The California Music Project Teacher Training Program as an intervention in poverty and income inequality

Boston University OpenBU http://open.bu.edu Theses & Dissertations Boston University Theses & Dissertations 2015 The California Music Project Teacher Training Program as an intervention in poverty and income inequality https://hdl.handle.net/2144/15431 Boston University BOSTON UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF FINE ARTS Dissertation THE CALIFORNIA MUSIC PROJECT TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAM AS AN INTERVENTION IN POVERTY AND INCOME INEQUALITY by KARA ELIZABETH IRELAND D’AMBROSIO B.M., University of New Hampshire, 1995 M.M., Holy Names University, 2001 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Musical Arts 2015 © 2015 by KARA ELIZABETH IRELAND D’AMBROSIO All rights reserved Approved by First Reader _______________________________________________ Susan Wharton Conkling, Ph.D. Professor of Music, Music Education Second Reader _______________________________________________ Donna T. Emmanuel, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Music Education University of North Texas Third Reader ________________________________________________ Andrew Goodrich, D.M.A. Assistant Professor of Music, Music Education Dedication I dedicate my dissertation to an incredible support network of family and friends. First, to my loving husband, Christopher D’Ambrosio, and son, Christian, your love and constant encouragement has supplied me with that extra energy to complete this endeavor. To my mother, Grace Ireland, step-father, Pete McCarn, sister, Laura Stark and brother, Brian Ireland perpetually help me keep life in perspective by balancing hard work and fun and prayed to help me persevere. To my special friends, Laurel Daniels, Nicole Westmoreland, and Jessica Wansker – my best friends since childhood – you’ve always stood by me. I also would like to offer a special tribute in memory of my father, Samuel William “Bill” Ireland. You were the best dad anyone could ever hope to receive. You instilled a “never give up” attitude and always maintained that with music in my life I could accomplish anything. I thank you for your endearing love and sage mentoring all the years you were with us. I love you dearly. Further, in memory, I also dedicate this dissertation to my father-in-law, John Anthony D’Ambrosio, who like my dad, was incredibly supportive of the pursuit of my doctorate. He taught my son how to cook and was a caring grandfather. His wife, Joyce D’Ambrosio, passed away before I started my doctoral program; however, when I first began talking about earning a doctorate she urged me to, “Go for it!” iv   Acknowledgments With much gratitude in my heart, I want to thank Dr. Susan Wharton Conkling, my Boston University adviser and chair of my dissertation committee, for her countless hours of reading, encouragement, guidance, and patience throughout this incredible learning experience. She is an astonishing mentor and teacher. I am also grateful for the expertise, instruction, and support from my committee members, Dr. Donna Emmanuel and Dr. Andrew Goodrich. I would also like to thank Dr. Diana Hollinger for her enthusiastic support for this research and several California Music Project Teacher Training Program schools in San Jose for allowing me to conduct my case study on CMP. Also, special thanks to the mentors and fellows of CMP who shared with me their experiences about this intervention and made the data collection enjoyable. Finally, several colleagues at Boston University were tremendously supportive through this process – Dr. Evan Kent, Dr. Linda Foster, Tammy Sutliff, and Dr. Tammy Kunst – my heart is filled from your kindness and generosity of spirit. v   THE CALIFORNIA MUSIC PROJECT TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAM AS AN INTERVENTION IN POVERTY AND INCOME INEQUALITY KARA ELIZABETH IRELAND D’AMBROSIO Boston University College of Fine Arts, 2015 Major Professor: Susan Wharton Conkling, Ph.D., Professor of Music, Music Education ABSTRACT This dissertation examined the California Music Project Teacher Training Program, which was designed to address inequities of music education in high poverty schools, support music teachers so they remained in those schools, and encourage preservice music teachers to build personal and professional capacity for work in underresourced school environments. I viewed CMP within a broader framework of income inequality that directly impacted children, families and neighborhoods, and through those mechanisms indirectly impacted school functions and educational attainment for children. In light of a body of research on interventions in poverty and income inequality designed to stabilize school operations and thus improve children’s educational attainment, I framed CMP as a similar intervention, designed to stabilize music programs and music teaching in the San Jose area. The San Jose site of CMP thus became the case of interest and I sought a broad cross-section of mentors and fellows associated with that site to inform the research. Data analysis revealed two systemic impacts on CMP schools: 1) California had low per-pupil spending overall, and in some CMP schools, per pupil spending was lower than the state average; and 2) most CMP schools were required to provide remedial instruction for large numbers of students. Due to budgetary pressures vi   from remedial programs, there were few funds available for music programs, and due to the many students who needed remedial instruction in CMP schools, overall music enrollment was low, yet class sizes were large. The mentors were sustained in several ways by having fellows who helped in their music classrooms; however, mentors did not attribute their longevity to CMP, and several CMP mentors left their teaching positions in under-resourced schools. Prior to 2012, most fellows initially became employed as music teachers in under-resourced schools, but only a few remained in those positions. vii   Table of Contents Dedication ......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................. v ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures.................................................................................................................. xii List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... xiii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................... 2 Direct Impact of Income Inequality on Families ....................................................... 3 Indirect Impact of Income Inequality on Schools...................................................... 6 Indirect impact on teaching......................................................................................... 8 Music teaching. ........................................................................................................... 9 Income Inequality and Music in California Schools................................................ 10 California Music Project Teacher Training Program............................................. 11 Summary and Need for Study ................................................................................... 13 Purpose and Guiding Questions ................................................................................ 16 Orientation to the Study............................................................................................. 16 Chapter 2: Interventions in Poverty ............................................................................. 18 Federal and State Interventions for Families and Children ................................... 19 Income subsidies....................................................................................................... 20 Quality of childcare................................................................................................... 22 The Early Training Project.................................................................................... 22 High/Scope Perry Preschool Project..................................................................... 24 Syracuse Family Development Research Program............................................... 25 Summary. .............................................................................................................. 27 Head Start.............................................................................................................. 28 Interventions Directed towards Schools ................................................................... 32 Class size reduction................................................................................................... 33 Comprehensive school reforms................................................................................. 34 Success for All. ..................................................................................................... 35 Comer schools....................................................................................................... 38 Career academies. ................................................................................................. 39 Summary. .............................................................................................................. 41 Charter schools...................................................................................................... 42 Interventions for Teachers ......................................................................................... 44 Financial incentives. ................................................................................................. 44 North Carolina. ..................................................................................................... 45 California Governor’s Teaching Fellowship. ....................................................... 46 Summary. .............................................................................................................. 47 New teacher mentoring and induction. ..................................................................... 48 viii   Chicago Public Schools. ....................................................................................... 48 Texas Beginning Educator Support System. ........................................................ 50 Smith and Ingersoll secondary analysis................................................................ 51 Mathematica study. ............................................................................................... 53 Summary. .............................................................................................................. 54 Preservice Teacher Preparation ................................................................................ 55 Preservice preparation............................................................................................... 56 Alternate routes to licensure. .................................................................................... 56 Summary...................................................................................................................... 57 Chapter 3: Method and Procedures.............................................................................. 61 Site and Informant Recruitment ............................................................................... 63 Researcher Positionality............................................................................................. 64 Data Generation .......................................................................................................... 65 Interviews.................................................................................................................. 65 Documents and other artifacts. ................................................................................. 66 Observations and field notes..................................................................................... 67 Data Analysis............................................................................................................... 69 A codebook. .............................................................................................................. 69 Case study touchstones. ............................................................................................ 71 Audit. ........................................................................................................................ 72 Emergent themes....................................................................................................... 73 Chapter 4: Mentors......................................................................................................... 75 Beliefs about Poverty and Beliefs about Music Education ..................................... 80 Music Teaching Environment.................................................................................... 82 Need for a Teaching Fellow........................................................................................ 88 Outcomes of CMP ....................................................................................................... 92 Summary...................................................................................................................... 93 Chapter 5: Fellows .......................................................................................................... 94 Preparation.................................................................................................................. 95 Beliefs about music teaching. ................................................................................... 96 Beliefs about poor people. ........................................................................................ 97 Offering Help............................................................................................................... 98 Interactions between Fellow and Mentor ............................................................... 100 Observation. ............................................................................................................ 100 Planning. ................................................................................................................. 102 Opportunity and outcome. ...................................................................................... 103 Outcomes. ............................................................................................................... 104 Limitations of CMP .................................................................................................. 107 Summary.................................................................................................................... 109 Chapter 6: The California Music Project Teacher Training Program as an Intervention in Poverty and Income Inequality......................................................... 110 Indirect Impacts of Income Inequality on CMP Schools and Teachers .............. 110 ix   Budget pressures and lack of funding..................................................................... 112 Student enrollment in music. .................................................................................. 115 Variety of music offerings. ..................................................................................... 117 Violence and disruption. ......................................................................................... 118 Impacts Ameliorated by a Fellow............................................................................ 118 Managing large class size. ...................................................................................... 119 Expanding musical expertise. ................................................................................. 119 Easing mentors’ isolation........................................................................................ 120 Preventing disruption. ............................................................................................. 120 Summary. ................................................................................................................ 121 Learning to Teach in an Under-Resourced School................................................ 123 2012–13 fellows...................................................................................................... 123 Other mentoring. ..................................................................................................... 125 Former fellows. ....................................................................................................... 125 Influence of the Fellowship on Fellows’ Professional Decisions ........................... 126 Summary. ................................................................................................................ 129 Chapter 7: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications............................................... 132 Methods...................................................................................................................... 134 Summary of Preliminary Findings.......................................................................... 135 Mentors’ backgrounds and teaching environments. ............................................... 135 Needing a fellow. .................................................................................................... 136 Mentors’ outcomes.................................................................................................. 137 Fellows’ backgrounds and preparation. .................................................................. 137 Fellows’ help and interaction with mentors............................................................ 138 Outcomes. ............................................................................................................... 138 Limitations. ............................................................................................................. 139 Summary of Primary Findings ................................................................................ 139 Impacts of poverty and income inequality on CMP schools. ................................. 140 Learning to teach in an under-resourced school. .................................................... 141 Significant finding. ................................................................................................. 141 Conclusions................................................................................................................ 142 Sustaining music programs. .................................................................................... 143 Contributing to music teachers’ longevity.............................................................. 143 Preparing teachers for work in under-resourced schools........................................ 145 Implications for Practice .......................................................................................... 146 Orientation seminar................................................................................................. 147 Professional learning community. .......................................................................... 148 Selection of schools. ............................................................................................... 149 Selection of mentors. .............................................................................................. 149 A broader context for professional development.................................................... 151 Implications for Further Research.......................................................................... 152 Replication at other CMP sites. .............................................................................. 153 Longevity in teaching music................................................................................... 154 x   Uncovering fellows’ beliefs.................................................................................... 154 Survey of California music educators..................................................................... 155 Comparing perceptions of mentors and administrators. ......................................... 155 Coda ........................................................................................................................... 156 Appendix A: Interventions to Mitigate Against Poverty and Income Inequality... 159 Appendix A: Interventions to Mitigate Against Poverty and Income Inequality... 160 Appendix B: Participant Recruitment Email............................................................. 163 Appendix C: Consent Form ......................................................................................... 165 Appendix D: Interview Protocols ................................................................................ 170 Appendix E: Permission Request for Observation .................................................... 179 Appendix F: Protocol for Observations and Field Notes .......................................... 181 Appendix G: Excerpt from Codebook ........................................................................ 184 References...................................................................................................................... 187 xi   List of Figures Figure 1.1. Ecological Perspective of Income Inequality................................................... 3   Figure 3.1. Excerpt from memo book. ............................................................................. 68   Figure 3.2. Emergent themes............................................................................................ 74   Figure 4.1. Mentors’ Information..................................................................................... 83   Figure 6.1. Ecological model of affects of income inequality on CMP schools, music programs and music teachers .......................................................................................... 122   xii   List of Abbreviations AMO API AYP CAT CELDT CMP CSR CSRQ CST CTBS/4 ELA ESL FDRP FESNOJIV Annual Measureable Objectives Annual Performance Index Adequate Yearly Progress California Achievement Tests California English Language Development Test California Music Project Teacher Training Program Comprehensive school reform Comprehensive School Reform Quality California Standards Test Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, Fourth Edition English Language Arts English as a Second Language Syracuse Family Development Research Program Fundación del Estado para El Sistema Nacional de las Orquestas Juveniles e Infantiles de Venezuela GDP Gross Domestic Product GTF Governor’s Teaching Fellowship HLS Home Language Survey PI Program Improvement NELS National Education Longitudinal Survey NEWWS National Evaluation of Welfare to Work Strategies PPVT Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test PPVT III Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III SASS Schools and Staffing Survey SDP School Development Program SES Socioeconomic Status SFA Success for All SSP Self-Sufficiency Project Stanford TASK Stanford Test Academic Skills TFA Teacher Follow-up Survey TxBESS Texas Beginning Educator Support System Project STAR Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio WISC-R Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised xiii   Chapter 1: Introduction Research on the growing income gap between the richest and the poorest Americans shows that poverty and income inequality impacts families directly, and through the impact on families, poverty and income inequality impacts school operations and children’s educational attainment. Although music programs and teaching are only a small part of overall school operations, income inequality creates challenges for music education programs in California. California has relatively low funding per pupil compared to other states, and there is pressure on already diminished resources in nearly every school. Little funding exists for music programs, yet disparity is visible between music education in more affluent schools and music education in poorer schools. Administrators in some low-income elementary schools report that they cannot offer music at all, and others report very limited staffing (see Woodworth et al., 2007). The California Music Project Teacher Training Program (CMP) is designed to address inequities of music education in high poverty schools, to support music teachers so they remain in those schools, and to encourage preservice music teachers to build professional skills and confidence so they can work successfully in under-resourced school environments; thus, it is the focus of my research. In this chapter, I offer background on growth in income disparity in the U.S., and I introduce readers to Duncan and Murnane’s model that frames income inequality in an ecological perspective. Then, I use that framework to detail how income inequality impacts California Schools, particularly in regard to arts programs, and I suggest that the CMP is designed as one possible intervention. After demonstrating a need for the current 1 study and describing its purpose and questions, I orient readers to the remaining chapters. Background American’s economic growth became drastically unequal between 1977 and 2007. Although the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capital doubled during this period, poorer families saw an income increase of only 7%, whereas middle class families’ income grew 34% and the richest families’ income grew nearly 300% (Duncan & Murnane, 2011, p. 5). Education formerly was key to social mobility; however, in more recent history, those in poverty were unable to use education as a way towards a better life and future for their families. Instead, they fell further behind their affluent counterparts (p. 8). Anyon (2005) asserted that U.S. minimum wage, housing and transportation policies segregated “low-income workers of color in urban areas and industrial and other job development in far-flung suburbs,” thus maintaining “poverty in neighborhoods and therefore the schools” (pp. 2–3). She, too, established a connection between income inequality and education. Duncan and Murnane (2011) raised the question, “Has growing income inequality affected families, neighborhoods and local labor markets in a manner that undercuts the effectiveness of schools serving disadvantaged populations?” (p. 7). The researchers adopted an ecological perspective in order to find answers to their question. Duncan and Murnane described their framework as a ecological perspective on income inequality to acknowledge that "changes in these social contexts may in turn affect children's skill acquisition and educational attainments directly, as well as indirectly by influencing how schools operate" (p. 8). Thus, Duncan and Murnane recognized how each facet of the 2 model influenced all the other facets, and when changes occurred in one facet of the model, the entire system was impacted (p. 8). The researchers theorized that income inequality directly affected “families, neighborhoods, and labor markets;” then, through low wages that prevented families from accessing high-quality day care, for example, or through rising crime in low-income neighborhoods, income inequality indirectly affected children’s educational attainment, and also school functions, including teaching (p. 7). I illustrated Duncan and Murnane’s ecological perspective in Figure 1.1, and I adopted this perspective to offer background on the research problem. Income Inequality   Homes/Families Neighborhoods Labor Markets   School Operations (Including Teaching)   Education Attainment     Figure 1.1. Ecological Perspective of Income Inequality Direct Impact of Income Inequality on Families Duncan and Murnane’s model (2011) first showed that income inequality directly impacted families. According to Magnuson and Votruba-Drzal (2009), the conditions of income inequality made low-income parents less able than their more affluent 3 counterparts to purchase books, and other educational materials and afford high-quality childcare or enrichment activities such as summer camp. Regarding financial resources, Anyon (2005) claimed that, where families in the decade of the 1950s spent approximately one third of their budget on food, families in the decade of the 2000s allotted only one fifth of the average family budget to food because considerably more of the family budget was allotted to housing and healthcare (p. 25). Still, financial resources were not the only family resources impacted adversely by income inequality. Kaushal, Magnuson, and Waldfogel (2011) found that low-income parents invested less time with their children, primarily due to single-parenthood and evening work hours (p. 188), and Anyon claimed that parents were simply too exhausted to spend time with their children when they worked two or more low-wage jobs just to make ends meet (p. 61). Underscoring the importance of investing resources in children, Phillips (2011) indicated that reading to young children as well as regular conversation around mealtime correlated positively with children’s verbal skills (p. 211). Considering these activities to be broadly related to literacy, Phillips found that low-income children between birth and age six spent “around 400 fewer hours of time on literacy activities than their highincome counterparts” (p. 221). Moreover, Phillips found that lower family income correlated with fewer instances of children’s exposure to non-routine activities, such as going to the movies, out to a restaurant, or shopping—all activities that held potential for stimulating children’s creative and analytical thinking. Reardon and Bischoff (2011) found that increased segregation of neighborhoods by race and class was another impact of rising income inequality. Researchers found 4 “poor and minority Americans … overrepresented in our most disadvantaged neighborhoods” (Burdick-Will et al., 2011, p. 256). Evidence from experimental research was inconclusive regarding the cause, yet children living in chronically depressed neighborhoods have done poorly in school, particularly on standardized tests (BurdickWill et al., 2011, pp. 264–265). Burdick-Will et al. (2011) offered one plausible explanation for these phenomena; children living in neighborhoods of concentrated economic disadvantage were exposed to more violent crime than their counterparts in more affluent neighborhoods. The researchers found a strong negative correlation between children’s exposure to violent crime and their test scores (p. 270). Ananat, Gassman-Pines, and Gibson-Davis (2011) alternatively explained that community-level (neighborhood) job loss had a detrimental impact on children’s achievement. Adults’ job losses contributed to family mobility, disrupting schooling and creating a stressful atmosphere for all students (Ananat et al., 2011, p. 310). Raudenbush, Jean, and Art (2011) expanded on the finding from Ananat et al. that, although student mobility numbers from year to year had a small impact on academic achievement, mobility had a cumulative effect on academic achievement and potential to become considerable (p. 372). Still a third plausible explanation for poor children’s lack of academic achievement was their levels of stress. Nelson and Sheridan (2011) noted that crime, overcrowding, abuse, and neglect were more likely to happen to children raised in poor neighborhoods rather than to children in more affluent neighborhoods (p. 37). Those conditions created stressful environments for poor children, which, in turn, had a negative impact on children’s language development and school achievement (pp. 36–37). Furthermore, 5 Nelson and Sheridan found that children from poor families had “reductions in prefrontal cortex activity,” which translated into “poor executive function” (p. 38). The researchers postulated that children with poor executive function had difficulty learning in school because they lacked self-regulation (p. 38). Indirect Impact of Income Inequality on Schools Duncan and Murnane’s model (2011) showed that school operations were indirectly impacted by income inequality. In other words, impacts on schools, and the operation of schools occurred due to impacts on families, neighborhoods and labor markets. Primarily, income inequality reduced the property tax base for schools in poor neighborhoods. Anyon (2005) argued that, beginning in the 1960s, “supermarkets, banks, doctors’ offices, department stores, hospitals, pharmacies, theaters, and movie houses” moved to the suburbs (p. 62). Although the flight of businesses to suburban areas affected urban schools, a low property tax base also impacted rural schools, making them less able to offer teacher salaries comparable to affluent suburban school districts, and less able to afford adequate classroom resources. Another indirect impact on schools occurred through violence in and around school neighborhoods, which Kirk and Sampson (2011) called a “major barrier to physical, emotional, and educational well-being” of students (p. 398). In their study of Chicago Public Schools, the researchers found that schools with high percentages of arrested students were significantly more likely to have high percentages of students on free and reduced lunch (Kirk & Sampson, p. 405). “High-arrest schools” had “substantially more discipline problems than low- and moderate-arrest schools,” and 6 students perceived “high-arrest schools to be less safe” (Kirk & Sampson, p. 405). Further, Kirk and Sampson found that teacher commitment and parent involvement were lacking in high-arrest schools (p. 406), but they cautioned their readers not to infer a causal relationship. The relationship between low levels of teacher commitment to higher student arrests seemed to be reciprocal; in other words, low teacher commitment led to greater numbers of student arrests which, in turn, “undermine[d] teacher commitment” (Kirk & Sampson, p. 407). Similarly, school graduation rates were reduced by student arrests. Kirk and Sampson postulated that “the stigma of arrest” weakened the “student’s bond to the school” (p. 412). Raudenbush et al. (2011) explained that low income correlated to family mobility, which in turn had a negative cumulative effect on children’s academic achievement; however, the researchers also showed that family mobility impacted school operation. They wrote that teachers were faced with a dilemma: if they chose to integrate new students, they effectively reduced the time they could spend with their nonmobile students. Such a choice created negative academic consequences for those nonmobile students who were furthest behind. The opposite decision, continuing to focus on the nonmobile students, left the mobile students without needed help (Raudenbush et al., 2011, p. 360). Although the impact of mobility primarily was felt in classrooms, it extended throughout the school. It disrupted social networks, leading to behavior problems outside the classroom and it caused teachers to abandon sustained school reform efforts. Often, it required school administrators to attend to newcomers, thus 7 preventing administrators from focusing more systematically on instructional leadership (p. 371). According to Schwartz and Stiefel (2011), income inequality also indirectly impacted schools in recent years through large numbers of poor immigrants attending schools. The researchers indicated that, statistically, the poorest immigrants were more likely to be South American or Asian, and they were poorer than the native born population of the U.S. (Schwartz & Stiefel, 2011, pp. 422–423). Important to the present study, statistics also indicated that more than 60% of immigrant children in California and Texas had limited English proficiency (p. 425). It remained unclear, according to researchers, whether immigrant status or family mobility (or the intersection of both factors) determined the extent of school expense on second language instruction (p. 436). Indirect impact on teaching. In their model, Duncan and Murnane (2011) considered teaching as one aspect of school operation; thus income inequality indirectly affected teaching. Some impacts of inequality on teaching were described in the previous section, such as the relationship between crime and teachers’ commitment to schools, and the dilemmas faced in regard student mobility. In schools that lacked a property tax base, teachers often were paid less than their counterparts in more affluent suburban schools (Ingersoll, 2001). Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff (2002) found that teachers were “more likely to quit when they work[ed] in districts with lower wages” (p. 39), and similarly, Ingersoll and Smith (2003) found that 75% of teachers who left the classroom expressed dissatisfaction with their paycheck. Large scale studies showed teachers leaving positions in schools with poor work conditions, and the same studies showed that poor 8 work environments were most common in poor schools (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, Ronfeldt, & Wyckoff, 2011; Ladd, 2009). Although some researchers assumed that low-achieving students were one aspect of poor work conditions, Johnson, Kraft, and Papay (2012) contradicted that notion with their cross-sectional study of Massachusetts teachers. They found three key work conditions mattered to teachers’ job commitment: (a) the school’s culture, (b) the principal’s leadership, and (c) strong relationships with colleagues. Further, they discovered that the conditions of work that mattered to teachers’ job commitment also were essential to students’ academic success. Music teaching. Because music education researchers, including Hancock (2009) and Gardner (2010) found no significant differences between the rate of music teachers’ attrition and the rates of other teachers’ attrition, they assumed the indirect impacts of income inequality on teaching applied to all teachers. Nevertheless, such researchers suggested that there might be unique work conditions for music teachers. Gardner, for example, showed that it was common for music teachers to work in itinerant positions and report to several administrators. Isolation was a factor that affected music teachers considerably; as sole teachers of their subject area in a school building, music teachers had little opportunity for collaboration (Futernick, 2007; Haack, 2003; Krueger, 2000; Madsen & Hancock, 2002; Sleppin, 2009). Music educators also were responsible for large numbers of students with emotional and behavioral problems, yet administrators seldom provided paraprofessional support (Gardner, 2010; Krueger, 2000). More specifically related to income inequality, Abril and Gault (2008) surveyed principals and found that schools serving more affluent families had significantly more music course 9 offerings, along with greater variety of course offerings, than schools serving poorer families (p. 68). Income Inequality and Music in California Schools California education code required schools to offer music, visual arts, theatre, and dance in grades 1–12; however, minimum instructional time for arts education was never established (Woodworth et al., 2007, p. 9). Relative to other states, California spent little per pupil, so as Woodworth et al. indicated, arts education was “subject to fluctuations in state resources,” which created “a boom-bust cycle for arts programs and arts education funding” (p. 12). Between 1999 and 2004, overall funding conditions resulted in a 26.7% decrease of music teachers employed in California and a 46.5% decrease of student enrollment in music classes (Music for All, 2004, p. 4). Woodworth et al. (2007) further reported that about half of California elementary students, 24% of middle school students, and 14% of high school students received instruction in music during the 2005–06 academic year, yet “principals of higher poverty schools reported greater challenges in providing their students with access to arts instruction than did principals of lower poverty schools” (p. 27). Whereas 45% of students at more affluent schools received music instruction, only 25% of students who attended high poverty schools received music instruction (p. 28). At the middle and high school levels, principals reported that students with low-test scores were denied elective courses in the arts, and, at the elementary school level, principals reported that students with low test scores did not engage in arts instruction at all. Woodworth et al. therefore concluded that music programs in high poverty schools were “disproportionately affected 10 by pressures to improve student achievement” (p. 38). Additionally, Woodworth et al. found that, in some California school districts, parents, community philanthropists and other funders subsidized music programs. They gave two starkly contrasting examples of a “small, medium-poverty school district” where a parent organization raised approximately $6000 to provide “arts assemblies, a cultural celebration, and visiting musicians,” and a more affluent suburban district foundation that raised $1.5 million dollars to provide salaries for three full time arts teachers, plus materials and other resources (pp. 58–59). The researchers pointed out that community resources “dramatically increased the amount of arts education offered” at these more affluent public schools (p. 60), thus intensifying the impacts of income inequality. California Music Project Teacher Training Program Established as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation in November 2004, the California Music Project Teacher Training Program was formed to address some of the challenges brought about by income inequality and its indirect impacts on school music programs and school music teaching. Initially modeled after the Texas Music Project, CMP brought in popular artists to create a commercial recording and proceeds from commercial sales went towards grants for music in California schools. Diana Hollinger, San Jose State University Coordinator of Music Education, heard about this project and subsequently proposed a San Jose Music Project to the CMP board (Hollinger, 2007). Hollinger designed a three-pronged program to: 1. Sustain music programs at low-income schools; 2. Contribute to music teachers’ longevity in such schools; and 11 3. Prepare prospective music teachers for work in under-resourced education settings. (D. M. Hollinger, personal communication, September 21, 2011) Hollinger had conducted dissertation research on Fundación del Estado para El Sistema Nacional de las Orquestas Juveniles e Infantiles de Venezuela (FESNOJIV) in Venezuela, and this also influenced her thinking about CMP. Not only did El Sistema produce musical excellence, but also it improved social outcomes for children and provided a sense of hope in the community (Hollinger, 2006, p. 142). Furthermore, Hollinger emphasized in her dissertation that El Sistema provided access to art music for socioeconomically disadvantaged children, which was previously only available to the elite (Hollinger, 2006, p. 143). Hollinger hoped that CMP would relieve some stresses of music teachers who worked in under-resourced schools, thereby helping to stabilize music programs. She hoped that, as the program became more wide-spread, it would eventually lead toward greater access for low-income students to music education. CMP began by identifying several San Jose public school music departments that were located in high poverty schools, where 90% or more of the student body was on free or reduced lunch (Hollinger, 2007, p. 2). Music teachers at those schools were asked to become partners in the project, and those who chose to participate were called mentors. Beyond these few criteria, there were no other policies or procedures for selecting mentors. The general assumption was that these teachers from poor schools needed support for their difficult teaching situations, which included large classes and lack of resources (Hollinger, 2007). San Jose State University undergraduate music education majors were invited to apply to become fellows in these schools. They did not earn credit for their participation and participation was not required for their undergraduate degree 12 (D. M. Hollinger, personal communication, September 21, 2011). The criterion for selection of the fellows was informal and the process was not documented. Those who were accepted as fellows earned a small stipend for their work in support of the mentor teachers, and they had a chance to gain early field experience (Hollinger, 2007). The coordinator for the music education department at San Jose State University served as the program coordinator and a graduate student was selected to supervise the fellows. The supervisor and program coordinator together reviewed applications from music teachers and undergraduate students, selected and matched mentors and fellows, and provided on-going support to the program. The process of how the fellow was matched and placed with a mentor was informal and not documented. As the San Jose Music Project became more embedded, other similar projects were established in Los Angeles and San Diego, collectively becoming known as the California Music Project Teacher Training Program (D. M. Hollinger, personal communication, September 21, 2011). Summary and Need for Study Evidence offered in this chapter illustrated the direct affects of income inequality on families, neighborhoods, and labor markets as well as the indirect affects of income inequality on school operations, including teaching, and children’s educational attainment. Families who struggled financially invested less time and money into children than did families who were more affluent. Additionally, adults in poverty were not able to afford high-quality childcare for their young children. With this background, poor children were unprepared for school when they reached kindergarten age and they lacked critical 13 literacy skills. Neighborhood segregation by income was another affect of income inequality. Neighborhoods of concentrated and chronic economic disadvantage experienced high rates of violent crime, adult job loss, and family mobility, all of which were stressful for children and correlated with children’s disruptive behavior in schools and poor standardized test scores. Lack of a sufficient property tax base created impoverished schools in urban areas of concentrated poverty and in rural areas of poverty. Student mobility in those same areas put additional pressure on already diminished resources. In recent history, the poorest immigrants to the U.S. were poorer than the native-born population, and they moved into neighborhoods of concentrated poverty. Their lack of English proficiency also put pressure on financial and human resources of schools. Diminished resources negatively impacted teaching, an important aspect of school operations. Disproportionate numbers of teachers left schools with poor work conditions, which were the very schools serving low-income students. In California, income inequality impacted students’ opportunities to receive a comprehensive music education. Principals of high poverty schools reported greater challenges in providing music education than did principals of affluent schools. Lowincome students performed poorly on standardized tests, and principals of schools serving such students felt obliged to improve student achievement through remedial instruction rather than to provide arts instruction. More affluent schools utilized parent or community funding sources that paid for music specialists, private lesson programs, and enrichment programs from visiting artists; such programs were unattainable at low14 income schools. Hollinger developed a program, CMP, that was implemented to address inequities of music education in high poverty schools, support music teachers so they would remain in those schools, and encourage preservice music teachers to build professional skills and confidence for work in under-resourced school environments. Federal and state governments, nongovernmental organizations, local schools and universities all attempted to ameliorate the impacts of income inequality and improve outcomes for children (Jacob & Ludwig, 2009). Measures ranging from income subsidies, to Head Start, comprehensive school reform, and new teacher mentoring and induction were implemented and their effects were studied. Government interventions were aimed at improving conditions for families; thus, government interest was in direct impacts of income inequality. Comprehensive school reforms were aimed at the way schools operate, and similarly, new teacher induction was aimed at stabilizing teaching, an aspect of school operations. Schools and non-governmental organizations were therefore interested in indirect impacts of income inequality. Although some moderate impacts have been found from all such interventions, Jacob and Ludwig (2009) tempered optimism by pointing out that successful interventions reduced but did not “eliminate racial and social class disparities in educational outcomes” (p. 268). To find even moderate impacts, as well as to justify costs of interventions required study of those interventions in context. Therefore, by positioning CMP as an intervention in the indirect impacts of income inequality on school operations, and specifically on music programs and music teachers, I have demonstrated need to examine the San Jose site of CMP in context. 15 Purpose and Guiding Questions The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which the California Music Project Teacher Training Program in San Jose achieved its goals of: (a) sustaining music programs in low-income schools; (b) contributing to music teachers’ longevity in such schools; and (c) preparing prospective music teachers for work in under-resourced education settings. The following questions guided the study: 1. What were the indirect impacts of income inequality on the CMP schools, music programs, and mentor-teachers? 2. Which impacts appeared to be ameliorated by placement of a fellow into the music program? 3. What were the relationships between having a fellowship and learning to teach in an under-resourced school? 4. To what extent did the fellowship influence fellows’ decisions about pursuing teacher licensure and eventual employment? Orientation to the Study In the subsequent chapter, I contextualize CMP by reviewing relevant research on interventions in poverty and income inequality, including programs implemented by federal and state governments designed to assist families, comprehensive reforms undertaken by schools and school districts designed to improve operations, and interventions designed to stabilize teaching. In Chapter 3, I describe the methods and procedures employed to develop this case study of the California Music Project Teacher Training Program as an intervention in poverty and income inequality. I present a profile of mentors and their experiences of CMP in Chapter 4, and the fellows are similarly profiled in Chapter 5. In Chapter 6, I connect the mentors’ and fellows’ experience of 16 CMP to the research questions in order to develop the case of CMP more fully. Finally, in Chapter 7, I render conclusions, suggest implications for practice, and make recommendations for further research. 17 Chapter 2: Interventions in Poverty The intent of this study was to examine the San Jose State University site of the California Music Project Teacher Training program as an intervention in poverty and income inequality. Therefore, in line with Duncan and Murnane’s (2011) ecological model, I reviewed studies of federal and state government interventions in poverty intended to help families and children, and studies of interventions directed toward stability of school organization, which aimed to bring equity to children’s educational attainment. In the latter category, I included investigations of the effects of financial incentives for teachers and new teacher induction programs, both of which were interventions designed to stabilize the teaching workforce and consequently improve educational attainment. Some interventions had unintended outcomes, others demonstrated intended outcomes, and a few had no observable effects. For instance, federal and state governments provided childcare and income subsidies that aimed to stabilize families through maternal employment. An unanticipated outcome was the association of lowincome children’s educational attainment with direct income subsidies. Interventions directed at schools were aimed at all aspects of school operation. For example, the Success for All intervention provided curriculum, professional development for teachers, and a plan for implementing and sustaining the program. The primary result of this comprehensive school reform was improvement to all children’s reading attainment, but the effects were significantly greater for low-income students, therefore Success for All achieved a goal of equity. Among the interventions directed at teachers were induction 18 and mentoring programs, which were to stabilize schools through teacher retention. Although most studies showed that new teacher induction retained teachers in middleincome and affluent schools, the same was not true for low-income schools. At the end of the chapter, I also included reviews of research on some preservice teacher preparation programs, including traditional and alternative pathways to licensure. These studies did not position teacher education as an intervention, but instead, they showed how programs were intended to equip new teachers for work in hard-to-staff schools. The general principle behind such preparation was to stabilize the teaching workforce in low-income schools. Along with some of the model childcare programs, teacher preparation represented higher education’s main stake in mitigating the impacts of poverty and income equality on children. Some readers might have expected to read about jobs creation or housing improvement interventions aimed at neighborhoods and labor markets. Using Duncan and Murnane’s (2011) ecological model, such intervention should eventually have shown an impact on school organization and educational attainment, but such impacts were not immediately observable in studies. Similarly, because CMP was focused on music, some readers might have expected to read research on other music programs designed to achieve equity for low-income students. Although anecdotal accounts existed, empirical evidence of the impacts of such programs was not found. Federal and State Interventions for Families and Children Primary interventions directed at families and children have centered around childcare. Blau and Currie (2006) cited three reasons that a government would intervene 19 in childcare: (a) the government was concerned with equity; (b) the government wanted parents to work; and (c) the government was concerned about the possibility of market failures (p. 1196). The United States government historically intervened on behalf of children and families by providing childcare subsidies, regulating childcare, and providing public childcare. Research on subsidies, including earnings supplements and the quality of childcare, were reviewed for the present study. Income subsidies. Since 1996, a federal block grant, the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), allowed states flexibility in regulating subsidies (Blau & Currie, 2006, p. 1202). Although most states structured the subsidy so that the lowestincome families received the greatest subsidized care, “a ‘notch’ in the budget constraint at the point when the subsidy drops to zero” (p. 1209) typically existed in each state’s subsidy structure. Some researchers suggested that this nonlinear structure created a disincentive for work. Consequently, researchers had difficulty determining whether or not the goal of equity had been achieved. To determine whether governments had encouraged parents to work, Blau and Currie (2006) reviewed several studies of the impact of subsidies on employment (Berger & Black, 1992; Blau & Tekin, 2007; Gelbach, 2002; Meyers, Heintze, & Wolf, 2002). Across the four studies, subsidies were shown to be effective in increasing maternal employment (p. 1213). In related research, Duncan, Morris, and Rodrigues (2011) reported on several welfare-to-work programs that were designed to increase employment, particularly employment of single mothers, and to reduce welfare dependence. These included Connecticut’s Jobs First; Florida’s Family Transition Program; the Los Angeles Jobs 20 First GAIN; the Minnesota Family Investment Program; the Atlanta, GA, Grand Rapids, MI, and Riverside, CA sites of the National Evaluation of Welfare to Work Strategies (NEWWS); the New Hope Project; and the New Brunswick and British Columbia sites of the Canadian Self-Sufficiency Project (SSP; Duncan et al., 2011, p. 1265). Income subsidies provided through these programs to 9113 families were compared to children’s test scores on various age-appropriate standardized tests and also to parent and teacher reports of academic achievement. According to the researchers programs with earnings supplements (Connecticut Jobs First, New Hope, and Canadian SSP), as opposed to programs that merely provided subsidized childcare, provided the greatest additions to family income and the largest reductions in welfare (Duncan et al., 2011, p. 1271). Pooled estimates of all programs indicated that there was an effect of family income on preschool children’s achievement, (Duncan et al., 2011, p. 1275). The researchers explained the significance of the effects: Our IV estimates suggest that a $1,000 increase in annual income sustained for between 2 and 5 years boosts child achievement by 6% of a standard deviation and that a log-unit increase in annual income increases child achievement by a little over half a standard deviation. … Translated into an IQ-type scale, 6% of a standard deviation amounts to about 1 point, and half a standard deviation amounts to 8 points. Translated into one of the achievement tests we used—the Bracken Basic Concept Scale—these effect sizes translate into about one and six additional correct answers, respectively, to a 61-question test regarding colors, letters, numbers/counting, comparisons, and shapes. (Duncan et al., 2011, p. 1275) The main points made through these studies were: (a) the federal government intervention of subsidized childcare increased employment for mothers, particularly for single mothers; (b) when poor families received not only a childcare subsidy, but also a 21 $1000 increase in family income, preschool children’s educational attainment was impacted positively. Thus, the federal government intervened directly with families, but an indirect effect on children’s educational attainment was achieved. Quality of childcare. Comparing nonparental care to parental care, researchers found no adverse effects on child development (Lamb & Sternberg, 1990; Zaslow, 1991). Higher quality nonparental care, however, resulted in children’s stronger cognitive and social-emotional development (Helburn & Culkin, 1995; Lamb & Sternberg, 1990; D. A. Phillips, McCartney, & Scarr, 1987; Zaslow, 1991). Barnett (1995), Blau and Currie (2006), and Karoly et al. (1998) conducted extensive reviews of the literature on early childhood programs designed to “improve child heath and development by providing socioeconomically disadvantaged children and their families with various services and social supports” (Karoly et al., 1998, p. 19). Although many model projects could have been included in this literature review, I have chosen to include results from studies of the Early Training Project, the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project, and the Syracuse Family Development Research Program (FDRP) because these studies provided the clearest evidence that high-quality childcare and support for disadvantaged families produced not only short-term test score gains, but also produced longer-term social and emotional benefits for children. The Early Training Project. This program operated from 1962–1965 in Murfreesboro, TN. The four to five year old participants were from low socioeconomic status homes, and they were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (a) a ten week part-day program that met during three consecutive summers and also included weekly 22 home visits to children and their families during the intervening school years; (b) a ten week, part-day program that met during two consecutive summers and also included weekly home visits during the intervening school years; or (c) a control group. Followup assessments occurred when children were ages 7, 8, 10, 17, and 19 (Gray & Klaus, 1970; Gray & Ramsey, 1982; Gray, Ramsey, & Klaus, 1982; Lazar & Darlington, 1982). Eighty percent of the original participants were available for the final follow-up (Karoly et al., 1998, p. 34). The researchers used the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), and the Metropolitan Achievement Test during the intervention period and follow-up data collection period. By the end of the intervention period, the three-summer and two-summer treatment groups showed significantly higher IQ test scores than the control group (Gray & Klaus, 1970, pp. 912–913). Furthermore, Stanford-Binet IQ test scores continued to be higher for the treatment groups up to and including the follow-up data collection when children were 10 years old. The children from the treatment groups continued to score higher than the control group on three of the four subtests from the Metropolitan Achievement Test by the end of first grade (Karoly et al., p. 34). By the end of fourth grade, however, differences between groups were no longer significant (Karoly et al., p. 34). At the follow-up when the children were 17 years old, no significant differences were found between the two treatment groups and the control group for scores on tests (Stanford TASK and WISC-R). In spite of diminished differences in test scores, researchers found that children from the treatment groups were less likely than children from the control group have been placed in a special 23 education class and also were less likely to have repeated a grade. Furthermore, children from the treatment groups were more likely to graduate from high school. When females from the treatment groups became pregnant as teenagers, they returned to complete their high school diploma (88%), whereas very few teen mothers from the control group (3%) returned to school after pregnancy. High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. This program ran from 1962–1967 in Ypsilanti, MI. Initially, subjects were aged 3 to 4 years, from low-income families, and they scored below 85 on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test. Subjects were randomly assigned to experimental or control groups (siblings were assigned to the same group). The program took place during the school year, was directed by highly qualified preschool teachers, and included home visits. Follow-up data collection occurred when the subjects were aged 5, 11, 14, 15, 19 and 27 (Berrueta-Clement, Schweinhart, Barnett, Epstein, & Weikart, 1984; Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart, 1993; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1980; Weikart, Bond, & McNeil, 1978). This research was “one of the longest assessments of the effects of early childhood interventions for low-income children” (Karoly et al., 1998, p. 34), and it had low attrition rates from control and experimental groups. A disadvantage of the study, however, was its small sample size (n = 123; Karoly, p. 35). At the end of the intervention period, there were significant differences in favor of the experimental group on the Stanford-Binet Test; however, these differences diminished by the time subjects reached age 8 (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1980). Subjects from the experimental group showed greater academic achievement through age 14 and 24 higher graduation rates compared to the control group. Researchers found that those in the experimental group had lower rates of assignment to special education classes (Barnett, 1995, p. 40). Teenage pregnancies were lower in the experimental group than in the control group. By age 27, those who had participated in the experimental group had fewer arrests, higher