Not really included, they are more implied. I love the nine standards that are currently in place. I wish they had just elaborated upon those. Another blogger, Tim Purdum, has already shared his thoughts of the draft and agrees that the standards focus on creating and improvising, but don't address the steps required to learn the basic fundamentals. Wendy Davidson, a middle school band and choir teacher in my district, shares the same sentiment, "I totally agree that there is no standard for ELEMENTS OF MUSIC! When I did the survey review, I mentioned that if they are not addressed, that is a major problem. It's like building a beautiful house on sand instead of a foundation."
How can a student analyze and create music without first learning the basic elements? The students need a strong understanding of the musical elements before they can apply higher-order thinking skills like analysis.
No. Our school and district requires that we post the learning objective as an "I can . . . " statement in student-friendly terms. (If you missed this post, click this link.) Many of the music standards are very long and technical. Here is a music anchor standard under responding, "Explain how your analysis of the structure and context of the work influence your response." The essential question related to this standard is "How does understanding the structure and context of the music influence our response?" No student I teach (K-5) would understand what this means. The writers of the standards are thinking about the teachers and not the students. I would like to see age-appropriate language under each grade level so that we do not have to reinterpret the standards for our student learning objectives.
Yes! Each grade level (Pre-K through 8th) has a description of how they should fulfill each anchor standard. I love how the early grades use language like "with guidance" and "with support." The language also progresses through the hierarchy of Bloom's taxonomy. Take a look at the second page of the Music Standards under Responding:
My colleague, Wendy, also shared her thoughts on how the standards would apply the ensemble setting vs. humanities classes,
"I know from experience that by the time they get into middle school they are not ready (in a general music setting) for the 6-8 standards. I think the standards work very well for ensemble classes, but not for general music or arts and humanities."
The high school standards have not yet been shared because they will not be structured by grade level, since many elective classes may contain students of many grade levels all learning the same content. Instead, they will be written in terms of a student's 1st year of study, 2nd year of study, etc. Perhaps they should have done something similar for the middle grades to address this difference in learning curve between students enrolled in ensemble courses vs. students in a general music class or humanities class.
Consistency Across the Art Forms?
I also teach visual arts one day a week because we do not have a full-time art teacher at my school. I also try to integrate dance and drama into my music classes, when possible. Because of this, I took a look at the standards for all art forms. Aside from the common processes of Creating, Performing/Presenting/Producing, and Responding, there are major differences between each art from. The music standards include 4 or 5 pages under each artistic process. However, the visual art process of creating includes 11 pages. Also, the music standards only have one essential question under each Anchor Standard while the visual art standards have 2-3 essential questions under each anchor standard. I also feel like the visual art standards are written in more student-friendly language than the music standards. I think the writing teams need to communicate more with each other so that there is more consistency with language and structure across the art forms.