higher number and vari ety of music classes before the enactment of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002). Since the enactment of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002), a majority of music programs have experienced a decrease in funding since 2001. More instructional time was spent in music classes in 2001 than in 2007 as a result of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002). More students particip ated in music classes in 2001 than did in 2007 due to the enacting of NCLB (H. Res. 1, 2002). Based on the results of this survey, high-stakes testing has negatively impacted a majority of music programs in the United States. The minor ity of supervisors that indicated an increase in student participation, since 2001, stat ed that high-stakes testing most likely did not have a part in the promotion of music education. The pressures of accountability are causing a curricular shift in emphasis towards tested material Reading and math classes are at the center of attention. In an effort to improve test scor es, students who perform poorly in reading and math had to drop elective classes in order to double-up on core su bjects and remediation. Music educators are

PAGE 79

79 very aware of the importance of arts in the curriculum and it is time that administrators and legislatures understand the value of music in the curriculum for students. New forms of testing need to be developed that in corporate music sections. Edu cators should work to develop a measurement for performance assessment to be included on the state high-stakes test. If inclusion is not a possibility, music educat ors should push for a new method of school accountability, a method that reward s schools for increased student participation in fine arts classes. Music educators have to be the loude st voices of advocacy and the ones to change policy. State legislators must be made aware of th e impacts of high-stakes testing in all areas of the music program because without music in sch ools students lose a medium of creativity and discovery.

PAGE 80

80 APPENDIX A SURVEY Personal Information: 1. How many years have you been an arts supervisor? 2. Are you a District or State level supervisor? a. District Level Supervisor b. State Level Supervisor 3. Were you a fine arts teacher before becomi ng an arts supervisor? If so, how many years did you teach, and which art form did you teach? a. Yes, taught art b. Yes, taught music c. Yes, taught theatre/drama d. Yes, taught dance e. No, did not teach fine arts i. Please indicate number of years taught 4. In which State do you supervise? 5. How many music educat ors do you supervise? 6. Please include your e-mail address if you woul d like a copy of the results sent to you (optional). Test Information: 1. Does your State Department of Education ad minister a high-stakes test? If yes, please continue. If no, pleas e submit your survey now a. Yes b. No 2. Does the high-stakes test have a section devoted to the arts? a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know 3. If yes, what content areas are co vered? Check all that apply. a. Music Theory b. Music History c. Music Appreciation d. Jazz History/Improvisation e. Other (please specify)

PAGE 81

81 Impact on Curriculum Since 2001: 1. Has there been a change in the amount a nd variety of music classes offered since 2001? Check all that apply. a. Number of Classes has Increased b. Variety of Classes has Increased c. Number of Classes has Decreased d. Variety of lasses has Decreased e. No Change in Variety f. No Change in Number Impact on Funding since 2001: 1. Has funding for music programs changed since 2001? a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know 2. If yes, could you please estimate a per centage of increase or decrease? a. Increased Percentage in Funding b. Decreased Percentage in Funding 3. Have any music teaching positions been eliminated because of reduced funding since 2001? a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know d. If more than one, please provide number Impact on Instructional Time since 2001: 1. What is the difference in amount of hour s students spent in music classes in 2007 versus the amount of hours student s spent in music classes in 2001? a. More hours spent in music classes in 2007 b. More hours spent in music classes in 2001 c. No Change d. Dont Know e. Number of Hours 2. Have music educators had to stop instruc tion during their music class in order to teach students a test strategy or prepare for a test item? a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know

PAGE 82

82 3. If yes, how many hours of in struction do you estimate musi c educators lose per year? a. 1-5 hours b. 6-10 hours c. 11-15 hours d. More than 15 hours per year 4. Are music rooms used as testing sites? a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know 5. If yes, how many hours of in struction per year do you estimate music educators lost as a result? a. 1-5 hours b. 6-10 hours c. 11-15 hours d. More than 15 hours per year 6. Have music educators been required to teach Reading classes? a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know 7. If yes, how many music classes have been removed from the program in order to allow music teachers to teach Reading? a. 0 classes b. 1-2 classes c. 3-4 classes d. More than 4 music classes removed from the daily schedule 8. Have music educators changed their sche dules in order to teach a performance ensemble before or after school due to lost class time as a result of increased teaching requirements in Reading and Math? If yes, can you estimate a percentage of music educators in your District or State (based on supervisor le vel) that this has impacted? a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know d. Estimate Percentage 9. Have music educators given up planning periods to teach ensembles because their regular ensemble time is devoted to Reading and Math remediation? a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know

PAGE 83

83 Impact on Music Students: 1. Have music students had to drop a music class inorder to take a c ourse in Reading or Math? a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know 2. How does the amount of students participa ting in music classe s in 2007 compare to the amount of students participating in mu sic classes in 2001: Please estimate a percentage of change, if you are able. a. Percentage Increased b. Percentage Decreased c. No Change d. Dont Know 3. Do you feel that this change in participation can be attrib uted to high stakes testing? a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know Additional Comments: 1. Please provide any additional comments on the Impact of high-stakes testing on music education.