marriage and employment rates, and higher month earnings than those who had participated in the control group (Schweinhart et al., 1993, p. 95). Syracuse Family Development Research Program. The Syracuse Family Development Research Program (FDRP) recruited low-income families where the head of household had less than a high school education (Aos, Barnoski, & Lieb, 2001; Honig, Lally, & Mathieson, 1982; Lally, Mangione, & Honig, 1988). The program began with paraprofessionals educating pregnant women on parenting skills during the last trimester of pregnancy. Weekly home visits occurred after birth and continued until the child was 5 years of age. From the time the child was 6 months of age to the time the child was 15 months of age, she or he was placed at a high-quality day care for half-days. Then, from the time the child was 15 months of age to the time the child was 60 months of age, she or he was placed in a full-day preschool program at Syracuse University’s Children’s Center. When the children were 3 years of age, they were called the intervention group, and researchers established a comparison group matched “in pairs with Center children with respect to sex, ethnicity, birth ordinality, age, family income, family marital status, maternal age, and maternal education status (non high-school diploma) at the time of the infant’s birth” (Lally et al., 1988, p. 90). During the children’s preschool years, various 25 achievement and IQ tests were administered to both intervention and comparison groups. When children were aged 3, 5, and 15 years, follow-up interviews with parents and teachers were conducted. Researchers also reviewed school and juvenile delinquency records. At age 3, children from the intervention group outscored the comparison group by 19 points on the Stanford-Binet IQ test, and they showed better behavior, measured by the Social-Emotional Observer Rating of Children (Lally et al., 1988). In the follow-up test administered when children were 5 years of age, there were no longer any statistically significant differences between groups on IQ scores. Although there were no statistical differences between groups in overall school performance, the girls from the intervention group were less likely to have grades lower than a C, less likely be failing, and had few school absences than the girls in the control group (Lally et al., 1988). When children were 15 years of age, only 6% of the intervention group had probation case files, whereas 22% of the comparison group had probation case files. Further, Country Probation Department files showed that crimes committed by the comparison group were more serious in nature, such as burglary, robbery, and physical and sexual assault (Aos et al., 2001; Lally et al., 1988). In 1982, Honig, Lally and Mathieson published results of a study that “focused on social personal behaviors of groups of children in kindergarten and first grade … who graduated from five years of participation” (p. 139) in FDRP. They used two groups of FDRP participants: (a) graduates of the program who were in kindergarten (n = 37) and (b) graduates of the program who were in first grade (n = 20). The researchers created 26 comparison groups by matching “age, sex, socioeconomic status of the family, classroom, and teacher” to each child in the program group (Honig et al., 1982, p. 140). The study employed the Social-Emotional Observer Rating of Children (Emmerich, 1971) to determine the effects of the program on the social-emotional performance on the participants. The kindergarten children from FDRP had significantly higher scores in social-emotional functioning and more positive interactions with peers and teachers than the matched group. Researchers noted that kindergarten children from the treatment group were significantly more likely than the matched group to seek adult help and communicate well with adults. The treatment group children also were “significantly more task persistent, self-actualized in activities, and verbally communicative” than children from the matched group (Honig et al., 1982, pp. 142–143). In contrast, FDRP first graders displayed negative behavior towards adults and peers (Honig et al., 1982, p. 143). Researchers noted that the first grade groups (both treatment and matched groups) were “less active,” and the classrooms were “dominated by teacher-initiated activities” (Honig et al., 1982, p. 143). This description contrasted with the Children’s Center preschool, where “child-initiated activity choice [was] strongly encouraged” (Honig et al. 1982, p. 143). Honig, Lally, and Mathieson thus implied that the structure of public schooling had deleterious effects on social and emotional gains children made through treatment. Summary. Federal and state governments assumed that there would be sustained benefits not only directly to families, but also indirectly to children’s educational attainment from high-quality childcare, so governments took interest in model programs 27 such as The Early Childhood Training Program, High Scope/Perry, and Syracuse FDRP. Researchers who conducted longitudinal studies of these model programs suggested that children showed academic gains during preschool, but most of those gains faded by the time children reached elementary school. Longer-term outcomes included fewer special education placements and less likelihood of repeating a grade. Researchers also found correlations between high-quality childcare and lesser rates of teenage pregnancy, and between high-quality childcare and greater rates of high school graduation. Finally, researchers found a long-term correlation between high quality childcare and young adulthood employment. Such findings suggested that effects of early childhood interventions were not limited to educational attainment. Consequently, researchers and policy makers wondered whether high-quality childcare was one key to eliminating generational poverty. Head Start. In 1964, Head Start was the centerpiece of President Lyndon Johnson’s first State of the Union address in which he declared a “War on Poverty” (Vinovskis, 2005, pp. 36–37). Perhaps the most well-known federal intervention in the quality of childcare, Head Start was designed to serve young (0–5 years), at-risk children and their families living in poverty by providing “preschool education, health care; nutrition services; and efforts to help parents foster their child’s development” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010, p. xiii). Although the federal government provided the finances for Head Start, each state retained control of the funds. Historically, there was an emphasis on parent and local community involvement guided by the national program standards (Karoly et al., 1998, p. 39). Since 1965, many studies 28 of Head Start Programs have been undertaken; however, researchers have found it challenging to compare study results due to program control at the state level (p. 41). With this challenge in mind, I reviewed the Head Start Impact Study Final Report of 2010 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010). Impact was defined as the “difference between the outcomes observed for Head Start participants and what would have been observed for these same individuals had they not participated in Head Start” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010, pp. 1-9–1-10). The reauthorization legislation specified that a study should address “the direct impact of Head Start on child/family access to services and child developmental outcomes and the indirect impact of Head Start on children through the programs impact on their parents” (p. 1-11). The 2010 impact study included 4,667 three- and four-year-olds who were randomly assigned to one of four groups: (a) an intervention group of 3-year-olds (n = 1,530) that received two years of Head Start services; (b) an intervention group of 4-yearolds (n = 1,253) that received one year of Head Start services; (c) a control group of 3year-olds (n = 2,559); and (d) a control group of 4-year-olds (n = 2,108). Although the control groups did not receive Head Start services, they may have received services from other early childhood programs (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010, p. 2-2). Historically, there were four different program options for children and families who took part in Head Start: (a) center-based classroom settings; (b) a home-based program where the “staff work[ed] directly with parents and children in their homes on a weekly basis”; (c) family childcare settings where services were provided in a family 29 childcare setting, and (d) a combination of center based and home based services (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, p. 1-3). Children enrolled in center-based classroom settings were represented in the impact study. Data sources included direct child assessments focused on language and literacy, in-person parent interviews, teacher/care provider reports, teacher questionnaires, interviews with center directors, and care setting observations (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, pp. 2-15–218). Data were generated from the time children entered Head Start until they completed first grade. Studying the 4-year-olds, researchers found improvements in children’s language and literacy skills during the time they were enrolled in Head Start; however, by the time children were in first grade, researchers found no statistically significant differences between groups in language and literacy skills. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups in math skills, prewriting skills, or teachers’ reports of accomplishments. Studying the 3-year-olds, researchers found strong evidence of Head Start impact on language and literacy skills, prewriting skills, and math skills. Similar to findings for the 4-year-old children, there were few statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups by the time children were enrolled in first grade (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010, pp. xxiii–xxv). In the social-emotional domain, researchers found no statistically significant differences between 4-year-old treatment and control groups. Studying the 3-year-olds, researchers found fewer hyperactive behaviors in the treatment group compared to the 30 control group. Additionally, fewer parents of children in the treatment group reported behavior problems compared to parents of children in the control group. By the time children completed first grade, researchers found suggestive evidence of a more positive relationship between parent and child in favor of the treatment group (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010, pp. xxvii). In the health domain, for 3-year-old groups and 4-year-old groups, researchers found strong evidence that Head Start children were more likely to receive dental care. They also found suggestive evidence that Head Start was associated with overall improvement in children’s health status and health insurance coverage (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010, pp. xxx– xxxi). In the parenting domain, fewer parents of 4-year-olds in the treatment group reported using “time-out,” compared to parents of children in the control group. Researchers found strong evidence that parents of children in the 3-year-old treatment group were less likely to have spanked their children than parents of children in the control group. Finally, researchers found strong evidence that parents of children in the 3-year-old treatment group read more to their children and were more likely to take them to enrichment activities than parents of children in the 3-year-old control group (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010, pp. xxxii–xxxiiii). Head Start Impact Study authors concluded: Providing access to Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, as well as in the social emotional domain for 3-year-olds only. However, averaging across all children, the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by first grade. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010, p. 9-9) 31 Thus, this research suggested that quality of childcare in Head Start was more positive for young children than childcare in other settings, but impacts were not long lasting. The original intent of Head Start was to provide federally funded childcare so that low-income parents could work. In that way, Head Start mainly was intended as a direct intervention with families. By the time of the 2010 Head Start impact study, however, Head Start had been repositioned as an intervention aimed at children’s educational attainment. Researchers found positive impacts of Head Start on children’s academic outcomes and social-emotional outcomes; however, those impacts lasted only as long as children were enrolled. The longer-term social and emotional benefits found through studies of model programs were not associated with Head Start. Interventions Directed towards Schools Interventions in income inequality directed toward schools attempted to create equity between poorer students’ education attainment and more affluent students’ educational attainment. There were three main types of intervention. First, class size reduction appeared to improve students’ education attainment by allowing teachers to differentiate instruction and devote more time to each individual student. Evidence of class size reduction came mainly from Tennessee’s project STAR. Second, comprehensive school reforms (CSRs) were intended to target many aspects of a school operation at the same time, including curriculum, professional development for teachers, and organization of the school day. Considerations for CSRs included not only their effects on students’ educational attainment, but also cost to implement. Finally, theories of school choice implied that competition between charter and traditional schools could 32 improve the overall quality of education; thus, it seemed possible that research on lowincome students’ educational attainment in charter schools might demonstrate effective practices for all schools. Class size reduction. Jacob and Ludwig (2009) suggested that reducing the ratio of students to teachers in elementary schools enabled teachers to differentiate teaching, address student needs, and consequently improve educational attainment (p. 271). The most compelling evidence of these affects came from Project STAR (Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio) in Tennessee (Chetty et al., 2011; Schanzenbach, 2006/7), in which approximately 11,600 students and 1,330 teachers were randomly assigned to small classes (approximately 15 students), or large classes (approximately 22 students). The plan for the project was to have students remain in the same groups from Kindergarten through the end of third grade; however, student mobility prevented ideal conditions from occurring. Project STAR manipulated class size only; no other interventions were attempted. Schanzenbach (2006/7) found that students assigned to a small class had greater achievement test scores than students assigned to larger classes; however, the researcher also found that Black students benefitted about twice as much as White students from being assigned to a small class (p. 213). Students assigned to small classes with teachers who had five or more years of experience showed the most significant gains in achievement, as measured by test scores (p. 214). When STAR students reached fourth grade, class sizes were equalized, but the positive impact of small class size from primary grade education was sustained through the eighth grade year. Although small class size 33 benefitted all students, impacts remained stronger for Black students and free lunch eligible students than for White and more affluent students (p. 216). Perhaps more important was the longitudinal follow-up study of 95% of STAR participants (Chetty et al., 2011). Students initially assigned to a small class were more likely to be enrolled in college at age 20. They also were more likely to be married, own a home, and contribute to a savings account by age 27. Chetty et al. (2011) recommended that policy makers should “rethink the objective of raising test scores and evaluating interventions via longterm test score gains” (p. 1655). The original and follow-up studies on Tennessee’s STAR program offered the most compelling evidence that an intervention in school operations could ameliorate effects of income inequality on children’s educational attainment. Further, Chetty’s longitudinal follow-up study suggested that there were also long-term social benefits from reduced class size. The major criticism of this line of research, however, was that it did not include a benefit-cost analysis. Thus, state and local governments, including California state government, have continued to debate the effects of class size reduction (cf. Jepsen & Rivkin, 2002). Comprehensive school reforms. Comprehensive school reforms (CSRs) were created because of an assumption that schools did not utilize optimal pedagogical practices. The broad aim of CSRs was to improve school operation with a prescribed instructional approach (Jacob & Ludwig, 2009, pp. 278–279). Rather than focusing on a single aspect of schooling, CSRs concentrated on a combination of practices such as: (a) new or improved curriculum materials, (b) professional development for teachers, (c) 34 reorganization of the school day, and (d) school structure (Jacob & Ludwig, p. 275). Programs such as Success for All (Borman & Hewes, 2001), Comer Schools (Cook, Hunt, & Murphy, 2000), Direct Instruction (Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center, 2006), Accelerated Schools (Bloom, Ham, Melton, & O’Brien, 2001), America’s Choice (Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center, 2006), Career Academies (Kemple & Scott-Clayton, 2004; Kemple & Willner, 2008), Project GRAD (Snipes, Holton, Doolittle, & Sztejnberg, 2006), First Things First (Quint, Bloom, Black, Stephens, & Akey, 2005) and Talent Development (Kemple, Herlihy, & Smith, 2005) were categorized as CSRs, however, Jacob and Ludwig found research on the effectiveness of these programs limited (p. 275). For this chapter, I reviewed those CSRs with the most rigorous evaluations: Success for All, Comer Schools, and Career Academies. Success for All. Success for All (SFA) was an elementary school CSR program, which was implemented into Title I schools beginning in 1987 (Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center, 2006). Schools purchased the program through the Success for All Foundation, and it included “materials, training, ongoing professional development, and a highly specified ‘blueprint’ for implementing and sustaining the model” (Borman & Hewes, 2001, p. 4). Instead of grade retention or remediation, the program focused on early intervention in English language literacy. A typical program had traditional grade level classes throughout the day and then rearranged reading level groups across grade levels. Those mixed-grade groups met for 90 minutes each day to address specific reading needs, and students with the least developed reading skills received one-to-one tutoring from certified teachers. A Family Support Team at each school was an essential 35 part of the program, aimed at increasing parental involvement and improving students’ school attendance. A third component of the program was a full-time Program Facilitator to who oversaw and coordinated the daily operation of SFA (p. 4). Theoretical research that guided the special instructional practices included: cooperative learning (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Slavin, 1995) and metacognition (Pressley & Woloshyn, 1995). In 2001, Borman and Hewes reported on students in the original SFA implementation in Baltimore, Maryland elementary schools. Experimental and control schools were matched on student demographics and school funding. Researchers identified four cohorts of first graders from the academic years 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989– 90, and 1990–91, and also identified subsamples of low-performing students (Borman & Hewes, pp. 6–7). Data collected from school district files included student demographics, transcripts, and scores California Achievement Tests (CAT), and Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, Fourth Edition (CTBS/4). After controlling for kindergarten CAT pretest differences, researchers found that SFA eighth grade students had higher CTBS/4 scores than the matched control group (Borman & Hewes, 2001, p. 11). Furthermore, the SFA eighth grade students had a reading advantage of six-months over the control group and a three-month math advantage over the control group (Borman & Hewes, 2001, p. 11). The SFA intervention group had lower referrals to special education through eighth grade (Borman & Hewes, 2001, p. 14). Most importantly, the outcomes for low-achieving subgroups “exceeded those in the full sample” (Borman & Hewes, 2001, p. 15). Further research on SFA included Borman et al. (2007), which used a cluster 36 randomized design and a sample of 41 high-poverty schools located in 11 states (p. 705). Schools initially were offered $30,000 as an incentive for participation, but only six schools agreed to participate, resulting in an insufficient sample. In 2002, a second cohort was formed with a similar incentive in addition to a guarantee that all schools would receive the SFA program at no cost after the study was completed. All K-5 schools accepted the incentive and were randomly assigned to a treatment group that administered SFA in grades K-2, or a control group that administered a normal curriculum in grades K-2 and SFA in grades 3–5. The final sample comprised 1,085 students in 18 K-2 SFA treatment schools and 1,023 students in 17 control schools. Pretest scores were calculated for all students on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT III) in the fall of their first year and no significant differences were found between the treatment and cohort groups. At the end of the first year, the SFA baseline kindergarten intervention group’s average scores on the Woodcock Word Attack scale were higher than the control group’s average scores. Borman et al. indicated that this difference was equivalent to a two-month advantage in favor of the SFA group on developmentally appropriate reading skills. Nevertheless, researchers found no differences between groups on Letter Identification, Word Identification, or Passage Comprehension results (Borman et al., 2007, p. 705). At the end of first grade (the students’ second year in the program), the treatment group’s reading advantage grew to about five months (p. 704). By the end of second grade (the students’ third year in the program), differences between groups’ Word Attack, Word Identification, and Passage Comprehension scores were all statically significant and favored the treatment group 37 (Borman et al., 2007, p. 721). In light of the improved student achievement, the benefit-cost analysis of SFA was impressive (Borman & Hewes, 2001). Mean unadjusted total cost of schooling in grades 1–8 for the SFA students was $54,893.59, and mean unadjusted total cost of schooling for students in grades 1–8 for comparison group students was $53,737.55. Comparing these two figures, it was not significantly more costly to implement SFA than it was to implement normal school curricula. For low achievers, however, the SFA intervention was significantly less costly than a “remedial approach of more frequent special education placements and retentions” (p. 16). Comer schools. James Comer’s School Development Program (SDP) was implemented at 10 inner city middle schools in Chicago. The five-year intervention focused on improving: (a) students’ interpersonal relationships, and (b) the social climate of the school community (Cook et al., 2000, p. 536). First, a School Planning and Management Team comprising school administrators, teachers, other staff, and parents was put in place in each school. Members of the team gathered support from the community and monitored progress of the reform. Next, each school put a Social Support Team in place, which included school psychologists, special education teachers and others concerned with the students’ welfare. Third, a Parent Team was organized, the main goal of which was parents’ full involvement in the school community (i.e., in governance, classrooms, libraries, field trips and raising funds for the school). Comer’s school organization plan was for the teams to work together, making decisions by consensus and putting the students needs first. 38 Cook et al. (2000) conducted a descriptive study of Comer’s SDP implementation in Chicago Public schools. For Phase I of the study, eight K-8 schools volunteered, and each school was matched with another school on two factors: average achievement and racial composition (p. 543). A year later, 12 additional schools were added to the study (Phrase II) using similar procedures. Baseline comparisons were made in the fall of the first year of Phase I and the fall of the first year of Phase II. After the first year, outcomes testing took place each spring and included four domains: Mental Health; Negative Social Behaviors; Positive Social Behaviors; Academic Achievement. Students and staff completed school climate questionnaires each spring. Results of the five-year study indicated that, at Comer Schools: (a) school organization improved through communal decision-making processes that often involved an entire school, and (b) team communication was enhanced (Cook et al., 2000, p. 561). However, there were no other significant differences between treatment and control groups at the school level. Researchers found minor gains in test scores for math and reading, and the treatment group showed a general decrease in negative behavior in comparison to the control group. Overall, there was no strong evidence from this study that the SDP positively impacted students’ mental health or social behaviors (Cook et al., 2000, pp. 595–596). Career academies. Career Academies program, an example of high school CSR, improved future earnings for the high-risk students the program served (Kemple & Willner, 2008). The program was often located at a large high school where smaller learning academies of 150 to 200 students were created and focused specifically on 39 occupational training (typically health care, technology, hospitality, and finance; Smith, 2008, p. 1). This design differed from earlier vocational education programs because it combined academic and technical curricula to motivate learning (Jacob & Ludwig, 2009, p. 276). An important aspect of the program was building connections with local employers to high school students through internship and mentorship (Jacob & Ludwig, 2009). In 2008, these programs were estimated to be in place at over 2,500 high schools across the United States. In 1993, nine high schools from Baltimore, MD, El Paso, TX, Miami, FL, Pittsburgh, PA, Santa Ana, CA, San Jose, CA, Watsonville, CA, and Washington, DC were selected for a longitudinal study of Career Academies. Each school served a high percentage of African-American and Hispanic students and each was located in a large urban school district with higher percentages of low-income families and higher dropout rates than the national average. Schools committed to maintain Career Academy program core features for at least two years (Kemple & Willner, 2008, pp. 4–5). Students at the selected high schools were assigned randomly to: (a) a treatment group—those accepted into the Career Academy at these sites or (b) a control group—those who were not accepted. The longitudinal study included data from students’ high school transcripts and results of surveys administered to students during their high school program and at three points over the eight years following their scheduled graduation. While they were enrolled in high school, treatment group students reported higher levels of interpersonal support from teachers and peers than did control group students. Treatment group students were more likely to combine academic courses with career or 40 technical courses than control group students. The treatment group students were more aware of career possibilities and more likely to work in jobs that were connected to school than control group students (Kemple & Willner, 2008, p. 8). According to Kemple and Willner (2008), there were positive and long-lasting impacts of the Career Academies program, including significantly higher earnings and more consistent employment for those who participated (pp. 14–16). Interestingly, when young women were separated from young men in statistical calculations, there were no statistically significant differences in program impact between Career Academy and non-Career Academy women (p. 16). Overall, there were no significant differences between Career Academy participants and non-Career Academy participants in rates of high school graduation, enrollment in postsecondary education or completion of a college degree (Kemple & Willner, 2008, p. 24). Kemple and Willner (2008) cautioned: While the Career Academies in this study did serve a range of high-, medium-, and low-risk students, comparisons with national samples of similar youth suggest that, on average, the Academies tended to attract students who were highly likely to graduate from high school and go on to complete a postsecondary education credential even if they were not selected to enroll in the programs. (p. 42) Summary. These comprehensive school reforms aimed to improve school organization and thus improve and enhance students’ educational attainment. Success for All provided a multidimensional approach to school operations, through which most elementary students showed increased achievement in reading. Further, Black, Hispanic, and low-income students showed the greatest gains between pretest and posttest, ameliorating indirect impacts of income inequality. Comer Schools was an intervention 41 in school organization that improved school organization, but did not otherwise meet its intended goals. Career Academies intervened in school organization, and although researchers cautioned about inferring impacts on students’ educational attainment, the intervention gave male students better employment opportunities after high school. Charter schools. As of November 2010, the National Center for Educational Statistics reported that 40 states had adopted laws permitting charter schools (Aud et al., 2011, p. 24). According to Hanushek, Kain, Rivkin, and Branch (2005), charter schools introduced choice and competition into education (p. 26). Jacob and Ludwig (2009) claimed that school choice rested on the following assumptions: there were enough choices to generate meaningful competition within the system, the system was relatively easy to enter and exit, and parents had sufficient information to make informed choices (p. 282). Results of studies examining the impact of charter schools were inconclusive. Whereas some researchers affirmed that charter schools led to competition among schools and thus improved the quality of schooling (Booker, Gilpatric, Gronberg, & Jansen, 2008; Holmes, DeSimone, & Rupp, 2003; Sass, 2006), other researchers argued that charter schools had no significant effects on students’ academic outcomes (Bettinger, 2005). Curto, Fryer, and Howard (2011) reviewed research on charter school students’ educational attainment, and they focused their research on low-income students. The authors recommended caution in regard to assumptions that charter schools represented models of best practice. They noted that strict entrance requirements were common, and they suggested that charter schools recruited students who were better prepared and more 42 motivated academically (Curto et al., 2011, p. 499). Moreover, Curto, Fryer, and Howard questioned whether comparisons of charter school outcomes with other school outcomes were appropriate or valid (Curto et al., 2011, p. 499). The Promise Academies of the Harlem Children’s Zone were charter schools that began in 2004 as one part of a larger antipoverty intervention. The broader context included family supports such as