PAGE 84

84 APPENDIX B IMPACT ON CURRICULUM BY STATE Table B-1. Supervisors indicating change in classes offered since 2001 State Number Variety of Number of Variety of No No No (number of of classes classes has classes has classes has change change report supervisors) has has decreased decreased in in increased increased variety number AZ (5) 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 CA (8) 3 3 2 1 2 2 0 CO (1) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 CT (7) 2 0 5 3 0 0 0 DE (1) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 FL (6) 1 1 4 3 0 0 1 GA (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IA (3) 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 ID (2) 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 IL (6) 1 1 2 2 1 2 0 IN (2) 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 KS (2) 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 KY (1) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 LA (4) 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 MA (6) 0 0 3 2 0 2 2 MD (9) 1 2 3 2 2 3 2 MI (2) 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 MN (2) 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 MO (5) 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 MT (1) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 NC (3) 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 NE (2) 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 NJ (11) 5 5 0 0 2 1 5 NV (3) 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 NY (16) 8 7 4 4 3 2 1 OH (6) 1 1 1 0 4 1 0 OK (3) 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 PA (7) 1 2 3 2 2 2 1 RI (1) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 SC (4) 1 1 3 2 0 0 0 SD (1) 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 TN (2) 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 TX (2) 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 UT (1) 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 VA (1) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 VT (1) 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 WA (4) 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 WY (1) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 85

85 APPENDIX C IMPACT ON FUNDING BY STATE Table C-1. Funding changes since 2001 State Estimated increase Estimated decrease AZ 0% 30% CA 15% 22% CO No report No report CT 17% 28% DE 12% 0% FL 15% 10% GA No report No report IA 20% 25% ID 25% 0% IL 0% 22% IN 8% 0% KS 0% 37% KY 0% 50% LA 10% 0% MA 20% 30% MD 6% Report (no %) MT No report No report NC 5% 0% NE 0% 10% NJ 16% 15% NV 0% 32% NY 116% 36% OH 100% 48% OK 0% 28% PA 5% 30% RI 30% 0% SC 10% 25% SD 0% 25% TN No report No report TX 251% 0% UT No report No report VA No report No report VT No report No report WA 10% 0% WY 0% 15%

PAGE 86

86 APPENDIX D IMPACT ON INSTRUCTIONAL TIME BY STATE Table D-1. Hours spent in musi c classes in 2001 versus 2007 State More in 2007 More in 2001 No change Dont know (supervisors) AZ (5) 0 2 1 1 CA (8) 1 4 3 0 CO (1) 0 0 1 0 CT (7) 0 4 2 0 DE (1) 1 0 0 0 FL (6) 0 4 1 0 GA (2) 0 0 0 0 IA (3) 0 1 0 1 ID (2) 0 1 0 0 IL (6) 0 2 2 0 IN (2) 1 0 1 0 KS (2) 1 0 0 1 KY (1) 0 1 0 0 LA (4) 0 1 1 0 MA (6) 0 2 1 0 MD (9) 1 2 2 0 MI (2) 0 0 1 1 MN (2) 0 1 1 0 MO (5) 0 3 1 0 MT (1) 0 0 0 0 NC (3) 1 0 2 0 NE (2) 0 1 1 0 NJ (11) 1 1 4 1 NV (3) 0 1 1 1 NY (16) 1 2 9 3 OH (6) 0 1 5 0 OK (3) 0 2 0 1 PA (7) 0 2 3 1 RI (1) 0 0 1 0 SC (4) 0 3 0 1 SD (1) 0 1 0 0 TN (2) 0 1 1 0 TX (2) 0 2 2 0 UT (1) 0 0 1 0 VA (1) 0 0 0 0 VT (1) 0 0 1 0 WA (4) 0 1 1 1 WY (1) 0 0 1 0