early childhood programs, family, community, and health programs, and planning for college entry (Harlem Children’s Zone, 2012). Promise Academies extended the school day and year, and they offered tutoring on Saturdays for students who needed it. A key element of instruction was formative assessments administered to students at regular intervals to determine which skills students needed to master. Promise Academies recruited high-quality, experienced teachers, and offered financial incentives to teachers based on children’s test scores (Curto et al., 2011, p. 495). After a study of students’ academic achievement in the Promise Academies, Dobbie and Fryer (2009) reported that, “students enrolled in the sixth grade gain[ed] more than a full standard deviation in math and between one-third and one-half of a standard deviation in English Language Arts (ELA) by eighth grade” (Dobbie & Fryer, 2009, p. 3). The intent of charter schools was to intervene in school organization through such practices as lengthening the school day, hiring experienced teachers, and providing extra tutoring. The Promise Academies were coupled with other supports for low-income families including early childhood education, and health care. Although some researchers suggest that charter schools impact student achievement and ameliorate 43 effects of income inequality, study results have been inconclusive. Interventions for Teachers Darling-Hammond (2000), among many researchers, claimed that the costs to students’ educational attainment were high when teachers moved from school to school or left the profession entirely. Further, financial costs to schools were high when experienced teachers left (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). As explained in Chapter 1, teacher attrition from low-income schools has been abnormally high, therefore intensifying indirect impacts of income inequality on children’s educational attainment. Financial incentives and new teacher induction programs were designed to retain teachers in all schools; however, where teachers were retained in low-income schools, stability was maintained for school organization. Financial incentives. Studying the effects of teacher merit pay on student achievement, Figlio and Kenny (2007) claimed that there was virtually no evidence that the use of merit pay was effective; however, the researchers found a modest relationship between merit pay for teachers and the academic achievement of low- and middle-income students. The authors combined data from the 1998 National Education Longitudinal Survey (NELS) with a researcher-designed survey regarding use of financial incentives and found evidence that non-Catholic private schools were significantly more likely to use performance incentives than public schools. Consequently, the researchers separated out the public schools from the data set to evaluate the relationship between merit pay and student achievement (Figlio & Kenny, 2007, p. 909). The researchers found that nonunionized public schools were more than twice as likely as unionized schools to offer 44 teacher incentives, and schools in the eight states that first legalized charter schools were two-thirds more likely than other public schools to utilize incentives (Figlio & Kenny, 2007, pp. 911–912). Important to the present study, Figlio and Kenny then divided the full sample into thirds based on schools serving primarily low-income, middle-income, or high-income students. The researchers found that financial incentives for teachers were “unrelated to student achievement in schools serving higher income families,” but “in the schools drawing students from lower- and middle-income families” relationships between teachers’ merit pay and students’ achievement was statistically significant (Figlio & Kenny, 2007, p. 912). Figlio and Kenny concluded that student achievement was modestly greater in schools where teachers received merit pay incentives, and that the effect of the incentives was greater for lower-income students than for higher-income students. The authors cautioned that the effect might be due as much to innovative practices or school quality as teacher incentives and that a controlled experiment was necessary to prove a causal relationship. North Carolina. States have begun and then suddenly discontinued financial incentives specifically designed to retain teachers in low-income, low-performing schools, so there was little in the research literature about the long-term effect of such incentives. In North Carolina, an incentive program was implemented for a three-year period beginning in 2001. The program awarded an annual bonus of up to $1,800 for certified math, science, and special education teachers who worked in high-poverty public secondary schools (Clotfelter, Glennie, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2006, p. 3). According to Clotfelter and colleagues, economic theory suggested that extra pay provided through a 45 bonus program should have increased the supply of teachers willing to work in an eligible school, and by extension should have reduced the rate of departure for teachers currently employed at that school (Clotfelter et al., 2006, p. 7). The researchers instead found many variations in impact of the North Carolina program: first, the impact of the program as a whole was stronger in the first year than in the second year. Second, math teachers were 18% less likely to leave a school after receiving the financial incentive, but the pay seemed to have no significant effects for science and special education teachers (Clotfelter et al., 2006, p. 16). Third, responses to the program were concentrated among teachers with 10–19 years of experience (Clotfelter et al., 2006, p. 16). Fourth, “middle school teachers who received the bonus were 27% less likely to leave at the end of the first year, but high school teachers exhibited no significant response to the program” (Clotfelter et al., p. 17). Although the study was designed to investigate the effect of teacher retention on secondary students’ academic achievement, the incentive program was ended after two years, so that effect remained unknown. California Governor’s Teaching Fellowship. Steele, Murnane, and Willet (2009) studied the California Governor’s Teaching Fellowship (GTF) program, which offered a $20,000 bonus to novice teachers enrolled in post-baccalaureate teacher licensure programs in 2000–01 and 2001–02 for four continuous years of work in one of California’s lowest-performing schools (Steele et al., 2009, p. 2). The GTF was competitive, and included an interview in the application process (Steele et al., 2009, p. 3). The full amount of the fellowship was paid at the initial teaching contract, and teachers who did not fulfill their four-year commitment were required to pay back the 46 State of California (Steele et al., 2009, p. 3). The authors indicated that the GTF was added to an already existing loan forgiveness program (the Assumption Program of Loans for Education), which forgave $11,000–$19,000 of higher education loans for those teachers who agreed to serve hard-to-staff California schools for four years. The loan forgiveness program tracked its recipients, which allowed the researchers to track teachers (p. 4). Researchers addressed two questions: (a) to what extent did receiving a GTF increase the probability that an academically talented novice teacher took a job in a low-performing school, and (b) conditional on beginning to teach in a low-performing school, how much longer did GTF recipients remain in the set of low-performing schools, as compared to nonrecipients (Steele et al., 2009, p. 7). The researchers calculated that: The GTF award increased by 28.06 percentage points the probability that its recipients taught in low-performing school within two years of receiving APLE contracts …. Another way of stating our central finding is that for every seven GTF recipients who began working in a low performing school, two would not have done so in the absence of the incentive (Steele et al. 2009, p. 20). The researchers found no significant differences between GTF recipients and nonrecipients on the probability of exit from low-performing schools (Steele et al., 2009, p. 24). They cautioned that their analysis of retention was descriptive and not predictive. Summary. Research that focused on merit pay incentives to teachers has remained inconclusive regarding impact on stabilizing schools of increasing students’ educational attainment. While Figlio and Kenny found some modest improvements on low- and middle-in come students’ academic achievement, they could not conclude that impacts were directly related to retaining teachers. Clotfelter, Glennie, Ladd, & Vigdor were unable to verify whether or not the North Caroline intervention of merit pay had any 47 affect on students’ educational attainment. Finally, the California GTF program, which provided a financial bonus and loan forgiveness program as an intervention to sustain teachers in hard-to-staff schools was able to increase the number of teachers attracted to low-income schools, but made no difference in retaining such teachers. Thus, the GTF was unsuccessful at stabilizing school organization. New teacher mentoring and induction. Ingersoll and Strong (2011) noted that the goal of any new teacher induction program was to improve the performance and retention of novice teachers, which provided human capital to the school organization and ultimately aimed to improve the growth and learning of the students (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011, p. 203). The idea was that teacher mentoring, the predominant form of induction, supported the transformation of novice teachers from “student of teaching to teacher of students” (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011, p. 203). Ingersoll and Strong (2011) critically reviewed fifteen empirical studies on the effects of teacher induction and mentoring programs. Outcomes of the studies fell into three categories: teacher commitment and retention, teacher classroom instructional practices, and student achievement (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011, p. 211). Research outcomes regarding teacher commitment and retention, particularly in high poverty schools, were relevant to the current study. Chicago Public Schools. Kapadia, Coca, and Easton (2007) studied first-year teachers (N = 962) and second-year teachers (N = 775) who worked in Chicago Public Schools in 2005. Approximately two-thirds of the sample taught in elementary schools and one-third taught in high schools. New teachers received a survey designed to explore 48 what might influence a new teacher’s job placement choice in the context of Chicago Public Schools (Kapadia et al., 2007, p. 9). Approximately four-fifths of the sample reported participating in an induction program. The participants described variation in types of induction programs. Approximately three-quarters of those respondents reported that they were assigned to a mentor, and they answered questions about that mentor (Kapadia et al., 2007, p. 25). Based on respondents’ answers, the researchers defined mentorship as weak when new teachers received little to no mentoring; they described mentorship as average when new teachers received regular mentoring assistance and found that assistance at least somewhat helpful; and they defined mentorship as strong when new teachers found assistance extremely helpful. According to these definitions, only one-fifth of high school novice teachers and approximately one-quarter of elementary novice teachers had strong levels of mentorship, whereas the majority of first- and second-year teachers were receiving average or weak mentorship (Kapadia et al., 2007, p. 28). Elementary teachers with strong levels of mentorship often reported good experience, intended to stay in teaching, and planned to remain in the same school (Kapadia et al., 2007, p. 28). The researchers then examined novice teachers’ reports about other supports they received, not necessarily through formal induction programs. Elementary teachers reported three types of support to be valuable: principal support, peer collaboration, and participation in a network of new teachers. High school novice teachers similarly reported principal support and participation in a network of new teachers to be valuable, and they also valued suggestions from peers (Kapadia et al., 2007, p. 30). The 49 researchers grouped the novice teachers’ reported experiences into weak, average, and strong levels of support, similar to their categorization of mentoring. Elementary and high school novice teachers who received strong support were more than twice as likely to report a good teaching experience as those who received weak support (Kapadia et al., 2007, pp. 30–31). High school novice teachers who received strong supports reported that they intended to stay in teaching twice as often as their peers who received weak support. Similarly, high school novice teachers receiving strong support reported their plans to remain in the same school three times as often as their peers who received weak support (Kapadia et al., 2007, p. 31). The researchers used the novice teachers’ reports on mentoring and other supports to define a form of induction called “intensive contextual induction,” which meant that a teacher was receiving both strong mentorship as well as strong levels of other support (Kapadia et al., 2007, p. 35). All novice teachers who received intensive contextual induction reported a good experience, intended to continue teaching, and planned to remain at the same school more frequently than those who did not receive such induction (Kapadia et al., 2007, p. 36). Texas Beginning Educator Support System. For an evaluation of the Texas Beginning Educator Support System (TxBESS), Cohen and Fuller (2006) identified a sample of Texas teachers: (a) who had zero years of experience in the 1999–2000 school year (Cohen & Fuller, 2006, p. 6) and (b) who participated in TxBESS during 2001, 2002, and 2003 (n = 595). They also identified an equal number of teachers who had zero years of experience in the 1999–2000 school year, but who did not participate in TxBESS. The researchers questioned how teachers’ initial preparedness and other school characteristics 50 might have affected teacher retention (Cohen & Fuller, 2006, p. 1). Researchers found that TxBESS participants had higher rates of retention when compared to nonparticipants. More importantly, this finding held across school levels (elementary, middle and high school) and also in high-poverty and high-minority enrollment schools (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011, p. 212). Smith and Ingersoll secondary analysis. Smith and Ingersoll (2004) provided a secondary analysis of data from the 1999–2000 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and the 2000–01 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFA) using “multinomial logistic regression analysis of the impact of participation in mentorship and other induction activities” on the rates at which beginning teachers left teaching, moved to a different school, and stayed at the same school (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004, p. 688). Teaching in a high-poverty school was one of the strongest indicators that a first year teacher planned to leave rather than stay in teaching (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004, p. 701). The researchers, however, indicated “a strong link between participation in an induction program and reduction in rates of teacher turnover” (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004, p. 706). Furthermore, having a mentor from the same field, having time to plan or collaborate with other teachers, and being part of a teacher network, when combined, also reduced rates of beginning teacher turnover (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004, p. 706). Smith and Ingersoll (2004) found that as the number of supports for the beginning teacher increased, the likelihood of turnover decreased (p. 704). Nevertheless, the researchers noted that a variety of intensity and quality in induction programs existed. The researchers explored this issue further by isolating the effect of induction on teachers 51 working in high poverty schools, Smith and Ingersoll (2005) conducted an additional analysis of the data in a follow-up study which was not published. In this follow-up study, the researchers controlled for organizational and workplace conditions that might influence outcomes. They found that 74% of beginning teachers at high poverty schools reported having access to a mentor, in contrast to 59% of beginning teachers at lowpoverty schools (Smith & Ingersoll, 2005, p. 14). Beginning teachers at high poverty schools also reported that they spent more time in collaborative activities with other teachers in their building than did beginning teachers at low poverty schools (Smith & Ingersoll, 2005, p. 15). Although the percentage of teachers who reported participation in an external network was similar across high poverty and low poverty schools, the percentage was low overall (Smith & Ingersoll, 2005, p. 15). The researchers summarized that there was no evidence that teachers in low poverty schools received more induction than teachers in high poverty schools (Smith & Ingersoll, 2005, p. 17). Overall, the authors found that mentorship was associated with a reduction in teachers leaving. Furthermore it increased the possibility that teachers in low poverty schools would move positions, however, had no measurable impact on the turnover among teachers in high poverty schools (Smith & Ingersoll, 2005, p. 22). There were no statistically significant effects across types of schools participating in collaborative activities or external networks. Smith and Ingersoll (2005) concluded that, although beginning teachers in high poverty schools received similar mentorship and induction support as did beginning teachers in low poverty schools, teacher turnover in high poverty schools remained greater than in low poverty schools; thus, mentorship and 52 induction was a less effective tool in the reduction of turnover in high poverty schools than in low or medium poverty schools (Smith & Ingersoll, 2005, p. 27). Mathematica study. The U.S. Department of Education funded a three-year project by Mathematica Policy Research to study the effects of induction on beginning teachers’ practices, retention, and student achievement (Glazerman et al., 2010). The study employed a randomized controlled trial methodology that allowed the researchers to isolate the effect of the treatment from other factors that may have influenced the outcomes. Data were collected from beginning teachers (N = 1,009) in large, urban districts (p. 8). Researchers used cluster random assignment to create two groups: (a) two treatment groups who received comprehensive teacher induction provided by either Educational Testing Service or the New Teacher Center at University of California, Santa Cruz either for one year or for two years; and (b) a control group who received their school district’s typical induction services (Glazerman et al., 2010, p. 12). Treatment involved providing trained mentors, monthly professional development, lesson study groups, and release time for observation of veteran teachers to these early career teachers (Glazerman et al., 2010, pp. 40–47). No detailed description of control procedures was provided. Researchers collected data from the fall of 2005 through the spring of 2009, which consisted of the following: teacher background survey; surveys of induction activities, classroom observations, student records; and teacher mobility data (Glazerman et al., 2010, p. 25). Glazerman et al. first compared comprehensive induction provided to the treatment group with the average level of services provided to teachers in the control 53 group (Glazerman et al., 2010, p. 37). Researchers reported the impact of induction on: (a) student outcomes and (b) workforce outcomes. For the intervention that took place for one year, there were no significant gains in student achievement. For schools that implemented a two-year intervention, the researchers found positive impact on math and reading in the year following the two-year intervention. There were no significant differences between treatment and control groups on teachers’ reports of satisfaction or teachers’ reports of feeling prepared (Glazerman et al., 2010, pp. 99–105). Perhaps more importantly, there were no significant differences between treatment and control groups in teacher retention or mobility (Glazerman et al., 2010, pp. 105–111). These results contradicted most studies of comprehensive teacher induction. Summary. Considering the theoretical model used for this study, new teacher induction was related to school operation through stabilization of teaching. Two of the reviewed studies found some improvements to teacher retention. Kapadia, Coca, and Easton reported early career teachers’ greater retention when they participated in formal mentoring programs with contextual, school-based support, and Cohen and Fuller found that the TxBESS intervention improved teachers’ retention. Results of the studies were consistent, regardless of whether teachers taught in low-income or more affluent schools. In a broader survey, however, Smith and Ingersoll (2004, 2005) found that new teacher induction was effective to retain teachers in middle- and high-income schools, but not in low-income schools. This finding made the researchers question whether it was possible to stabilize teaching in such schools through induction programs. The Mathematica Policy Research study was unique among this group of studies because it measured the 54 impact of induction on students’ academic gains, as well as on teacher retention. Comparing the one-year treatment group to the control group, researchers found no significant academic gains; however, comparing the two-year treatment group to the control group, the researchers found significant gains in students’ math and reading skills. Unique among all the research, the Mathematica study suggested that it might take two years for teachers to become acclimated to their schools in order to foster significant educational attainment for students, which in turn suggested that stabilizing teaching, through eliminating turnover, was crucial for low-income schools. The Mathematica study found no significant impacts on teacher retention, which, considered along with Smith and Ingersoll (2005), suggested that new teacher induction might not be an effective way to stabilize teaching in low-income schools. Preservice Teacher Preparation Preservice teacher preparation programs do not fit into Duncan and Murnane’s theoretical model. They are not intended to intervene in family, neighborhood, or labor market matters, and they are not intended to stabilize school operations. Although prospective teachers learn about students’ educational attainment through their preparation programs, preservice teachers, by definition are not responsible for children’s educational attainment Nevertheless, there are cases where preservice preparation of teachers represents a university’s best attempt to intervene in poverty and income inequality, especially with programs designed to increase the numbers of teachers available for high-poverty schools. 55 Preservice preparation. A few researchers suggested that preservice education programs emphasizing urban teacher education and working with children from diverse cultural backgrounds were able to improve teacher readiness and inspire teachers to work in low-income schools (Berry, Montgomery, & Snyder, 2008; Zeichner, 2003). The Center X Teacher Education Program at the University of California-Los Angeles prepared urban educators in diverse, long-term learning communities, combining multicultural education, social justice curriculum and induction support. The majority of graduates have been African-American, Latino, and Asian, and graduates who taught in urban environments showed significantly higher rates of retention compared to national averages (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Quartz & TEP Research Group, 2003). Alternative routes to licensure. Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger (2006) were among the researchers who suggested that there was little difference in student academic outcomes regardless of whether their teacher pursued a traditional licensure route or alternative route (p. 42). These alternative routes were shown to attract higher numbers of African American and Latino candidates than have traditional licensure programs (Villegas & Geist, 2008), and such programs often were more affordable and accessible (Johnson, Birkeland, & Peske, 2005). Achinstein, Ogawa, Sexton, and Freitas (2010) reviewed 70 studies and found that higher proportions of teachers of color worked and remained in urban schools that served ethnically diverse communities, which pointed to a promising solution for teacher recruitment into hard-to-staff schools (p. 80–81). The Pathways to Teaching Careers Program started in 1989 and provided an alternative route into teaching for paraprofessionals and emergency credentialed teachers. 56 There were two studies conducted on Pathways participants. The first study indicated that 63% of the Pathways participants were African American and Latino, a significantly greater percentage than was found in traditional teacher preparation programs. In a subsequent study, 75% of Pathway graduates were still employed in teaching for three or more years past their program graduation, which was higher than national rates of teacher retention (Clewell & Villegas, 2001; Villegas & Clewell, 1998). The Center X Teacher Education Program at the University of California-Los Angeles was one of the few traditional teacher education programs focused on preparing teachers for high-poverty schools and the only one studied systematically. Researchers claimed that teachers prepared in this program had higher retention rates than national averages in hard-to-staff schools. Specialized preservice programs, known as alternative paths to licensure, were able to attract teachers from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, which may have improved school function; research suggested that teachers trained in such programs tended to remain in hard-to-staff schools. Although these programs were not direct interventions aimed at stabilizing schools or creating equity in children’s educational attainment, their goal was to give participants excellent preparation for teaching in under-resourced schools. Summary In this chapter, I reviewed federal and state government interventions, interventions directed school organization, and interventions directed at teachers. All aimed in some way to ameliorate the impacts of poverty and income inequality. (For key studies and findings, see Appendix A.) Federal and state government interventions 57 focused on subsidies for childcare and provided more stable work for mothers. Direct income subsidies to low-income families not only improved maternal employment, but also had an indirect impact on low-income children’s educational attainment. Quality childcare improved children’s educational attainment, but the results were often shortlived. Longitudinal studies on quality childcare such as High Scope/Perry, however, showed that there were longer-term impacts of quality childcare such as greater rates of high school graduation and employment in young adulthood. Consequently, quality childcare contributed to long-term family stability, and to amelioration of generational poverty. Interventions aimed at school organization included Project STAR, which investigated the effects of class size reduction. The primary finding was that class size reduction improved all students’ educational attainment, but effects were greater for lowincome students. A follow-up study on Project Star indicated that participants experienced greater family stability after high school graduation, including college enrollment, home ownership, and contributions to savings. The follow-up study, too, suggested that class-size reduction contributed to amelioration of generational poverty. Comprehensive school reforms were intended to improve school function and consequently improve educational attainment for children. Success for All was an example of an intervention that achieved these goals for all students and was more effective for Black, Hispanic, and low-income students; thus, it contributed to greater educational equity. Charter schools similarly were intended to improve school organization and thus improve children’s educational attainment, but results of studies on charter schools were inconclusive regarding children’s educational attainment. Finally, 58 interventions directed towards teachers included merit pay and new teacher induction, both of which were designed support teacher retention, stabilize schools and improve children’s educational attainment. Researchers studying merit pay found modest improvements to educational attainment, but they were unable to rule out other contributing factors. Research on new teacher induction and mentoring showed that it improved teacher retention in most schools, but there were no observable effects to teacher retention in high-poverty schools. In this study, I have positioned CMP as an intervention in poverty and income inequality. The stated goals of San Jose CMP were to: (a) sustain music programs in low and middle income schools; (b) contribute to music teachers’ longevity in those schools; and (c) attract and prepare prospective music teachers to under-resourced schools (D. M. Hollinger, personal communication, September 21, 2011). Unlike interventions described in this chapter, CMP was not an intervention directed towards families, schools, or the overall teaching corps. Instead, CMP intended to stabilize music programs and the music teaching staff. In that regard, CMP was most like CSRs, but on a smaller scale. CMP not only envisioned greater music attainment from enrolled students, but also hoped for greater student access to music education. CMP recognized that music teachers in San Jose often were faced with large class sizes, so by placing a preservice music educator in the music classroom, CMP allowed for differentiated instruction and hoped for greater equity in students’ musical achievement. In that way, CMP shared some vision with Project STAR’s reduced class sizes. Like interventions directed at teachers, CMP hoped to improve teacher retention through added support. By retaining music 59 teachers, CMP sought to stabilize music programs, which allowed for long-term focus on students’ music education gains. Because it gave undergraduate music education majors opportunity to practice teaching with a mentor teacher, CMP was similar to preservice teaching programs such as Center X that hoped to prepare prospective teachers specifically for under-resourced schools. Given relatively modest effects of and inconclusive evidence about other interventions, it remained unclear as this study got underway whether CMP had met its goals. 