PAGE 87

87 APPENDIX E IMPACT ON STUDENT PARTICIPATION BY STATE Table E-1. Changes in stude nt participation since 2001 State Increased Decreased No change Dont know (supervisors) AZ (5) 0 2 0 2 CA (8) 2 3 0 0 CO (1) 1 0 0 0 CT (7) 0 5 0 0 DE (1) 1 0 0 0 FL (6) 1 2 0 1 GA (2) 0 0 0 0 IA (3) 0 1 0 1 ID (2) 0 1 0 0 IL (6) 0 3 1 0 IN (2) 1 0 0 1 KS (2) 0 1 0 1 KY (1) 0 1 0 0 LA (4) 1 1 0 1 MA (6) 0 2 0 1 MD (9) 1 2 1 0 MI (2) 0 1 1 0 MN (2) 0 1 0 0 MO (5) 1 1 1 0 MT (1) 0 0 0 0 NC (3) 1 2 0 0 NE (2) 0 1 0 0 NJ (11) 3 4 0 1 NV (3) 0 1 1 1 NY (16) 4 6 2 2 OH (6) 3 2 0 0 OK (3) 0 2 0 0 PA (7) 1 3 0 1 RI (1) 0 0 1 0 SC (4) 0 3 0 0 SD (1) 0 1 0 0 TN (2) 1 0 1 0 TX (2) 0 1 0 1 UT (1) 0 0 0 0 VA (1) 0 0 1 0 VT (1) 0 0 1 0 WA (4) 1 0 1 1 WY (1) 0 1 0 0

PAGE 88

88 APPENDIX F PARTICIPANT AND TEST INFORMATION Table F-1. Years experience as a fine arts supervisor 0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years 26+ years 58 36 26 15 4 7 Note. 146 supervisors reported in formation, 68 supervisors did not. Table F-2. Years experience as a fine arts teacher before becoming an arts supervisor 0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years 26+ years 28 12 24 19 19 30 Note. 122 supervisors reported in formation, 92 supervisors did not. Table F-3. Disciplines taught before becoming a fine arts supervisor Art Music Theatre/Drama Dance Did not teach fine arts 3 136 6 0 5 Note. 150 supervisors reported information, 64 did not. Table F-4. Supervisors indicating administration of state test Yes No Skipped question 121 12 81 Table F-5. State test in clusion of fine arts Yes No Dont know Skipped question 7 112 3 92 Table F-6. Fine arts areas covered by high-stakes test Music Music Music Jazz hist ory Other skipped question theory history appreciation and improvisation 7 4 5 3 2 207

PAGE 89

89 Table F-7. Participant information State Number of supervisors Number of educators represented participating fr om state supervised from state AZ 5 1,942 CA 8 291 CO 1 45 CT 7 537 DE 1 8 FL 6 10 GA 2 72 IA 3 1,728 ID 2 38 IL 6 342 IN 2 36 KS 2 33 KY 1 5 LA 4 56 MA 6 348 MD 9 2,777 MI 2 27 MN 2 0 MO 5 298 MT 1 200 NC 3 102 NE 2 7 NJ 11 457 NV 3 83 NY 16 3,379 OH 6 151 OK 3 158 PA 7 359 RI 1 7 SC 4 230 SD 1 2 TN 2 93 TX 2 10 UT 1 8 VA 1 100 VT 1 65 WA 4 65 WY 1 23

PAGE 90

90 LIST OF REFERENCES Abrams, L. M., Pedulla, J. J., & Madaus, G. F. (2003). Views from the classroom: teachers opinions of statewid e testing programs. Theory into Practice, 42 18-29. Amrein, A. T., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). The eff ects of high-stakes tes ting on student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 5 32-38. Argabright, R. (2005). Connecting with music (music education). General Music Today 18 46. Ashford, E. (2004). NCLBs unfunded arts programs seek refuge. Education Digest 70 22-26. Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., &Thomas, K. F. (2000). Whats at stake in high-stakes testing: teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 384-396. Barnett, B. (2005). The future of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56 272-278. Berube, C. T. (2004). Are standards preventing good teaching? Clearing House, 77 264-267. Birk, L. (2003). Collateral Damage In Spotlight on high-stakes testing (pp.75-81). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Bresler, L. (2005). Music and the intellect: pers pectives, interpretations and implications for education. Phi Delta Kappan, 87 24-31. Buchbinder, J. (2003). The arts step out from the wings. In Spotlight on high-stakes testing (pp. 82-91). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Burkholder, J. P., Grout, D. J., & Claude P. V. (2006). A history of western music. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Chapman, L. H., & Golding, C. M. (2005). 2005 school arts teacher viewpoint survey: the results. School Arts, 1 51-55. Chapman, L. H. (2004). No child left behind in art? Arts Education Policy Review, 106 3-17. Circle, D. (2005). To test or not to test. Music Educators Journal, 1 4. Conrad, C. (2006). American music education: a struggle for time and curriculum. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 86 31-34. Eady, I., & Wilson, J. D. (2004). The in fluence of music on core learning. Education, 2 243248. Eisner, E. W. (2000). Arts education policy? Arts Education Policy Review, 3 4-6.