60 Chapter 3: Method and Procedures The purpose of the study was to examine the extent to which the California Music Project Teacher Training Program had achieved its goals of: (a) sustaining music programs in low-income schools; (b) contributing to music teachers’ longevity in such schools; and (c) preparing prospective music teachers for work in under-resourced education settings. Specifically, I examined the San Jose site of the California Music Project Teacher Training program, which was founded in 2006, as a case of intervention in poverty and income inequality, specifically aimed at music programs and music teachers. Of the three CMP sites, this one had the longest history; therefore, a broad range of mentors’ and fellows’ experiences had potential to inform the case. Merriam (1998) argued that case studies were “differentiated from other types of qualitative research” due to their “intensive descriptions and analyses of a single unit or bounded system … such as an individual, program, event, group, intervention, or community” (p. 19). Merriam thus distinguished case study research from other types of research not because of an epistemological stance, or because of the role of the researcher, but because of an intense focus on understanding the case. Historically, case studies were utilized in medicine, law, and psychology to understand anomaly or precedent. One of the earliest case studies, for example, was conducted in 1676 on an individual who exhibited signs of dyslexia (Anderson & Meier-Hedde, 2001). In psychology, case studies have been informative, but they also have been controversial; for example, Piaget was criticized for building his stage theory on observations (cases) of his children, therefore insufficiently accounting for social context (cf. Brainerd, 1978; Broughton, 61 1981). Further, as statistical methods came into prominence, case study became marginalized because the research was about particular cases and, therefore, not generalizable to a broader population. During the past two decades, as researchers sought to legitimize cases, confusion arose about case study methods. For example, Yin (2009) argued that case studies were most useful for theory building, but Merriam (1998) claimed that case studies were “particularistic, descriptive, and heuristic” (p. 34). Regardless of whether Yin (2009), Merriam (1998), or Stake (1995) influenced procedures in any given case study, all three authors identified bounding the case as the principal task of the researcher. The bounded system for this case was the California Music Project Teacher Training Program, and because the San Jose site was founded first and had the longest history, it offered the greatest potential for understanding the case. My interest in the present case was due to its explanatory potential as an intervention in the indirect impacts of income inequality on school operations, and more specifically on music programs and music teaching. Due to the social theory underlying income inequality, this case study was designed to most closely resemble Merriam’s depiction of interpretive case study “used to develop conceptual categories or to illustrate, support or challenge theoretical assumptions” (p. 38). The case study also was evaluative because the intent was to make judgments about the extent to which CMP had achieved its goals of (a) sustaining music programs in low-income schools; (b) contributing to music teachers’ longevity in such schools; and (c) preparing prospective music teachers for work in under-resourced education settings. 62 Site and Informant Recruitment From 2006 through 2013, there were approximately 28 mentors, 55 fellows and 5 supervisors at the San Jose site of the California Music Project Teacher Training Program. To create maximum variation in the data generated for this case and thus to ensure an indepth understanding of the case, mentors and fellows were recruited from the first (pilot) year of the program (2006–07) and from recent years of the program (2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13). The supervisor of the program in 2012–13 invited all mentors and fellows from these years to become informants for the study (see Appendix B for permission to contact e-mail), and 16 informants—9 mentors and 7 fellows—agreed to participate in this study. Furthermore, three mentors and three fellows were from the 2012–13 cohort, so I was able to observe their paired work in context. When a prospective informant responded to the permission to contact message, I followed up first with an email contact, and then with a phone contact to arrange a faceto-face meeting where I presented information about the study and a consent form (Appendix C). I addressed any questions about the research, and I called attention to the fact that I would audio-record and then transcribe the interviews. It was important for informants to understand that the purpose of this study was to understand the case; therefore, their names, and the names of their schools, were kept anonymous; informants and their schools were identified by pseudonyms throughout data generation, analysis, and reporting phases of this study. Finally, I emphasized to prospective informants that their participation was voluntary; they were able to withdraw from the study at any time, 63 for any reason. After an informant gave his or her consent, I arranged interviews and observations. Researcher Positionality At the time of this study, I was a K-8 general and choral music teacher and an adjunct faculty member at San Jose State University (SJSU). Through my affiliation with the university, I was acquainted with some of informants for this study, but I was not responsible for their instruction and my relationship to CMP remained peripheral. I had never been directly involved as a supervisor or mentor in the program. However, the impetus for this study came my personal experience working in an under-resourced school with very poor students. My first day of teaching, I was excited to share music with my fifth grade students, but in the middle of the lesson, a fight broke out between two girls. I tried to break it up but then the fight turned on me and I was picked up and thrown out of the classroom. After two years of creating conflict rather than resolving it, I finally turned to a seasoned, seventh grade language arts teacher who understood the climate of the school yet was committed to staying. She told me, “Stand up straight.” (I didn’t recognize the message my body posture was giving) “And act more like their mother,” which meant I should set higher expectations, consistently demand their best, and I should stop making excuses for musical work that was less than their best. Another piece of advice was to begin with musical literature and activities that were relevant to the students’ lives, and then gradually introduce other music. This wonderful teacher would come into my classroom and coach my teaching—she was a true mentor. I got better at teaching, I stopped having conflicts with students, and my 64 relationships with their parents grew. I participated in after school activities, helping students with their studying, and I helped launder school uniforms so students would have clean clothes to wear the next day. My attitude changed, and I began to love my job and love my students. Still, after four years of teaching in this situation with low pay and few resources, I was burned out and struggling financially. I had to leave. Data Generation Merriam (1998) indicated that “intensive, holistic description and analysis characteristic of a case study mandate[d] both breadth and depth of data collection” (p. 134, emphasis in original). To develop a comprehensive interpretation, I relied on: (a) individual interviews, (b) document analysis, and (c) music classroom observations. Merriam additionally claimed that the three strategies rarely were used equally. In this study, I used interviews with mentors and fellows as primary data, and I checked and corroborated interview findings with document analysis and observations. Data collection and analysis were simultaneous and ongoing processes in this case study. Interviews. The primary method of data collection was interviewing, which began in January 2013 and lasted through May 2013. In line with Warren’s (2001) recommendation, protocols guided the conversation, allowing me to listen for the significance of what was being expressed. Warren explained that, although the interview lens was verbal, the chronological range was biographical because it broadened the inquiry into the past and future (p. 85). Consequently, I listened to informants’ descriptions of how their background perspectives influenced their participation in CMP as well as how they used knowledge and skills gained during CMP in their present 65 situations. Interview questions and additional prompts were used as needed to help ensure clarity and thoroughness of responses (for protocols, see Appendix D). I audio-recorded each interview, which allowed me to focus my attention on the informant during the interview; at the same time, audio recording ensured accuracy of the interview transcription. Additionally, audio recording instead of video recording was a means to protect the anonymity of the informant. In case of a data breach, all informants were identified only by pseudonym, and physical likenesses were not preserved. Although my initial goal was to have an interview transcribed within 48 hours after it occurred, it sometimes took as long as four days to get the transcript transcribed. The transcription was given to the informant who checked it for accuracy and edited any portions that did not represent his or her intentions (Creswell, 2007; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 1990). Throughout the interview process, I kept hand-written researcher memos in a logbook, which consisted of thoughts about the interview and potential follow-up questions. Furthermore, memos helped me tentatively connect ideas during the data generation phase, and, as Glesne (2011) indicated, researcher memoing enabled me to stay open to new perspectives. Documents and other artifacts. I asked the informants to bring copies of documents and other artifacts to the interview that could help describe their music programs and their experience in the CMP in greater detail. Documents and artifacts included: 66 1. Map of the school building; 2. Music department daily schedule; 3. Music department enrollment (identifiers removed); 4. Music curriculum guides or curriculum maps, including assessments; 5. Music department budget; 6. Evidence of partnerships with external programs, such as program guides; 7. Resource lists, such as instruments, books, and other materials; 8. Any materials that the mentor had developed to guide the fellow; and 9. Any materials the fellow had developed to support the mentor or mentor’s students. I anticipated that artifacts would help reveal “values, expectations, and behaviors” otherwise challenging to assess (Eisner, 1998, p. 185). I kept copies of the documents and made memos noting where documents corroborated emergent interview categories and themes. Observations and field notes. From the 2012–13 mentors and fellows, I obtained fellowship schedules, and I gave each mentor a letter (Appendix E) that requested permission to observe the mentor and fellow at the school site. The mentor contacted his or her administrator and received a letter of support, indicating that I had permission to visit the campus for purposes of observation. Upon being granted access to the music classroom, and in the role of observer, I took field notes to describe people, places, and activities involved in the music program. Most field notes were taken by hand in my field journal and then I transcribed them electronically within 24 hours (Appendix F). My focus was as a nonparticipant observer, 67 without interacting overtly with students, fellows, or mentors; however, merely by being in the room, I influenced interactions between mentor, fellow, and students, which I acknowledged in reflective memos. In Figure 3.1, I have displayed an example from my memo book. I sat quietly in the back of the tightly packed orchestra room. There must be 80 students in this room that was built for 60. The students warmed up their instruments and the fellow ran through a few exercises with them. I was trying hard to be unnoticed as I was standing up against the wall, the only space I could find. I was focused on observing but then, the mentor turned to introduced me and in an excited voice told the middle school students not to worry she is not observing you, she is observing me. I felt a little uncomfortable, I started to feel like I was the center of attention, yet the students immediately turned their focus on the mentor and then I realized I was never seen again. This moment didn’t ruin my observation, as I was concerned. The mentor’s acknowledgement made the students comfortable and safe with a new person in the room. I realized that this mentor was very focused – that he had a purpose for almost everything he did. This introduction was for his students – for them to have a safe place – since most of them do not have a safe neighborhood environment.   Figure 3.1. Excerpt from memo book. Following Eisner’s (1998) advice, I developed an observation protocol that was a mix of “prefigured focus,” because I established an observation target prior to the observation and “emergent focus” that allowed me to document unexpected conditions (p. 176). I studied the informants in the setting to describe their interactions with each other through verbal and nonverbal communication, including proxemics (i.e., use of classroom space; Glesne, 2011, p. 69), and I described the classroom space carefully in words and sketches in my field notes. As with interviews, I kept memos in a reflective field log, 68 which consisted of thoughts about the observation and follow-up questions. As with document analysis, I eventually made memos in the margins of my field notes regarding the extent to which they corroborated or refuted interview themes. Data Analysis Stake (1995) reminded case study researchers to understand the case (p. 75, emphasis mine). Merriam (1998) expanded on Stake, indicating that data were usually “derived from interviews, field observations, and documents,” and such a range of data sources often required researchers to reconcile “disparate, incompatible, even apparently contradictory information” (p. 193). Throughout the data collection and analysis process, I kept track of my research by organizing it chronologically in a journal. I wrote down each interview date and time, each observation date and time, and transcription dates. I logged the receipt of transcriptions after informants checked them, as well as any followups emails. Updated interview questions were noted, and artifacts and documents collected from the informants were logged, reviewed, and evaluated. A codebook. Early data analysis started with reading through interview transcriptions. This inquiry helped me shape new questions by reexamining my suppositions, as Glesne suggested (2006, p. 120). Although I developed a rudimentary coding scheme (Glesne, 2011, pp. 189–191), I became aware that 16 interview transcripts and 3 observation transcripts comprised a great amount of data, and a method of data reduction was needed; therefore, I created a codebook. First, I transcribed each complete idea or thought from an informant on a separate line, and then I assigned a code to each line. Insofar as possible, I used in vivo codes, 69 which kept the codebook close to the exact words used by the informants (Creswell, 2007, p. 153). For example, fellows frequently used the word “opportunity” when answering, “What inspired you to participate in the California Music Project Teacher Training Program?” Most fellows listed opportunities for themselves as the inspiration to apply for a fellowship. The word “opportunity” became the code OPP. Another example of an in vivo code was the code STSAFE which came from a mentor stating, “They [Students] knew it was a SAFE environment” when they spoke about their classroom. Frequently, the mentors reported reasons for needing a fellow. This became the in vivo code NEED. Throughout the coding process, I was mindful of LeCompte and Schensul’s (1999) advice that patterns emerged through participants’ declarations as well as their omissions, frequency of occurrence and co-occurrence of terms or ideas, and similarity of terms and ideas (pp. 98-103). I began by coding 2012–13 fellows’ and mentors’ transcripts, then continued to 2006–07 fellows and mentors, and finally moved on to 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fellows and mentors. When I finished coding a transcript, I returned to the previous transcripts and applied new codes. Thus, developing codebook was a reiterative pattern analysis process. As a code was created, it was also entered into a codebook with a short definition. Considering the ideas of similarity, definitions became varied, and as many variations on a code became apparent, the code became a category. Finally, I was able to connect several categories to create a larger theme. For example, I coded the informants’ thoughts about their preparation for CMP. This code started simply as PREP, but as the data were analyzed through the reiterative process, varied examples of PREP emerged. Changed 70 from a code to a category, BACKPREP included mentors’ preparation (MPREP) and fellows’ preparation (FPREP). MPREP was further divided into specific types of preparation such as preparation for musical performance (MPREP PERF), preparation through music education degree completion (MPREP MUED), and preparation through life experiences (MPREP LIFE). Many fellows felt unprepared for the fellowship in various ways, and such ways were coded under NOPREP. With two broad categories of informants’ background information identified, a theme emerged: BACK was defined as the backgrounds of the informants from childhood through professional training (college) and professional development (postcollege), and how such backgrounds affected choices to work in low-income schools. (See Appendix G for this excerpt from the codebook.) Case study touchstones. Several authors wrote about how to judge the rigor of case studies (cf. Compton-Lilly, 2013; Dyson and Genishi, 2005; Merriam, 1998; and Stake, 1978), and from their work I distilled several notions about the quality of this study including: (a) representing complexity, (b) explicating the theoretical framework, (c) establishing the credibility of the researcher’s analysis, and (d) discussing, yet complicating, notions of generalizability. Compton-Lilly (2013) indicated that hallmarks of complexity were nuance and variation, supported by use of multiple sources of data (pp. 58–59). I have revealed the multiple sources of data used to inform this study throughout this chapter. Nuance and variation were evidenced somewhat in my codebook examples (see Appendix G); nevertheless nuance and variation were saved mainly for my interpretation. Merriam (1998) discussed how the researcher should explain “the assumptions and theory behind the study, his or her position vis-à-vis the 71 group being studied, the basis for selecting informants and description of them” (pp. 206– 207). I was attentive to Merriam’s recommendations throughout the first three chapters of this study. Audit. Merriam also indicated that credibility was enhanced when the researcher provided an audit trail to an external reviewer (p. 207). I sent a completed version of the codebook to an auditor who held a doctoral degree in music education and was employed at a Midwestern university. The auditor was familiar with qualitative data analysis through research focused on psychosocial aspects of music education. The auditor reported clearly visualizing the connections between codes, categories, and themes, but the auditor focused feedback on how to organize the reduced data. Recommendations included separating codes by type of informant. For example, in the BACKDEMO category, I initially grouped all informants’ ATTDLOWSES/ATTDHIGHSES together. After the auditor’s notes, I separated the codes into FATTDLOWSES/ATTDHIGHSES (fellows’ data), MATTDLOWSES/ATTDHIGHSES (mentors’ data) and FFATTDLOWSES/ATTDHIGHSES (former fellows’ data). Similar formatting was applied throughout the codebook. Compton-Lilly (2013) indicated that case studies evolved as researchers became more familiar with the research site and informants. The evolving nature of the present study was evinced through descriptions of the ongoing processes of data generation and analysis. Linked with the evolving nature of case study, Compton-Lilly referred to complicating notions of generalizability. Merriam (1998) indicated that trustworthiness in case studies was comparable to internal validity, which the author recognized as a 72 strength of qualitative research because the researcher was closer to “the phenomenon of interest.” (p. 203). External validity, or generalizability, was a more contentious issue. Stake (1978) argued for naturalistic generalization, writing “To generalize this way is to be both intuitive and empirical, and not idiotic” (p. 6). Similarly, Dyson and Genishi (2005) maintained that when readers understood “the particulars” of a case, they could compare it with other cases. Emergent themes. Chapters 4 and 5 were constructed using emergent themes from analysis (Figure 3.2), with mentors’ CMP experiences presented in Chapter 4 and fellows’ presented in Chapter 5. A mentor’s Teaching Environment and Background influenced his or her Need for a fellow, which, in turn, influenced Interactions with the fellow. A fellow’s Background influenced application to the CMP fellowship program, and types of Help he or she offered to the mentor. To some extent, Interactions with the mentor influenced whether the fellow reframed Help as Opportunity. Mentors were primarily concerned with Outcomes for their students; however, some mentors stayed in under-resourced schools, while others left after their CMP experiences. Outcomes for fellows included their initial acceptance of positions in under-resourced school environments; however, only two fellows stayed in such environments. Limitations of CMP were linked back to perceptions of Need and offers of Help. In Chapter 6, I connected emergent themes to the theoretical framework and background research of this study, and in Chapter 7, I summarized the study and presented conclusions. 73 Mentor’s Teaching Environment: Fellow’s Background: included preparation included school SES, race, ethnicity, school schedule, principal and parent support. from childhood through university education, generating beliefs, and concerns     Mentor’s Background: included preparation from childhood through professional development, generated beliefs and concerns Help: fellows felt compassion for mentors and offered help in various forms.     Interaction: mentors and fellows interacted through Need: mentors expressed that they need a fellow. 74     observation, planning, and conversation.     Outcomes: was primarily beneficial to students. Some mentors stayed in under-resourced positions; others left. Opportunity: some Help was reframed as opportunity     Limitations: fellows were limited by the amount   of time they were able to contribute, and there was little orientation or supervision for CMP.   Limitations: weak fellows added to stress of teaching environment Figure 3.2. Emergent themes     Outcomes: a few fellows were encouraged to take positions in under-resourced schools Limitations: wished for other opportunities.   Chapter 4: Mentors In this chapter, I focused on the mentors’ experiences of CMP. I explored how their backgrounds and beliefs influenced their teaching, and how they functioned within their school environments. I described those environments including curriculum, schedule, and class size, as well as mentors’ relationships with school administrators and relationships with students’ families. Critical to the study at hand, I explained how mentors described their relationships with fellows, noting particularly how they described hosting a fellow in an under-resourced school environment. Most of the music teachers who were mentors in CMP came from middle class, suburban backgrounds. Daniel, Tony, Becky, Alexis, Ralph, and Silvia attended middleincome public schools, whereas Andrew attended affluent schools. Sean moved several times during his formative years and experienced both low-income schools and highincome schools. Sean came from a low-income family, but because of his musical skills, he earned a scholarship to attend an elite private school. Silvia also described her family as poor, but she described all the schools she attended as affluent. All of the mentors were White, except Alexis, who identified herself as Chinese American and was able to converse informally in Mandarin. Tony, Andrew, Ralph, and Silvia attended suburban schools with little ethnic diversity in the school population; however, Daniel attended high school in an urban setting that was quite diverse, and Becky’s rural school had a large Hispanic population. Like many of the mentors, Becky studied Spanish in high school but admitted she was not fluent in the language. The mentors valued numerous experiences that prepared them to teach music. 75 Sean thought1 that music performance was a critical aspect of his preparation because it was “hard to go where you haven’t been.” Daniel and Silvia agreed. Most mentors spoke highly of their university music teacher preparation programs, particularly the early field experiences and student teaching. Ralph mentioned that his degree program was especially good at addressing “equity concerns and issues,” and in his program he learned the importance of “building relationships” in order to help students. Jeffrey felt that his university preparation helped him “master pedagogy,” but he also learned that teaching was not solely about “a band that sounds good.” In addition, teaching was “about kids experiencing hard work and teamwork and perseverance and that magic of making music.” Andrew felt “prepared for anything” after his student teaching in a school where there “wasn’t a ton of money.” In contrast, Becky, Jeffrey, Daniel, and Alexis concurred that their music education degree programs were not effective in preparing them for the realities of teaching. Jeffrey felt he needed to learn “a lot on the job,” and Becky expressed skepticism about whether any university program could prepare a music teacher fully. In spite of different views on their formal preparation, all mentors believed that music teaching was a good fit for their skills and lifestyle. Jeffrey spoke for most mentors when he said, “I fell in love with music in high school and teaching allowed me to keep making music.” Silvia asserted, “if somebody hadn’t put me in orchestra, I probably wouldn’t have made it.” Music teaching was a second career for Ralph, and                                                                                                                 1 A common critique of qualitative case studies is that researchers write as if they are mind-readers. As a researcher, I am aware that I cannot determine what informants think or feel; however, I have incorporated verbs such as “thought” and “felt” as in vivo expressions. 76 when he compared music teaching to his former jobs he realized, “I never had a job [previously] where I looked forward to going to work.” Another commonality among the mentors was their commitment to continued professional development, but they sought continuing education in several different ways. Tony had a thirty-year relationship with his mentor and often reached out for his advice. Similarly, Alexis sought advice and support from college professors, particularly in her early years of teaching. Most of the mentors attended at least one conference each year, and Daniel related some benefits of such professional development: “a lot of times there was a composer or arranger there, and you would get the chance to hear the new music played. Plus you got to see a lot of your friends.” Because his health made it challenging to travel to conferences, Ralph often utilized American Choral Directors Association (ACDA), National Association for Music Education (NAfME) and other music education websites for professional development. Sean took his students on a tour to Los Angeles, a highlight of which was a “two hour clinic with the staff of Cal State Fullerton.” Sean explained that the trip was beneficial not only for the students’ musical progress, but also for his continued growth as a music teacher. Many of the CMP mentors were veteran teachers with more than 20 years of music teaching experience, and for several mentors, teaching was a second career. After graduating from a public university in California, Jeffrey taught for two years in a lowincome district in Santa Cruz. When his high school alma mater had a position open, he readily applied and was hired. He had been teaching band there for 22 years at the time of the study. Tony received a Bachelor’s degree in psychology, but he returned to 77 college a decade later to earn his Bachelor’s degree in music. For 16 years, he worked as a consultant with marching bands and drum corps and as a free-lance musician, but at the time of this study, Tony had been teaching band, piano, and choir in the same public high school for 27 years. Although Silvia began her teaching career in an elementary classroom, her calling for music was too strong, so she performed professionally for 12 years. She returned to teaching but naturally moved into a music classroom, where she worked for 27 years. Like Sylvia, Daniel was a professional musician and recording artist before finding his way into music education. He had been teaching band for 27 years at the time of the study. Ralph also was a professional musician, and he pursued a technology career for 12 years. He eventually decided to go back to school and earn his teaching credential, and at the time of the study, he had been teaching band in a lowincome school district for ten years. Sean attended a well-known conservatory, earning a Bachelor’s degree in music performance, but he went on to earn a Master’s degree in music education at a public university. At the time of this study he had been teaching orchestra for nine years at a low-income middle school while simultaneously teaching in an after-school program run by a different school district. Andrew graduated from a public university in the Midwest, and he took the first job offered to him, which happened to be a low-income middle school in San Jose. He had been teaching band and elementary music there for six years at the time of the study. Becky graduated from San Jose State University with her Bachelor’s degree and credential in music education. She started working at a lowincome school teaching orchestra, band and choir in a middle school, where she stayed 78 for three years. Alexis also graduated with her Bachelor’s degree from San Jose State University, and participated as a CMP fellow during the pilot year of the program. Following her fellowship, she worked at a low-income charter middle school for two years teaching band and piano class. Ralph, Becky, Tony, Daniel, and Andrew all began serving as mentors during the pilot year of CMP. Ralph, Becky, and Tony were mentors only during the pilot year, whereas Daniel and Andrew continued to serve as mentors for several years and were engaged in mentoring at the time of this study. Alexis was a mentor for two years from 2007–09. Jeffrey and Silvia served as mentors during the 2010–11 and 2011–12 academic years, but then they declined to serve because they wanted to ensure that other music teachers had opportunity for assistance. Sean was a first-year mentor at the time of the study. For most mentors, the schools in which they were employed at the time of the study were very different than the ones in which they grew up. High, locked gates, separating the schools from potentially dangerous neighborhoods, surrounded one-story school buildings. Due to a rapid rise of the student-age population in the San Jose area, portable classroom buildings had taken up any grassy areas surrounding the main buildings. Most of the schools supported students from low- and middle-class families, but affluent families also were represented in a few schools. Although Becky considered her CMP school to be in a “basic middle class community—not particularly wealthy, but living comfortably,” Alexis described her charter school as low-income, evident from the large number of students who were eligible for free and reduced lunch. One school was 79 noticeably different from the others, situated in a beautiful suburban area with large houses and manicured lawns. The school received a special designation from the federal government that came with funding for desegregation. Sean explained that his school bussed in students from inner-city San Jose, “who did not have the same opportunities as the folks that live in this community.” Regarding the racial and ethnic diversity of their schools, Daniel asserted that the diversity at his school reflected the “same demographics as California,” and Jeffrey, Silvia, and Alexis held similar views. According to Andrew, 22 different languages were spoken by the students at his school, whereas, Ralph noted the predominance of Spanishspeaking students at his school. Tony and Becky commented that many of their Asian students had difficulty with English language reading, but Tony viewed this as an opportunity to teach music “through their ears.” Beliefs about Poverty and Beliefs about Music Education Because all mentors taught poor students, they brought beliefs and concerns about poor families into their work. Specifically, Silvia believed that affluent kids often acted spoiled or entitled, whereas poor children were “often very grateful to have music.” Sean similarly believed that when he talked to poor families about opportunities in music they were “really excited about it.” Comparing poor and affluent families, Tony expressed that “the depth and the creativity and the warmth—especially the warmth and love of poor children” typically was not seen in an affluent community. Ralph recognized that some of his students had the “craziest extenuating circumstances, like mom got put into jail,” which limited their participation in band. He explained that his “default position” 80 was to assume that there were “probably more difficulties than I’ve ever personally experienced” for most poor families, and he worked to be “a lot more patient about getting things done.” Tony related the story of driving to school past a student who waved to him; however, that student “wasn’t in class. He didn’t go to school that whole day.” Such absences from school and concerts were frequent for his low-income students and Tony felt unable to intervene. Jeffrey mentioned his concern that students were tempted by gangs, and Alexis similarly expressed that gangs were “a pretty constant concern.” Sean believed that some of his “eleven-, twelve-, or thirteen-year- old” students came from “war zones of red gangs fighting against blue gangs.” Unlike other mentors, Andrew believed that poor parents were “having a lot of kids” and failing to play an active role in their upbringing. He believed that poor families did not value music education, so it was difficult for his students “to get an instrument, and hard to get family support for practicing.” Andrew commented that poor students were most likely the first ones in their families to play an instrument so they had no one at home to help. Like other mentors, Andrew was concerned about absences, but he explained that “when a kid miss[ed] forty percent of school” he just “wrote him off.” Andrew commented that, ordinarily, he did not focus on teaching poor students unless they were “open to learning.” Similar to their beliefs about families in poverty, mentors brought their beliefs about benefits of music education into their daily work. For example, Sean asserted, “Stanford brain research” has found that music “promotes discipline and perseverance and community and leadership.” Consequently, Sean wanted music student to “have a 81 reason to come to school … a place to move” and a place where it was possible to “learn differently.” Silvia also referred to research, saying that ear training affected “growth in the brain” that did not happen otherwise. She claimed that music improved students’ “reading from left to right” and that music also was “beneficial for math” because students were “putting fractions into their body. They divided the bow up by quarters, eighths, and halves.” Daniel believed that the students in his band “joined a family.” They dressed up in “black jackets” and were “respected” within the school. Daniel asserted that, through music, students learned “how to concentrate for five to ten minutes at a time,” where in the normal curriculum that was not the case. He suggested that concentration normally was applied in standardized testing, which was the reason “music kids generally tested higher.” Becky added, “the cooperative efforts” required in a music ensemble and “the aspects of being a respectful and responsible member of a musical ensemble” were “a lot like being a good person in the world.” Music inculcated “a richness in life” and improved “quality of life,” according to Andrew. He recalled a former student who had academic “challenges.” Andrew suggested, “Without being a part of my program, the trajectory of her life would have been never to have cross paths with the arts.” He knew that she was still playing clarinet in band. Music Teaching Environment All of the mentors in the California Music Project Teacher Training Program taught instrumental music (a few also taught choir, general, or music appreciation), and most believed that band and orchestra should be open to any student, regardless of 82 whether their families could afford an instrument. Silvia expressed the sentiment of most mentors, stating that she took “as many students as possible.” She was proud that she did not turn anybody away. Jeffrey provided instruments if the students could not obtain them. Sean expressed desire to offer music to all the students: however, his school prevented student with low test scores on the California Standards Test (CST) from taking elective classes, such as music and art. Instead, they were required to take remedial classes. Mentor Years in CMP Years in teaching Classes taught Alexis 2007-2009 2 band, piano Andrew 2006-2013 6 band, elementary general Becky 2006 only 3 band, orchestra, choir Daniel 2006-2013 27 band Jeffrey 2010-2012 24 band, music appreciation Ralph 2006 only 10 band Sean 2012-2013 9 orchestra Silvia 2010-2012 27 orchestra (all levels) Tony 2006 only 27 band, piano, choir Figure 4.1. Mentors’ Information Mentors believed that they were responsible for teaching California State Music Standards in their instrumental music curricula but some admitted that they fell short of meeting all standards. Tony called his program “performance driven,” so he covered “all 83 the standards except for, perhaps, composition and improvisation.” Becky spoke similarly about her program, claiming that, because of her “three full concerts a year as well as a trip to Disneyland,” she was unable to cover historical and composition standards with her students.. When pressed about teaching to the standards, however, Sean pointed out that the California State Standards assumed that students were “getting music from Kindergarten on.” While a few elementary school music programs existed, most met only once per week. Middle school instrumental programs served as an introduction to music for most students in CMP schools. Sean and Becky found the positive side of such an arrangement: when music was new for everyone it “evened the playing field” for all of the students. Sean told prospective students, “You can’t read music? Good. No one can.” Some of the mentors taught their music classes once per day, five days per week, but Becky, Alexis, Ralph, and Jeffrey had block scheduling at their schools, which meant they saw students approximately three times per week. Silvia taught each of her elementary string classes for an hour during the school day, and then met with the full orchestra once a week after school. However, this time period included walking the students across the street from the elementary school to the high school, because there was not a room for string teaching at the elementary school. Silvia calculated that her actual teaching time was about twenty-five minutes. The size instrumental music classes at CMP schools ranged from 20 students in small ensembles and group lessons to full ensembles of around 80 students. Jeffrey explained his school district’s policy that “music teachers were staffed at 40 to 1.” This 84 meant, because he had a “jazz band of 20,” concert band enrollment was “way over 60.” He believed that, if he were to teach, “like a regular teacher teaching the same history class all day,” he could spend more time assessing students’ growth. Sean reflected the views of many of the mentors: It’s such a large program and I really want to make sure that every kid gets a rich and rewarding and unique experience, and try to teach to each individual as opposed to one giant collection of kids. I don’t want them to just be nameless faces. I try to record all of them as much as possible and then I go home and listen, in order to give students meaningful feedback, balancing that between all the concerts. Just keeping up with the 500 students times the emails, times the parents, times the concerts, times the grading, times the IEPs, 504s, and other teachers coming to me because they think I have some sort of magic spell over the students. They’re good in band, but not in math. Having to deal with that and dealing with the pressures from community of making sure that students are really elite, but on the other hand just having fun. That combination of elements—it’s hard to balance it all. Although these music teachers had contracted schedules and workloads, their work often seemed, as Jeffrey put it, “not a five-day-a-week, five-hour-a-day job,” but instead “more like a six-days-a-week, ten-hours-a-day” job. Tony felt “busy all the time” teaching after-school ensembles for his advanced music students and meeting with those students who were struggling to keep up in music classes. At the charter school, whenever Alexis was not teaching, she was advising students, which she described as an “exhausting schedule.” Several mentors had itinerant positions, and Ralph felt lucky to be working at only two middle schools at the time of this study. In the past, he had worked half time at a middle school, quarter time at two elementary schools, and quarter time directing a district jazz band. Further, not all of the teachers’ work was focused on music teaching. Some 85 mentors had administrative duties, such as being the chair of the music department, or extra duties, such as recess supervision, incorporated into their workloads. Sean noted that teachers were encouraged to take an a role in the life of the school, so he volunteered to serve on a race and equity committee that examined racial stereotypes and looked at why some students were suspended more frequently than others. Fundraising consumed many hours of teachers’ time. Although they each received a small budget, mentors agreed that without fund raising, they were unable to maintain an instrumental music program. Andrew’s instruments were in “serious decay,” so he planned to hold his program together “with duct tape and bubble gum,” until there was adequate fundraising for new instruments and repair. Sean spent “an additional 200– 300 hours quite easily” on his yearly fundraising efforts, which went towards purchasing and repairing the 250 instruments necessary to maintain his program. As Becky mentioned, fundraising not only was time-consuming, but also often was frustrating: “The district made fundraising procedures very difficult so it took hours and hours to collect the information that they wanted.” Busy schedules and the responsibility of fundraising contributed to mentors’ stress. Likewise, isolation, lack of parent support, and lack of administrative support were frustrating for some mentors. Most of the mentors explained that they were the sole music teachers on their respective campuses, which was “lonely and hard,” according to Alexis. Tony went “for days without seeing another adult” at his school. He related how his school closed their faculty lounge in favor of creating department offices, and he recalled thinking to himself, “of course, I’ve got an office where the band director and the 86 choir director and the piano teacher can sit, but they’re all me!” Daniel made time to walk across campus and chat with other teachers; however, overall he felt “physically isolated from the rest of the campus.” Conversely, Jeffrey found he was “constantly talking with” other music teachers at his school, and Sean also taught with a large team of music teachers. Although Jeffrey and Sean were not stressed by isolation, they felt overwhelmed and exhausted by the demands of large music departments. Sean was one of several mentors who conveyed that, regardless of how much school administrators voiced their support for music, they were “viewed by their CST scores.” Daniel reiterated these concerns, asserting that school administrators preferred to be “known for their science or their math programs” instead of an excellent music program. Tony viewed his principal as “in charge of funding,” and he noted that little financial support had come to the music program. Similarly, Alexis commented that music was not a priority for her administrators. Becky gave some credit to administrators for caring, but explained that they “didn’t have music training and didn’t understand what it took to make kids do things together.” As an example, Tony explained that he once taught in a noisy cafeteria instead of a band room. He perceived this lack of attention to the music program as a lack of support on the part of the administrator—“so it hurt.” Jeffrey related an attempt to talk to his principal about “that magical moment of getting the kids to a level of … communicating aesthetics to the audience.” He was saddened when his principal “didn’t really get it.” Nevertheless, Alexis related that a strength of her charter school was “dealing with discipline and how to be a good person,” and she perceived a lot of administrative 87 support for working with difficult students. Ralph similarly perceived support from an administrator when he had to make a difficult decision about a trumpet player who was accepted into the district “honor band.” Ralph found out that this student had several bad grades in other subjects and he “made a judgment call on the spot” to take him out of honor band. This decision caused the parents to become upset; however, Ralph’s administrator backed him up and supported the decision that Ralph felt was “best for that student.” Perhaps the greatest division among the mentors was between those who had a booster program and consequently reported feeling supported by parents, and those without a booster program who felt that parent support was lacking. Daniel attributed the success of his program to parent boosters: We don’t get enough money from the district to do what we need to do. That’s why the boosters of both high school and middle school were started, and it’s a huge group of parents who donate time and money to make things work. Jeffrey also had a booster program, which allowed the marching band to be “big and active.” Becky reflected the feelings of mentors whose schools did not have booster programs. She saw parents as “not actively supportive” and felt she had “to do it all.” Need for a Teaching Fellow Given these conditions, including teaching large numbers of students, lacking administrative support, and struggling for financial resources to purchase and maintain instruments, it was no wonder that the mentor teachers all claimed that they needed a teaching fellow. Sean needed help because he had “such a large program,” and Silvia needed “help walking the students between buildings and tuning” because of her “big 88 numbers.” Ralph felt he could “get more done” with two adults in the classroom, and Becky similarly expressed her need for a fellow to help struggling students, which she found impossible when she was “the only person in the room.” Tony described himself as a teacher with “primarily a band background,” but he also taught a section of choir and needed “new ideas for choral warm-ups, technique and repertoire.” He received such ideas from a fellow who was proficient in choral music. Jeffrey, Andrew, Tony, and Silvia needed practical help organizing the music room or repertoire library. For example, Tony was transitioning from a “card catalogue system” to a digital program and he needed a fellow to “computerize it all.” Although the mentors recognized how they benefitted from having a fellow to assist in their music programs, they also saw that a fellow gained valuable professional experience by teaching music. Ralph described the CMP fellowship as “the proverbial ‘safe place’” that allowed for creativity because of the trust developed over time. Tony similarly described a sense of “camaraderie” and the sense that he was able to “pass on some philosophies and stuff like that.” Tony discussed lesson plans with his fellow on a daily basis, especially “long and short term goals.” Sean described his daily pattern as: “check in, say hi, communicate” then the fellow supported him in the orchestra classroom. Ralph explained that he worked hard to be “diligent in mapping plans for the kids” and communicating curricular goals with his fellow. He felt that collaboration was key to accomplishing goals. By asserting, “I don’t lesson plan,” Andrew differentiated himself from the other mentors. He claimed that his pattern with a fellow was to “just throw them in.” 89 Mentors were unanimous that the primary benefits of CMP accrued to students and their families. Typically, fellows developed healthy relationships with students, and the students, in turn, seemed to enjoy having the fellows in the classroom. Daniel acknowledged that the “kids enjoyed” his fellow “a lot.” Sean agreed and added that it was “really cool how excited the kids were when the fellow arrived.” He mentioned that his fellow cared about the student’s achievements and wanted them to “feel supported and happy and healthy.” Mentors perceived that students became more flexible by learning from someone other than their own music teacher. Mentors also perceived that their students’ musicianship improved when a fellow joined the music program. A fellow increased Andrew’s “ability to make contact with students” who most needed remedial instruction. Similarly, Becky felt that a fellow helped her “differentiate instruction,” and she paid more attention to “struggling students.” Ralph noted that a fellow once helped a “struggling student succeed in getting accepted into an honor band ensemble.” Daniel mentioned that his fellows provided “free lessons” to students whose families were unable to afford private instrumental lessons, which improved individual musicianship as well as the overall musicianship of the ensembles. Andrew told the story of how he arranged a “field trip” for his students to visit a fellow’s San Jose State University concert band. The middle school students listened to the university band and, in turn, performed for the college students. Then the college students partnered with the middle school students in a side-by-side rehearsal. According to Andrew, if the kids were having a better musical and learning experiences, it benefitted “the whole family.” 90 Most of the mentors genuinely enjoyed having a fellow in the classroom. Tony described his fellow as “very nice with her energy and spirit,” and as the only music teacher at his school, Tony appreciated that he and his fellows were “truly a team.” Sean thought that his fellow was “fantastic” and “changed the whole dynamic” of the music program. For Sylvia, it was fun to have another adult in the classroom that knew about music. In spite of all the positive perceptions, there were some disappointing fellowship situations. Becky knew she should be planning with her fellow, ensuring “he knew what class he would be dealing with when he showed up.” Although she had “specific things in mind that she wanted him to do,” sometimes the fellow simply did not show up. One of Jeffrey’s fellows “wasn’t very dynamic with the kids” and did not connect well. Sean felt that his fellow did not have a “bag of tricks yet,” so when his fellow was teaching the large ensemble and her plan was not working, she was unable to “adjust quickly.” He felt he always needed to be the “man behind the curtain” making sure the lesson moved forward. All fellows had limited time available to work in schools. Tony wished that his fellow could have been at his school “at the same time every day.” Silvia agreed that her fellow’s university schedule prevented him from assisting “more than one day a week.” Becky, too, wished that a fellow could have spent more hours in her classroom, “but obviously he was a student so he didn’t have unlimited time.” Having several fellows in his classroom, Andrew found that “often their cars were bad and they couldn’t drive” to 91 the school. Without a set schedule, it was difficult for his fellows “to get consistency with the students.” Outcomes of CMP In spite of the support they gained from having a fellow, some mentors were unable to stay in challenging teaching positions. Becky described herself as “very young” when she worked at her first teaching job. “There were a lot of district issues, financial issues, and I was really tired all the time working ten hour days, so I wanted a place where I got better compensation and was less exhausted.” Becky moved to a more affluent school, earned her Master’s degree, and pursued National Board certification. After two years, Alexis found the culture of the charter school “very hardcore” and “intense.” “If a teacher was sick, it was still an unspoken expectation” that the teacher should work from “7:00 to 5:00, Monday through Friday.” Alexis left her charter school for a position at private school where “the resources were very cutting-edge and there was a performing arts department.” After six years of difficult work in a high-poverty school, Andrew felt he was neglecting his own children, and he decided to take a position “much closer to home.” He felt that his new school was “a much easier place to teach.” It was an affluent school where education was “a big deal.” Daniel, Tony, Silvia, Ralph, and Jeffrey all had long service records, so they remained in their teaching positions, and they planned to stay until they retired. Although Sean was a much younger teacher, he felt that his position was a “lifetime opportunity,” and he did not want to leave. Out of all the mentors who participated in this study, Ralph was the only one who directly indicated that his positive experiences with CMP 92 “convinced him to stay.” Even if the mentors did not remain in their positions, most stayed in touch with fellows. Andrew called this continued work together “a highlight” of the CMP experience. Daniel was able to employ a former fellow in his high school marching band program, and one of Silvia’s fellows became employed as a music teacher in the school district, so they remained in close contact. In a twist of roles, Ralph became the feeder program teacher for one of his former fellows. Summary Most of the CMP mentors came from more privileged backgrounds than did the students in the schools where they were employed. Nevertheless, the CMP mentors believed that music teaching was a good fit for their careers, and they believed that music education should benefit all students. Due to large class sizes, heavy workload, perceptions of unsupportive administrators, and extra work in fundraising, mentors expressed that they needed fellows. Mentors enjoyed the company of their fellows and appreciated the help and energy that fellows brought to music classes. Mentors observed that fellows developed positive relationships with students, and most mentors were grateful for extra support with those students who were struggling with music. Three mentors left their teaching positions in under-resourced schools, even after having the support of fellows; however other mentors remained in their positions. Surprisingly, only one mentor attributed his commitment to staying to the support of CMP fellows. 93 Chapter 5: Fellows In this chapter, I focused on the fellows and their experience of CMP. As with the mentors, I explored fellows’ backgrounds and beliefs as well as their preparation for fellowship placements. I described the ways in which fellows offered help to mentors and their students, and the primary ways in which fellows and mentors interacted. Finally, I presented fellows’ perspectives on the outcomes of participation in CMP, addressing the extent to which CMP supported their professional goals and attracted them to teaching in under-resourced schools. During the 2012–13 academic year, senior music majors were eligible for fellowships that provided a small stipend for four to five hours per week of work with a mentor in a CMP school. Michelle and Kelly were seniors, while Austin considered himself a “senior theoretically” because he had been working on his degree “for a while.” Michelle and Austin were native Californians; Michelle grew up in the Central Valley and Austin grew up in the Bay area. Kelly grew up in New Jersey and came to California to attend San Jose State University. All three were traditional, full-time college students, who lived off-campus. In previous years, fellows worked eight to ten hours a week with their mentors and received a stipend about twice as large as the stipend paid in 2012–13. Walter was a fellow during 2006–07, the pilot year of CMP, when he was a junior in college, and he continued as a fellow during his senior year. Kristin completed an undergraduate degree in music at an out-of-state college, but she attended San Jose State University and had a fellowship placement while she was earning her credential. Kent also was a fellow for 94 two years, between 2010 and 2012, during his senior year and his one-year credential program. Walter, Kristin, and Kent were traditional college-age students who lived offcampus during their fellowship years. In contrast, Ray was a nontraditional college student who had spent 30 years in a high-tech career. He finally decided to return to school to pursue his passion, a music education degree. Ray held two fellowships, the first of which occurred in 2007–08 when he was in the junior year of his Bachelor’s degree program. Ray’s second placement was special: during the year in which he was earning his credential, he was asked to start a Kindergarten music program and the elementary principal served as his mentor. Similar to many of their mentors, most fellows attended suburban, middle class and affluent schools when they were growing up. Michelle, Kristin, Austin, Walter and Kent attended K-12 schools that were “mostly White.” Once again, Ray was the exception among the fellows because he attended urban, low-income schools that had racially and ethnically diverse student populations. At the time of this study, Ray was teaching at the high school he attended as a youth. Preparation In some ways, fellows felt prepared for the CMP experience due to university courses and other experiences. Kelly, for example, “grew up really shy” and was “afraid to stand up in front of people to talk or do presentations”; however, her university conducting classes “were very fun,” and helped her build some confidence as she approached her fellowship. Austin felt prepared to teach trumpet lessons during his fellowship because he had been playing trumpet “since seventh grade.” Michelle 95 expressed that, during the fellowship, she used most of what she learned in coursework and saw how it applied to the classroom. For her, the “theory of teaching” she had learned at the university “came alive” during the fellowship. As an older preservice music teacher, Ray believed that life experience, rather than university experience, prepared him for his fellowship. At the same time, most of the fellows expressed concern that their university music education programs had not prepared them for specific contexts of teaching, particularly for the challenges of under-resourced schools they encountered through CMP. Michelle mentioned that her “previous experience was only observation” before she was placed into a fellowship—she had no opportunity to teach music to children. Kelly felt uneasy about her placement because she did not know “how the teacher was going to ask her to help” or “what the processes of the classroom were.” Kristin “understood the point of the CMP was to provide a little bit of inspiration and extra support for teachers already in teaching to avoid burn out,” but she recalled that she did not know exactly how that was supposed to happen. Beliefs about music teaching. Through their college courses, coupled with other life experiences, the 2012–13 fellows developed beliefs about music teaching that shaped their overall CMP experience. Michelle, for example, felt strongly that there was “only so much you can provide in the class,” because students’ musical learning occurred mainly outside of class through private lessons. During her fellowship, Michelle taught group lessons for students from families who could not afford private lessons, but she believed that students would progress adequately only through private lessons. Austin 96 held a firm belief that rote teaching always led to poor music reading, so during his fellowship he often worked with the trumpet players, connecting “their technique to their music reading.” Austin also felt that music teachers should not be “really mean,” lest they “discourage” their students. Consequently, he strove for balance between “motivating” and “complimenting” students during his CMP fellowship. Kelly believed that music teachers were always supposed to be a “really big presence in the classroom,” and during her fellowship teaching she worried constantly about her shy personality. Beliefs about poor people. Likewise, throughout their lives, and through their college courses, fellows developed beliefs about poor people and particularly about how poor people negotiated schooling. Among the 2012–13 fellows, Michelle felt that kids from low-income homes were just as “hard-working” as any other kids and she wanted “to give them the opportunity” of being in a band or orchestra. On the other hand, Michelle believed that low-income parents could not pay for private music lessons did not prioritize music. Kelly believed that low-income parents were “always gone and the kids were always taking care of themselves.” The fellows expressed other concerns about low-income parents as well, including that they might be alcoholics, drug addicted, or in gangs. Austin was concerned that low-income students might be hungry and therefore unable to focus during their classes. Among the former fellows, Kent and Kristin recalled their beliefs that low-income parents were unable to help with homework. Kent attributed this to “no internet or technology” at home, while Kristin believed that many parents did not speak English. Kent remembered that near one of his fellowship sites there was an “active gang 97 presence,” and he was concerned about whether children might have walked through violent neighborhoods on their way to school. When discussing poverty, Ray again stood out as an exception among the former fellows. Perhaps this was because he grew up attending low-income schools, and he had decided to teach in a low-income school. Ray noticed that low-income schools, such as the ones in which CMP fellowships took place, typically had “big attendance issues,” which made “ensemble rehearsals difficult.” However, he spoke emphatically about the parents’ immigration status and its effect on children: The kids are told, “Don’t cause any trouble. Don’t rock the boat.” And that translates into, “I’m not gonna ask questions. I’m not gonna ask for help. I’m not gonna do anything. I’m gonna sit here quietly, stay under the radar, not get noticed so that I don’t bring any problems down on my family, because my parents have made it very clear to me that they don’t have the right papers and they don’t need the attention.” Offering Help Fellows began the CMP experience motivated to help and support their mentors. They quickly became aware that their mentors taught large numbers of students, and that students’ ability levels within any given class varied widely. Consequently, the fellows commonly offered help in the form of remediation for struggling students. They pulled out individual students or small groups from rehearsal and helped those students catch up and build skills. Kelly related that she also helped advanced students “prepare for auditions.” Kristin often led soprano and alto sectionals when her mentor, Tony, taught chorus. She was able