PAGE 91

91 Elpus, K. (2007). Improving music education advocacy. Arts Education Policy Review 108 1318. Enrique, G. M., & Flores, S. Y. (2002). Reform by shame: managing the stigma of labels in high-stakes testing. Educational Foundations, 2 93-106. Flinders, D. J. (2005). Th e costs of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 5 621-625. Fowler, C. (1996). Strong arts, strong schools: the promising potential and shortsighted Disregard of the arts in american schoo ling. New York: Oxford University Press. Giordano, G. (2005). How testing came to dominate american schools. New York: Peterlang. Graham, G., Parker, S., Wilkins, L. M., Fras er, R., Westfall, S., & Tembo, M. (2002). The effects of high-stakes testing on elementary school art, music, and physical education. The Journal of Physical Education & Dance, 73 51-54. H. Res. 1, 107th Cong, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002) (enacted). Public Law 107-110, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Short Title). [Electronic Version]. Hanning, B. R. (2002). Concise history of we stern music. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Hilliard, A. G. (2000). Excellence in educati on versus high-stakes standardized testing. Journal Of Teacher Education, 51 293-304. Jennings, J., & Rentner, D. S. ( 2006). Ten big effects of the no child left behind act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88 110-113. Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standard ized testing. Portsm outh, NH: Heinemann. Lewis, A. C. (2003). Beyond testing. The Education Digest, 69 70. Mark, M. L. (1996). Contemporary music education. 3rd Ed. Belmont, CA: Schirmer. Mishook, J. J., & Kornhaber, M. L. (2006). Arts Integration in an era of accountability. Arts Education Policy Review, 4 3-11. Noddings, N. (2005). What does it m ean to educate the whole child? Educational Leadership, 63 8-13. Paris, S. G., & Urdan, T. (2000). Policies and pr actices of high-stakes testing that influence teachers and schools. Issues in Education, 6 1-19.

PAGE 92

92 Phelps, R. P. (2005). Defending standardized testing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Popham, J. W. (2001). The truth about testing. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Thomas, M. R. (2005). High-stakes testing: Co ping with collateral damage. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vogler, K. E. (2002). The impact of high-stakes, state mandated student performance assessment on teachers instructional practices. Education, 1, 39-51. Wilkins, J. L. M., Graham, G., Parker, S., We stfall, S., Fraser, F. G., & Tembo, M. (2003). Time in the arts and physical education and school achievement. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 6 721-734. Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (2000). The arts in edu cation: Evaluating the evidence for a causal link. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34 3-10. Yeh, S. S. (2001). Tests worth teaching to: Cons tructing state mandated tests that emphasize critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 30 12-17. Yell, M. L. & Drasgow, E. (2005). No child left behind: A guide for professionals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

PAGE 93

93 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Christopher J. Heffner was born in Youngstown, Ohio. He received his Bachelor of Music Education from Western Kentucky University in 1997, and served as band director for Todd County Central High School in Elkton, Ke ntucky from 1997-2001. While on staff at Todd Central, he served as director of the athletics and concert bands. Mr. He ffner also taught choir, music appreciation, and humanities. Under hi s direction, the concer t ensemble received distinguished ratings at regiona l concert festivals, while the marching band qualified for state regional competition from 1997-2000, with a State se mi-final appearance in 1999. Mr. Heffner also had the privilege of co-directing the vocal and dance variety show; TC Showcase in 1998 and 1999. In 2003, Mr. Heffner received his Master of Music in trumpet performance from the University of Florida. In the fall semester of 2003, he began coursework at the University of Florida for his doctorate in music education with an emphasis in wind conducting. While at the university, Mr. Heffner was a grad uate assistant with the Florid a bands, where he was conductor of one of the concert bands and graduate c onductor of the symphonic band and wind symphony. He was the instructor for the brass methods cour se for two years, and a teaching assistant with the secondary methods course fo r one year where his responsib ilities included observing student teachers. Also during his time at the University of Florida, Mr. Heffner maintained a private trumpet studio and mentored undergraduate conducto rs. Mr. Heffner also worked with the Gator marching band for three years and was a co-conduc tor of the basketball bands for two. He was co-principal trumpet in the University of Florida Wind Symphony for six years, University Orchestra for two, and a member of the Univers ity of Florida Jazz ensemble for one. Conducting teachers included Dr. David Waybright and Dr. J ohn Carmichael. Trumpet instructors included Dr. Joyce Davis and Dr. Marshall Scott.

PAGE 94

94 Mr. Heffner remained an active trumpeter in Florida, performing with the Gainesville Symphony Orchestra, Gainesville Philharmonic, a nd the Gainesville Brass Quintet. He is a member of Music Educators Nati onal Conference, International Trumpet Guild, Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Kappa Alpha Fr aternity, and an honorary memb er of both Kappa Kappa Psi Honorary Band Fraternity and Tau Be ta Sigma Honorary Band Sorority