to “help him divide the time better” and she provided a female vocal model for the women while Tony taught the men. Ray noted that, by offering 98 tutoring or remediation, he helped his mentor “differentiate instruction.” The fellows quickly grasped the idea that two teachers in large ensemble rehearsals were more helpful than one teacher. For example, while Michelle “ran warmups,” her mentor floated around the ensemble and helped students tune their instruments. Sometimes the roles reversed, a mentor conducted the ensemble while a fellow floated, tuning instruments and “adjusting wrong placements of fingering on the string,” according to Kelly. Ray recalled that his first mentor was a new teacher who struggled with “classroom management in his percussion section,” so Ray’s job became “patrolling percussion.” Fellows also offered administrative help to their mentors. For example, Kristin spent a great deal of time digitizing her mentor’s card catalogue of repertoire. Michelle and Walter remembered that they copied handouts so that their mentors were prepared for the next classes. Most fellows believed, along with Walter, that “these basic things helped save the mentor’s time.” Kent similarly explained that helping administratively “allowed the mentor to focus on teaching,” without distraction. Ray and Kent helped by arranging music for the ensembles, and Ray also did some “equipment maintenance and repairs” for his mentors. Finally, fellows offered help simply by having conversations with their mentors. Kristin, for example, felt she gave her mentor a “fresh perspective” by being “ a sounding board for him,” allowing him to talk about difficulties, struggles, and frustrations. Kristin felt this took “a little bit of the burden away.” Michelle noted that her mentor “vented to her once or twice” about his “stressful” life, and she listened in 99 order to “break the isolation” he felt. Both of Ray’s mentors were first year teachers who “really needed someone to talk to.” He explained, “They really needed somebody to be in there and understand what it was that they were going through so that they could talk about it and I think that’s what the fellows were good for.” Interactions between Fellow and Mentor In a general way, being with the same mentor for a full semester provided opportunity for fellows to see “how directors got by with so little,” as Michelle explained. More specifically, the fellows observed the mentors’ practices, such as building relationships with students, communicating with parents, and implementing peer teaching. A few fellows also indicated that lesson planning with the mentor helped them learn; however, most fellows wished for more feedback from their mentors. Observation. Nearly all the fellows recognized, because of their mentor’s modeling, that building relationships with students was a key factor in engaging students with music and improving their learning. Kelly noticed that her mentor knew not only the names of his students, but also the names of most other students in the school. Her mentor’s meaningful connections with students, in turn, helped students “feel safe to share.” Kelly claimed that her mentor reduced “attendance issues” because he “really took care of his students.” Michelle similarly described talking often with her mentor about “building and maintaining relationships with students.” She related the mentor’s advice that all children had personal or family problems that made participation in class a challenge, and teachers had obligation to “be aware of those circumstances.” After observing her mentor’s relationships with students for a full semester, Michelle 100 recognized that “if you know your students, you know what kind of expectations to set.” Kristin’s mentor taught her that normal rules “don’t apply in high poverty areas.” By observing her mentor, Kristin learned that typical goals of having students learn classical music were not as important as “reaching the kids.” Likewise, fellows observed how the mentor communicated with parents. Michelle related that her mentor, Andrew, “shared student progress” with parents to “build pride” and support for the music program. Michelle learned that it was valuable to educate parents about “the importance of studying music.” Austin observed that his mentor “communicated to parents through the children” by reviewing important information with them every day during class. Kent reported that he made a point to “communicate monthly with parents” through a newsletter, a practice he learned from his mentor. Mentors introduced Kelly, Kent, and Austin to the concept of peer teaching. Kelly, for example, explained how eighth graders came into the sixth grade rehearsal to coach the younger students on instrument technique and appropriate ensemble behavior. She observed how peer teaching made her mentor’s work “less stressful” because he was able to “reach more students” in large classes using this technique. Austin also observed peer teaching employed in his mentor’s program when high school students were brought in to help the middle school students. Austin commented that this practice reduced his mentor’s stress and helped many more middle school students progress with their musicianship. Ray and Kent became aware of gang-related issues through their fellowships. As 101 in most cities in the United States, rival gangs competed for territory and membership in San Jose. Also, as in other cities, gangs claimed particular symbols and colors— Norteños were associated with the color blue and Sureños were associated with the color red. Ray described how his mentor meticulously removed “red and blue stickers” that were “used to mark instrument cases at a festival.” The mentor told him that “the fear was that the wrong colored label was all the excuse someone might need to steal or destroy an instrument.” Kent recalled that his mentor made the “music class feel inclusive” specifically with the intention of “alleviating the need to be in a gang.” Planning. Kristin and Kent discussed how they arranged planning time with their mentors. Kristin had a set planning time with her mentor during his “prep period” each day, while Kent met with his mentor to “plan during lunch” a few times each week. They also met after each time Kent taught a class, where they reflected together and planned the next teaching episode. Kelly recalled that planning was usually “in the moment” because there “wasn’t much time.” However, Kelly and her mentor planned carefully for a special day when she substituted for him while he was required to attend a school assembly: Over a two-week period, Andrew and Kelly planned what she would cover during the class. The moment arrived and Andrew announced to the class that he needed to go to an assembly and that Kelly would be taking over the rehearsal. Andrew reminded his students to be grateful that Kelly was there to help them keep making music, instead of a substitute who would have them read a book. Andrew reminded the students to give Kelly the same respect they would give to him. The students were very quiet and ran through their music respectfully with Kelly, so Kelly, in turn, was grateful for all the planning she and her mentor had done. In spite of many positive comments about their mentors, most fellows reported 102 that they received very little feedback on their teaching from their mentors. Opportunity and outcome. Fellows clearly expressed their desires to help mentors, and they specified ways in which they offered help. For several reasons, fellows came to reframe some help as opportunity for which they were grateful and from which they learned. For instance, Michelle valued opportunities to practice teaching through “pull out lessons” and “podium time” conducting a full band. Kelly felt that the fellowship provided a “great opportunity” to observe the teacher “for a long term.” She also reported that she was given opportunity “to work with lots of kids” and “lead warm ups, ” although she was unsure of “what to think of the opportunity” to substitute for her mentor because Kelly had doubts about managing the classroom. Ray described opportunities to work with students as “eye opening,” but he thought of all his CMP teaching experience as “opportunity for growth.” Kent’s first fellowship afforded him opportunity to travel to Skywalker Ranch Recording Studio with students, and during his second fellowship, Kent had an opportunity to take on the role of assistant director as the high school band traveled to the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. Some fellows reframed their help as opportunity because they were provided with a stipend. For example, Walter recognized that, because of the stipend, he could “commit the extra time to CMP” because he did not have to find another job to cover his expenses. Michelle also felt the stipend afforded “opportunity to pay the rent” without seeking other employment. Finally, several fellows reframed their help as opportunity when they acknowledged that the fellowship helped them achieve broader goals. Walter, for 103 example, felt that the CMP teaching experiences “created opportunities for job interviews,” and Michelle felt the fellowship gave her “opportunity to prepare for the credential program.” For Kelly, the fellowship offered opportunity to become aware of what she “needed to work on,” and for Kristin, opportunity to “learn a lot more about the whole band world” was beneficial in developing a professional network. Outcomes. All the fellows reflected on the ways in which their music teaching knowledge and skill changed and improved as a result of the fellowship experience. Those who were fellows between 2008 and 2011 had more time to reflect on their CMP experiences and to apply their learning in new teaching situations, whereas the 2012–13 fellows had only recently finished their CMP experiences at the time of this study. Among those who had recently finished, Kelly highlighted the importance of learning specific instrument techniques that were not explained during her undergraduate music education courses. She also found it valuable to learn about “how to run a class, what kind of lessons to plan, and classroom management.” By the end of her fellowship, she recognized that she had moved from yelling at the kids to positively motivating good behavior. Furthermore, she had improved her time management and learned how to ask questions that served as formative assessment. Although Kelly hoped her self-confidence would improve during her fellowship, she admitted that she continued to suffer from selfdoubt. Austin reconsidered his attitudes towards middle school students as a result of his fellowship. He discovered that middle school students were “young but not immature” and “surprisingly focused.” Austin observed that his mentor was able to get “hardworking” students “pretty far along,” so Austin left his fellowship inspired to become a 104 “middle school band guy.” The CMP experience helped Michelle feel “more confident as a teacher” and she learned “more teaching techniques as well as class routine.” All of the 2012–13 fellows intended to continue their educations in order to receive a music teaching credential. Kelly felt she was “willing to take on the challenge of connecting and supporting kids from low-income families.” Michelle reported she was “more comfortable with the thought of working in an under-resourced school” after seeing a successful teacher. Kelly, Austin, and Michelle all were aware of the “hard economy,” however, and they thought that finding a teaching job would be challenging. Many who had fellowships between 2008 and 2011 spoke of becoming acquainted with new aspects of music teaching that they had not learned during their undergraduate courses. Kristin and Kent, for example, learned to run a marching band program during their fellowship placements, and Kent learned how to teach mariachi through his fellowship. Ray learned how he could employ “words to teach rhythms” to kindergarteners, and he was able to expand creatively on this idea by teaching very young students to “riff on simple rhythms.” Kent learned about connecting music learning in the school to the home through the technology of Edmodo and SmartMusic. Walter struggled with a lack of confidence and “personal issues” when he was a fellow; however, he persevered in becoming a music teacher because of the networking that began during his fellowship. He recognized that “having that network already built” when he entered his first job “was a tremendous help.” Ray also found that the CMP experience led to strong networking in the Bay Area. All of these fellows completed their teaching credentials after the CMP 105 experience, and they were employed teaching music at the time of this study. Ray took a music teaching position in the low-income school district from which he graduated, a place where he planned to stay. Ray explained that, although he was often stressed due to a lack of resources and funding, he loved the hard work of “improving the school’s curriculum.” He often thought back on his CMP experiences and remembered to prioritize building relationships with students. Kent reported that his fellowship gave him “a taste” of what he could do to help poor students. His first job was as a part-time, itinerant music teacher at “six different school sites,” where he taught fifth and sixth grade music. Because he wanted to “start a family” and therefore needed “a good salary,” Kent was searching for full-time work while this study was progressing. He was offered a full-time position teaching elementary and high school band as this study was concluding. Walter similarly ended his CMP fellowship feeling “comfortable working with poor kids.” He sought a job in a low-income school because he felt he could “make an impact and be successful.” In fact, Walter’s first job was in a rural, low-income school district, where he was the only music teacher responsible for teaching all grade levels of general music and band; however, the schedule was grueling with long workdays and “so many students.” As this study was concluding, Walter secured a position in a middle school in the Bay area, teaching middle school band, chorus and orchestra. Kristin began her career in a charter school that served low-income families. She “loved making up her own rules,” but she felt isolated being the only music teacher at the school. Kristin left the charter school and took a position in an affluent private school setting, much like the schools she attended in her childhood. 106 Limitations of CMP Although all fellows appreciated and benefitted from many aspects of CMP, they saw limitations to the program as well. Balancing the demands of a rigorous college schedule with a fellowship proved to be each fellow’s greatest challenge. Michelle found that “you start to get the ball rolling and there’s so many things you want to address and so you just have to prioritize.” Ray chose to get his “course work done,” and therefore became cautious of “over promising” support to his mentor. Austin and Michelle wished they had more time for the CMP schools and their mentors. Michelle knew that her mentor wanted her to be at the school more often, but because she was paid for only four hours per week and had both work and university class commitments, she could not spend more time helping at the school. Michelle felt a fellowship of 8–10 hours a week would have been “more beneficial,” particularly in getting to know the students. Most fellows hoped for opportunities from the fellowship that they did not receive. For example, Austin had hoped to get more “podium time” and the experience of teaching the full ensemble, but instead, he worked only with the trumpet students. As a string player, Kelly was very comfortable in orchestras but she had hoped for opportunity to teach in choir or band. Michelle reported that she did not have an opportunity to see her mentor collaborate with other teachers in the school building, or with other music teachers across the district. Ray expressed that he hoped to “learn about the unwritten rules in music education.” Kelly did not begin her fellowship at the start of the school year, so she did not learn “how classroom guidelines were set up with students.” Michelle agreed with Kelly and had hoped to learn how to get new band students started 107 on their instruments, such as getting the “brass buzzing.” As implied previously, most fellows anticipated that they would receive feedback from their mentors on the quality of their teaching, and most were disappointed. Ray recalled that his first fellowship placement was with early career teachers who were so overwhelmed that they were unable to give any feedback. Walter wondered what kind of feedback his first mentor, who was a “newer teacher,” could have given. Walter’s second mentor was a “veteran teacher,” so he had greater expectations about receiving specific teaching feedback, yet Walter was discouraged when his mentor always seemed too busy. While Austin taught trumpet lessons in the practice room, his mentor was “focused on whatever was going on in his room,” so Austin never received any meaningful feedback. Although Kelly felt her mentor gave her “a few pointers,” she wished for more substantial feedback on her teaching. Several fellows perceived a lack of supervision in CMP, and they commented that they felt disorganized on the first day when they were supposed to meet their mentors. Kent felt that the program needed “guidelines and a training day for the fellows.” Michelle commented that there was not much communication or feedback from the supervisor as the fellowship continued. Kent thought that, because the supervisor was a graduate student, he was probably ‘busy with his own workload,” however Kent was concerned that some fellows “took advantage of the program’s light supervision” and failed to follow through with their CMP commitments. 108 Summary Like the mentors, most fellows came from privileged backgrounds, and although they felt prepared generally for teaching, they neither feel prepared for the context of under-resourced schools, nor prepared for their mentors’ expectations. Fellows were motivated to help their mentors by teaching individual or small group lessons and floating around the classroom to help students with instrument technique. The fellows also helped their mentors through administrative tasks such as copying, sorting music, and repairing instruments. The primary interactions between fellows and their mentors occurred through observation, and some fellows engaged in lesson planning with mentors. The fellows reframed some help as opportunity for professional growth, practice teaching, and earning a stipend. Fellows believed that some music teaching skills, time management, and self-confidence improved as a result of the CMP fellowship experience. The 2012-2013 fellows planned to complete their credential programs and become music teachers. Four of the former fellows began their teaching careers in low-income schools; however, two left for more affluent schools. No fellow attributed career decisions to CMP. The fellows identified some limitations to the CMP program, wishing for more time in their fellowship placements and more feedback from mentors. They also felt a lack of supervision and guidance from the CMP supervisor. 109 Chapter 6: The California Music Project Teacher Training Program as an Intervention in Poverty and Income Inequality In this chapter, mentors’ and fellows’ experiences of CMP were compared to prior research on interventions in poverty and income inequality in order to directly address research questions. The overall aim of the study was to examine the extent to which the CMP at San Jose has achieved its goals of: (a) sustaining music programs in low and middle income schools; (b) contributing to music teachers’ longevity in those schools; and (c) attracting prospective music teachers to under-resourced schools. Two research questions were intended to interrogate mentors’ experience of CMP and specifically focused on conditions in their schools: 1. What were the indirect impacts of income inequality on the CMP schools, music programs, and mentor-teachers? 2. Which impacts appeared to be ameliorated by placement of a fellow into the music program? The next two research questions were intended to interrogate fellows’ experience of CMP, and more specifically, the influence of the fellowship on their professional decisions: 3. What were the relationships between having a fellowship and learning to teach in an under-resourced school? 4. To what extent did the fellowship influence fellows’ decisions about pursuing teacher licensure and eventual employment? Indirect Impacts of Income Inequality on CMP Schools and Teachers As demonstrated in the rationale for this study, impacts of income inequality accrued directly to families, neighborhoods, and labor markets, and through those mechanisms accrued indirectly to schools and teachers. Indirect impacts on schools 110 included a lower property tax base for schools in poor neighborhoods, which resulted in less funding for those schools compared to more affluent schools (Anyon, 2005). Students in poor schools had greater family mobility, resulting in disrupted social networks and inability of teachers to sustain school reform efforts (Raudenbush et al., 2011). Researchers found that recent immigrants to the United States, numerous in California, were poorer than the population overall, and many had limited English proficiency. Consequently, researchers found that large numbers of English learners strained school budgets because administrators needed to provide for second language instruction (Schwartz & Stiefel, 2011). Other studies found that violence occurred more frequently around poorer schools, which correlated with more discipline problems in school classrooms (Kirk & Sampson, 2011). Teachers employed in schools without a property tax base were often paid less than teachers at more affluent schools (Ingersoll, 2001); and teachers also were more likely to leave their positions when they were paid lower wages (Lankford et al., 2002). In addition, researchers found that teachers left their positions at schools with poor working conditions, and these challenging settings were most common in poor schools (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005; Ladd, 2009). According to Gardner (2010), music teachers faced circumstances similar to teachers of other subjects; however, the researcher noted that music teachers often held itinerant positions and reported to several administrators. Furthermore, because they were the only music teachers in their school buildings, they had minimal opportunities for collaboration and felt isolated (Futernick, 2007; Haack, 2003; P. J. Krueger, 2000; Madsen & Hancock, 2002; Sleppin, 2009). These indirect impacts of income inequality on schools and 111 teachers evidenced in research literature were apparent in CMP schools to some extent; however, the two impacts were systemic issues that stood outside the school system: (a) relatively low property taxes in California that resulted in low per-pupil funding for schools, and (b) large numbers of California residents whose home language was not English. Budget pressures and lack of funding. In California, Proposition 13 (The People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxes) effectively capped property values at a 1975 level and limited annual increases to no more than 2% per year (California Constitution Article 13 A, n.d.). Repeatedly researchers have found funding per pupil in California among the lowest in the United States. For example, where Wyoming and New York spent more than $18,000 per pupil in 2010, California spent less than $8500 per pupil (National Highlights Report, 2014). Most CMP schools were at or slightly above the state average in per pupil spending, but Tony’s school spent $6627 per pupil, Daniel’s school spent $4920 per pupil, Andrew’s school spent $4207 per pupil, and Becky’s school spent $4136 per pupil, all far lower than state and national averages. At the time of this study, the California Home Language Survey (HLS) was given to kindergarten and other new students. If a language other than English was spoken at home, the student was classified as an English Learner. The California English Language Development Test (CELDT) was then administered to English Learners to validate proficiency. English Language support was required for those students who were not proficient (Jepsen & de Alth, 2005, p. 1-2). Across California schools, the average percentage of students needing English Language support was 23% (Hill, 2012), but most 112 CMP schools had greater than average need for English Language support. Jeffrey’s school required English language support for only 17% of its students, but Becky’s school and Silvia’s school needed English Language support for nearly 50% of their students, and Tony’s school needed English Language support for 59% of its students. Schwartz and Stiefel (2011) reported that new immigrants in the twenty-first century were more likely to be South American and Asian (p. 422) and were more likely to have arrived from high poverty countries. Their statistical calculations revealed that 60% of immigrant children in California and Texas had limited English proficiency (Schwartz & Stiefel, 2011, p. 425) and they confirmed that second language instruction for such immigrant students often was a substantial expense for a school. Although it was unclear how many students at CMP schools were new immigrants, low-income and home language patterns at Tony’s school and Silvia’s school, and home language patterns at Becky’s school seemed to bear out Schwartz and Stiefel’s findings. Also at the time of this study, California’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) criteria included: (a) a 95% participation rate for statewide assessments, (b) meeting Annual Measureable Objectives (AMO) of proficiency in English Language Arts and math for various student groups (e.g., English Learners, low-income), (c) showing at least a 1% increase on the Annual Performance Index (API), and for high schools, (d) meeting a target graduation rate. Schools that failed to meet AYP criteria for two or years in a row were put into Program Improvement (PI) status, which meant they were required to offer students transfers to other schools and required to provide tutoring for those students who chose not to transfer (California Department of Education, 2013). Out of 113 nine CMP schools, only one met AYP criteria, and at the time of the study, schools at which Silvia, Ralph, and Tony taught were all in PI status. In 2012–13, California required an overall score of 800 out of 1,000 as a passing score on the Annual Performance Index, based on CST scores. Three of the CMP schools did not pass API, which meant that they were required to provide remedial education for students with poor test scores. Consequently, administrators at most CMP schools had little choice about how to direct meager funding; however, most mentor teachers seemed unaware of constraints on their school administrators, and they tended to equate lack of budgetary support for their music programs with principals’ lack of support for music. For example, Tony believed that music was not a priority at his school, yet he seemed unaware of how many students at his school were required to have English language support. Similarly, Daniel accused his principal of focusing exclusively on CST scores, yet he seemed unaware of the budgetary consequences when his school failed to meet AYP. It seemed reasonable to assume that some CMP school principals, like the administrators surveyed in Abril and Gault’s (2008) study, believed that music was beneficial for their students, but they found it difficult to allocate limited funds to music education. Some California schools sustained their school music programs through music booster organizations. Woodworth et al. offered an example of a medium-poverty school where a parent organization raised approximately $6000 and a more affluent suburban organization that raised $1.5 million dollars, providing for teachers’ salaries and supplies (pp. 58-59). Among CMP mentors, Jeffrey attributed the success of his music program to 114 the parent booster organization; however, Jeffrey’s school consisted of only 15% lowincome students. By comparison, Alexis’s school consisted of 78% low-income students, and Ralph’s school consisted of 83% low-income students; those teachers presumed that parents and caregivers associated with their schools were unable to support music programs. Student enrollment in music. In 1996, California legislators were compelled by results of the Tennessee Project STAR program, in which students’ overall academic achievement was found to be greater when class size was reduced to 15 students (Schanzenbach, 2006/7). The legislators proceeded to offer substantial financial incentives for school districts to reduce class size, yet a study by the Public Policy Institute of California found that, to reduce class size, schools hired greater numbers of inexperienced teachers (Jepsen & Rivkin, 2002). “In 1997, the first year after the schools had scrambled to hire new teachers, nearly one-quarter of the teaching workforce in California had one year of experience or less” (Jepsen & Rivkin, 2002, p. iii). With reduced class size coupled with an experienced teacher, students’ test scores increased, but gains were not similar for small classes taught by inexperienced teachers. Still the use of class size reduction to increase students’ academic performance has remained a politically popular position among California legislators and the California Teachers Association (California Department of Education, 2012). Mentors all lamented large music class sizes and the broad range of music background and ability represented in a single class. Notably, class size for English, math, science, and history courses at CMP schools ranged from 25 to 34 students, sizes 115 conventionally assumed to prevent adequate student achievement, particularly for English Learners and other students with special needs. The size of band and orchestra classes may have similarly prevented student achievement; however mentor teachers might have been espousing a politically popular position about class size. Sean conveyed that he took on large ensemble classes and taught an extra period each day, which were administrator-directed strategies to reduce class size in English, math, science, and history courses. Jeffrey explained that music classes in his school district were “staffed at 40 to 1,” which seemed to be a similar administrative strategy. The challenges of teaching large classes notwithstanding, large class sizes were most likely a way that music teachers maintained a full-time position in a single school building. Paradoxically, overall music enrollment in many CMP schools was small. Even in Sylvia’s school and Sean’s school, which were performing arts magnet schools, total enrollment in music classes was limited to approximately 25% of the school population. Because the majority of CMP schools had not met AYP criteria, administrators were required to provide extra tutoring for students with low CST scores. Similarly, remedial education was required for nonproficient English language learners in a majority of CMP schools. In most cases, students who needed such remedial instruction to bring up their standardized test scores were not allowed to participate in elective classes of band and orchestra. Woodworth et al. (2007) claimed that high-poverty schools in California were disproportionately affected by pressure to increase test scores and therefore denied opportunity for music education to low-achieving students. Similarly, through a national 116 survey, Abril and Gault (2008) found that, in schools serving a high percentage of lowincome students, few students had access to a music education. These researchers’ findings were borne out in all CMP schools, but Ralph’s school was particularly illustrative. It comprised 83% low-income students and met neither API nor AYP criteria. Only 9% of students were able to enroll for music at Ralph’s school, and consequently, there were not enough students participating in music to constitute a full-time load for a teacher. Consequently, Ralph was an itinerant music teacher in his school district in order to maintain the salary and benefits of a full-time teaching job. Variety of music offerings. According to Abril and Gault’s (2008) national survey findings, schools that served the greatest number of low-income students had the most limited music offerings. This finding was also borne out at CMP schools, with the exception of the two arts magnet schools. At Ralph’s school, which consisted of 83% low-income students, band was the only music course. The same was true at Andrew’s school, which consisted of 59% low-income students. At Alexis’s school, which served 78% low-income students, music course options included band and piano class. On the other end of the continuum, Jeffrey’s school served only 15% low-income students, and courses included symphonic band, jazz band, marching band, strings, choir, Advanced Placement music theory, and Music Genesis (a music appreciation course that welcomed students with no musical background and utilized technology). Although Silvia’s school served 67% low-income students, it was designated an arts magnet school. All students from kindergarten through fifth grade took compulsory music, art, and drama, and third through fifth graders could add an extra elective of Strings, Band or Choir to their 117 schedules. Sean’s high school served 36% low-income students, but because it, too, was designated a performing arts magnet school, students chose from band, strings, and choir, along with several music technology classes. Violence and disruption. Although no mentor expressed feeling unsafe in the school building, several mentors expressed concern that their students might be exposed to gang violence in their neighborhoods, and they mentioned dress codes and zero tolerance policies in their schools that were supposed to enhance student safety. Kirk and Sampson (2011) noted a correlation between high rates of student arrest, student discipline problems, and low-income status. Among the CMP schools, Ralph’s school comprised mainly low-income students (83%) and had a relatively high rate (19%) of student suspension, similar to Kirk and Sampson’s findings. Burdick-Will et al. (2011) found a correlation between children’s exposure to violent crime in neighborhoods surrounding schools and those children’s standardized test scores. Searching San Jose crime logs, I found that most of the CMP school neighborhoods had high incidents of disorderly conduct, some incidents of property damage or stealing, and low incidents of violent crime. However, Jeffrey’s school, which comprised 15% low-income students, had almost no reports of crime in the neighborhood surrounding the school. Given low enrollment in music classes overall, it seemed probable that the majority of student disruptions existed outside of music classes. Impacts Ameliorated by a Fellow Because CMP intended to sustain music programs in low and middle income schools and contribute to music teachers’ longevity in such schools, it was reasonable to 118 expect that some of the indirect impacts of income inequality on schools and teachers could be ameliorated by placing a fellow in a high-poverty music classroom. In all cases, the fellow provided support for large class sizes, reduced the stress of the mentor, and created a beneficial learning experience for music students. In several cases, a fellow helped ease the mentor teacher’s sense of isolation, and there was also evidence that fellows helped prevent disruption in the music classroom. Managing large class size. Although mentors seemed unaware of the policies that kept their class sizes large, they nonetheless felt challenged by teaching large numbers of students. Fellows provided support with such large classes so that the ratio of teacher to students became smaller. Becky and Daniel both noted that they were able to differentiate instruction because the fellow helped make the class size more manageable. With “really big numbers” in each of her string classes, Silvia appreciated help walking kids across the street from the elementary school to her music room at the high school. She also appreciated that her fellow helped tune the students’ instruments so Silvia was able to maximize the instructional time. While his fellow was teaching, Sean was able to walk through each orchestra class, making eye contact with individual students and reassuring students that their teacher was paying attention and supporting them. Expanding musical expertise. In some cases, a fellow provided support with musical expertise that was different from, yet complementary to the mentor’s expertise. For example, Sean’s fellow, Kelly, was a violinist, while Sean was a cellist. This made it easy for Kelly to work with and model technique for upper strings while Sean worked with lower strings. Kristin’s strengths were in voice and piano, and Tony’s expertise was 119 primarily with band. Although Tony was a capable chorus teacher, he expressed gratitude for Kristin’s help with chorus, and particularly for suggesting new repertoire ideas. Ralph noted that cello, bass and guitar were the instruments he played best, but his fellow was a “wind guy.” Ralph believed that by working with his fellow, he was able to “accelerate his wind knowledge,” an area of professional knowledge and skills he “needed to work on most.” Easing mentors’ isolation. A majority of CMP schools were staffed with one music teacher, and some of those music teachers were itinerant in order to maintain full time work. They appreciated having professional conversations with another adult during the school day. Tony, for example, expressed that he was “doing the work of two music teachers,” but his fellow helped him feel “energized” and “reinvigorated” to face the difficulties of teaching. Daniel felt that his isolation was lessened by the presence of a fellow: “Even though they [the fellows] were young people, they were adults, and so it helped in every way” to have a fellow in the classroom. Preventing disruption. There was some evidence that fellows prevented or at least helped lessen disruption in the classroom, although students’ misbehavior was mentioned infrequently. For example, Ray’s first mentor was a first-year teacher, and Ray noticed that the percussion section was “eating him alive.” Therefore, Ray took on the role of the “back row classroom management guy.” Alexis explained that she used her fellow to help with classroom management: when Alexis was “teaching something and some of the kids didn’t understand” her fellow would “go around and help those students stay focused.” 120 Summary. As illustrated in Figure 6.1, and following Duncan and Murnane’s (2011) ecological model, California had relatively low property taxes and high numbers of residents whose primary language was not English. These two aspects of income inequality systemically and directly affected school operations and school resources and indirectly affected CMP music programs and music teachers. Low property tax resulted in low per-pupil funding for California schools, and CMP school administrators had to direct funds towards state-mandated tutoring and remedial instruction for English language learners. An associated financial incentive offered to principals kept ELA and math class sizes small in order to improve standardized test scores. Consequently, music class sizes generally were kept large to compensate for small math and ELA classes. Furthermore, because so many students in CMP schools were required to participate in remedial instruction and tutoring and thus were not allowed to enroll in elective courses, overall enrollment in music was low. With such low enrollment, the music programs in these schools lacked variety in class offerings. Additionally, low enrollment meant that some CMP music teachers were itinerant in order to maintain full-time employment. Itinerancy and lack of opportunity to collaborate with colleagues contributed to CMP teachers’ sense of isolation. With meager funding for their programs, large class sizes, and feelings of isolation, CMP teachers often sensed that they lacked administrative support. 121 Systemic Impacts of Income Inequality: • Relatively low property tax • High numbers of residents whose primary language   was not English   Direct impact on school resources: Direct impact on school operations: • Low per-pupil spending   • Mandatory spending on English language tutoring and remedial instruction   • Budgetary incentive to keep ELA and math class size small       • Low standardized test scores • High need for remedial instruction and tutoring • Small class size for ELA and math     Indirect impact on music programs: Indirect impact on music teachers: • Little funding for music   • Compensatory large music class size   • Low overall enrollment in music   • Lack of variety in music classes   • Itinerancy   • Feelings of isolation   • Sense of unsupportive administrator   Figure 6.1. Ecological model of affects of income inequality on CMP schools, music programs and music teachers   122 Learning to Teach in an Under-Resourced School One of the purposes of CMP was to place university music majors into elementary, middle and high schools located in low socioeconomic, highly impacted communities to assist veteran teachers with music instruction. This training gave CMP fellows early-field experience to develop their music teaching strategies and pedagogical skills (D. M. Hollinger, personal communication, September 21, 2011). It was evident that all fellows gained teaching experience and felt that at least some of their pedagogical skills improved. However, it was also evident that fellows learned few, if any, strategies for delivering instruction in under-resourced schools. Some of the 2012–13 fellows were unaware that they were being placed in a low-income school, and although several of the former fellows seemed more aware of their placements, their conversation focused around learning facets of music pedagogy, such as marching band instruction or software for the music classroom, that they had been unable to learn in undergraduate courses. 2012–13 fellows. Michelle had hoped to “come out a better teacher” after completing a fellowship. When she signed up for CMP, “the description of the program” did not seem to emphasize learning to teach in a high-poverty school or that her role would be to support a teacher in a high-poverty school. So, Michelle “didn’t really think about” what it meant to be placed in a school that served large percentage of low-income families. Her interactions with students in the CMP school “were mostly musical”; however, it was interesting that she also noted “at an under-resourced school it was just really great to see how directors manage.” Austin “didn’t necessarily know that” his school was “under-resourced.” When he inquired about the CMP program, he was never 123 told about being placed in a high-poverty school, so he focused on learning to teach music. When asked about any concerns he might have for the students at his school, Austin explained, “no one that I’ve worked with has given me any kind of vibe like that [being low-income].” Kelly was more aware than Austin and Michelle about the students at the school where she was placed for her fellowship, perhaps because students were bussed in from a poor neighborhood of the city. Nevertheless, she attributed students’ behavioral problems mainly to younger students’ lack of understanding about basic expectations in a music class. She did not consider how home and neighborhood environments might have influenced students’ behaviors. For Michelle and Kelly, awareness about teaching in an under-resourced school may have been influenced by mentoring they received, although their mentors presented contrasting examples. Andrew, Michelle’s mentor, seemed to ignore low-income students at his school; he firmly believed that low-income students were not his students. Although he admired another teacher for reaching out to disadvantaged students, Andrew felt that he could not do the same. Andrew explained that he was “not the same way,” and he was concerned about burning out if he built a music program to accommodate low-income students. Instead, Andrew simply “wrote off students who had missed 40 percent of school.” In contrast, Kelly’s mentor, Sean, felt he could relate to the poor students in his school. He taught at a magnet school, instituted during a difficult period of court-ordered desegregation in San Jose, and awareness of poverty and its effects may have been more salient for all teachers in Sean’s building. Sean expressed that he wanted the kids from “downtown” to feel they were able to go to college and plan for their 124 futures, just as he did. Additionally, Sean was the sole mentor interviewed for this study who clearly understood challenges a school administrator faced in reducing class size and providing for remedial instruction. Other mentoring. Sylvia and Ralph did not have fellows in their music classrooms at the time of the study; however, their general perceptions suggested patterns of mentoring that might have influenced fellows’ thinking about teaching music in highpoverty schools. Sylvia was similar to Andrew. When asked about teaching low-income students, Sylvia responded, “I’m the music teacher, so I don’t have anything to do with any of those things.” She believed her job was to “train” students and their parents that “the kids needed to be at the concerts.” Plausibly, Sylvia’s fellow could have been influenced by such attitudes and beliefs. Ralph was similar to Sean in his understanding that most of his students came from very challenging living situations and “normal” school rules did not always apply. A student might have missed a concert, for instance, “because their mom was in jail.” Ralph found the most surprising part of teaching at his school was “adjusting to large number of students” who had “emotional and family difficulties … driven by poverty.” A fellow assisting Ralph might have been influenced to understand students’ circumstances. Former fellows. Former fellows were more reflective, perhaps due to the time that had passed since their fellowships, or perhaps because they spent more time each week working in their fellowship than did the more recent fellows. Walter stated unequivocally that there were “228 free lunch eligible and 70 reduced lunch eligible,” at his first fellowship placement. Kent was similarly aware that his first fellowship 125 placement was in a school with “38% socioeconomically disadvantaged students” and his second fellowship had only “15% students living in poverty.” Although they may have been aware of the composition of the student population at their fellowship schools, former fellows did not dwell on the socioeconomic status of the students. For example, when asked about how the CMP experience had shaped his outlook on working in high poverty schools, Ray stated, “Kids are kids … outside of what their parents do to them, for them, or against them, they’re all the same and I think that was pretty evident during my time with the CMP.” Kristin and Kent did not mention learning to teach an underresourced school. Instead they expressed gratitude for the marching band techniques they learned during their fellowships, and Kent mentioned that he learned about music technology, which he had not experienced during undergraduate courses. Walter found the fellowship useful because it addressed “individual student issues that could not be addressed in a large [music education methods] class.” Influence of the Fellowship on Fellows’ Professional Decisions Prior to their fellowships, most of the fellows felt that music teaching was a good fit for them, and they were on the right path to becoming music teachers. All three 20122013 fellows planned to finish the Bachelor of Music Education degree program and then earn their California music teaching credentials. All of those whose fellowships occurred before 2012 earned their music credential and began their first teaching jobs following their fellowships. Because the 2012–13 fellows were just completing their fellowships at the time of the study, it was impossible to specify the extent to which fellowships influenced their 126 choices; however, Austin reported that the fellowship helped him feel comfortable with “teaching middle school,” an age group he had not considered before the fellowship. Austin did not feel the fellowship “changed anything” with respect to his outlook on working with high-poverty students. Michelle felt the fellowship improved her “classroom management and confidence.” She was “glad to have more experience with middle school kids” and, like Austin, because of the fellowship became drawn to teaching middle school students. Following her fellowship, Kelly planned to finish her music education degree, complete the credential program, and become an orchestra teacher. Kelly “hadn’t really thought about the” school setting in which she wanted to teach. She thought that because the economy was so challenging, she would wait to see what jobs were available. Kelly, along with several former fellows, highlighted the networking opportunities she gained through the CMP fellowship. Specifically, Kelly became connected to string teachers in the entire Bay Area. Walter also felt able to “network with many music teachers” during his fellowship, and he recognized that “having that network already built” when he was searching for jobs “was a tremendous help.” Ray expressed similar sentiments. Although CMP was not intended to be a new teacher mentoring and induction program, it seemed possible that, like the participants in the Kapadia et al. (2007) study of Chicago Public Schools’ new teacher mentoring and induction program, CMP fellows were sustained in their career paths through their teacher networks. Among the former fellows, Kristin found her job at a low-income charter school 127 to be “fabulous”; however, she soon discovered that she had a “limited budget,” and she felt as if her colleagues had an “every man for himself” attitude. After one year, she left this position and moved to a private, affluent school that wanted to grow its music program. She found the private school to be a “professional environment” that provided “a lot of money” and “willingness to help her get instruments.” She also found her colleagues at the private school to be more “collaborative.” Kristin noted that her own K12 schooling was in private schools, so she felt comfortable in the environment. Kent declared that he wanted to stay in teaching “his whole life,” but his part-time, itinerant position required him to travel to several different school sites, which was exhausting. He noted that he was looking for a new job, but not in low-income districts that lacked administrative support “and the salaries were worse.” At the conclusion of this study, Kent emailed me to let me know he had secured a full-time position in a middle-class school district, where he hoped for “support from a music coordinator and administrator” and felt he might find “better working conditions.” Kent credited CMP with solidifying his goal to “teach high school” and taught him how to “start a new program.” At the time of this study, Walter was in his second year in a poor, rural school district and finding it challenging. He was teaching all levels in a K-12 music program and felt his administrators did not understand what it took to run a music program. Because he felt isolated, he wanted to move back to California. According to Walter, CMP did not have much effect on where he decided to teach. After he finished his credential, “finding a job” was challenging, and he “didn’t have the luxury of being 128 picky.” Towards the end of the study, however, Walter emailed me to tell me he had “accepted a position” back in the San Jose area. It was a low-income school with a small budget, but he was excited to report that the school had a music booster program. Following his fellowship and credential program, Ray took an itinerant position in his home school district that served two high schools; he taught piano and guitar classes. At the time of his interview for this study, the district hired a second music teacher, allowing Ray to teach full time at only one high school. This school had “greater than 50 percent” of students who qualified for “free and reduced lunches” and a large Hispanic student population. Ray mentioned his motivation to “keep improving his curriculum,” “keep improving his assessments,” and “keep finding new ways to bring one more kids on board.” He conveyed that, while he often wished for more resources, he wanted to stay in this position because he felt music was “the best part of their [the students’] day.” In spite of his commitment to this high-poverty school, Ray felt that “CMP had no real effect” on where he decided to teach. Summary. A few researchers, such as Berry et al. (2008) and Zeichner (2003), suggested that preservice education programs emphasizing urban teacher education and work with children from diverse cultural backgrounds were able to improve teacher readiness and inspire teachers to work in low-income schools. So it was reasonable to expect that fellows’ experience in CMP schools might have prepared them for work in challenging, under-resourced schools. Although most of the fellows were open to the idea of working in a school that served low-income families, several lacked information about the CMP schools in which they were placed, and those who were aware of the 129 composition of the student body at their schools were more interested in improving music pedagogy or acquiring information that was not incorporated into their undergraduate courses, such as marching band techniques or software applications. Several factors seemed to have influenced fellows’ ignorance of their circumstances: First, all the fellows except Kelly were White, middle-class college students who grew up in suburbia, and they may not have known what to look for in under-resourced school environments. This lack of awareness may have been compounded by some CMP mentors who were not fully aware of the composition of their school populations. Additionally, the CMP program may not have been forthcoming with information about the schools in which the fellows were placed. Fellows acknowledged that CMP experiences influenced some of their professional decisions. For instance, all fellows went on immediately to receive California teacher licensure, and none of the fellows interviewed for this study left music teaching. Several fellows mentioned that they had become more open to working with beginning instrumentalists in middle schools, or to teaching elementary age students through their work in CMP schools. According to some fellows, CMP benefitted them by introducing them to a wider network of California music teachers. Nevertheless, it was striking that no fellow directly attributed his or her decision to take employment in an under-resourced school to CMP experiences. In the final chapter, I reviewed and summarized findings from this study. In the conclusions section, I described the degree to which the CMP was able to reach its goals of: (a) sustaining music programs in low and middle income schools; (b) contributing to 130 music teachers’ longevity in those schools; and (c) attracting prospective music teachers to under-resourced schools. I considered implications of the findings for music teacher education practice and on-going music teacher support as well as future research. 131 Chapter 7: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications In this study, I examined the California Music Project Teacher Training Program, which was designed to address inequities of music education in high poverty schools, support music teachers so they remained in those schools, and encourage preservice music teachers to build personal and professional capacity for work in under-resourced school environments. I explained that, because California spent relatively little per pupil, music programs in general received little monetary support from school district funds. Administrators of high poverty schools directed funds and attention toward improving student achievement on standardized tests, leaving few funds for arts programs, so in high-poverty schools, support for music was almost absent. More affluent schools in California supported music education through community fund raising or parent booster programs, in some cases providing teachers’ salaries and materials; however, high poverty schools were unable to access this kind of support. I viewed these disparities between poor and more affluent schools within a broader framework of income inequality that directly impacted children, families and neighborhoods, and through those mechanisms indirectly impacted school functions and educational attainment for children. Several indirect impacts were pertinent to the current study. First, family mobility put pressure on already under-funded schools, due to the need to provide remedial instruction. Mobility also disrupted normal social networks, distracted principals from instructional leadership, and made it impossible for teachers to carry out sustained reforms. Second, immigrants to the U.S. were poorer than the nativeborn population and their lack of English proficiency also put pressure on schools’ 132 financial and human resources to deliver remedial instruction. Third, high poverty schools tended to be high-arrest schools with student discipline problems including suspension and expulsion, and low graduation rates. Finally, teaching became challenging in high-poverty schools not only due to the aforementioned effects of mobility, immigration, and lack of student discipline, but also because administrative support was lacking, and salaries often were low. Teachers employed in high poverty schools left their positions at greater rates than their counterparts in middle- and highincome schools. This attrition, in turn, increased the indirect impacts of income inequality on children’s educational attainment. Federal and state governments, local school districts, and nongovernmental organizations all attempted to ameliorate the negative impacts of poverty and income inequality and improve outcomes for children (Jacob & Ludwig, 2009). Interventions ranging from income subsidies, to Head Start, reduced class sizes, comprehensive school reforms, and new teacher induction were implemented and studied. Although moderate impacts were found from some interventions, Jacob and Ludwig (2009) tempered optimism, pointing out that even the most successful interventions reduced, but did not "eliminate racial and social class disparities in educational outcomes” (p. 5). I framed the California Music Project Teacher Training Program as an intervention created to address some of the challenges precipitated by income inequality and its indirect impacts on school music programs and school music teachers. The purpose of the present case study was to examine the extent to which CMP at San Jose was able to achieve its goals of: (a) sustaining music programs in low-income schools; 133 (b) contributing to music teachers’ longevity in such schools; and (c) preparing prospective music teachers for work in under-resourced education settings. The following questions guided the study: 1. What were the indirect impacts of income inequality on the CMP schools, music programs, and mentor-teachers? 2. Which impacts appeared to be ameliorated by placement of a fellow into the music program? 3. What were the relationships between having a fellowship and learning to teach in an under-resourced school? 4. To what extent did the fellowship influence fellows’ decisions about pursuing teacher licensure and eventual employment? Methods A case study was the most appropriate design for research on CMP. The case was bounded specifically to the San Jose site of CMP because, of the three CMP sites, it had the longest history, and therefore a broad range of mentors’ and fellows’ experiences informed data generation and analysis. To aim for maximum variation in the data generated for this case in order to ensure an in-depth understanding of the case, I recruited mentors and fellows from the first (pilot) year of the program (2006–07) and from later years of the program (2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13). The CMP supervisor emailed invitations, and nine mentors and seven fellows agreed to participate. The primary method of data generation was interviewing, with observation and document analysis used as corroborating and supporting evidence. Because six of the informants were 2012–13 mentors and fellows (three mentors and three fellows), I was able to observe these pairs in normal working conditions, and observations were also used as 134 corroborating and supporting evidence. Data generation and analysis proceeded simultaneously, and analysis became more intensive as the study progressed. Because there were 16 informants, there were many transcripts of interviews and observations, so some means of data reduction was necessary. Ultimately, I decided to organize through the creation of a codebook. Each statement or idea was transcribed on a single line, each line was coded, and I attempted to employ in vivo codes as much as possible. The analysis process was reiterative in that I returned to previously analyzed transcripts as new codes emerged, applying those new codes. As many variations to a single code arose, the code became a category, and as saturation was reached with codes and categories, larger themes emerged. An auditor, experienced in music education research, reviewed the codebook once it was complete, and recommended separating mentor codes and themes from fellow codes and themes. Thus, the findings of the study were displayed in three chapters that comprised: the mentors’ experience of CMP (Chapter 4), the fellows’ experience of CMP (Chapter 5), and findings that directly addressed the effectiveness of CMP as an intervention in poverty and income inequality (Chapter 6). Summary of Preliminary Findings Mentors’ backgrounds and teaching environments. Most mentors were veteran teachers with several years of experience. To the contrary, Andrew was in his sixth year of teaching at the time of the study, Becky taught for three years, and Alexis taught two years. Most of the mentors came from White, middle class, suburban backgrounds. All of the mentors valued their teacher education courses; however, a few believed they were 135 not fully prepared through higher education and thus were forced to learn a great deal on the job. At the time of the study, the mentors worked at schools with high, locked gates that protected students from the potential dangers in the neighborhood. To provide services for a large student-age population in the San Jose area, most of the CMP schools had several portable classroom buildings on school grounds. The schools served low- to middle-income families; however, a few affluent families were present in some schools. Although a few CMP schools served diverse student populations, most schools were classified as majority Hispanic. All of the mentors taught instrumental music and a few mentors also taught choir, general music, or music appreciation. Most believed that band and orchestra should be open to any student, even if families could not afford an instrument, and they tried to raise funds for that purpose. While some of the mentors taught their music classes once per day on all five days per week, others worked on a block schedule and saw their students two to four times per week. The instrumental music classes ranged in size from 20 students in small ensembles to 80 in the large ensembles, but most ensembles were large. The mentors felt that their schedules and workloads were much heavier than a typical 40-hour workweek; they often felt exhausted. Some of the mentors, especially those who were itinerant teachers, felt frustrated due to being isolated. Many mentors expressed that they lacked parent support and administrative support. Needing a fellow. Mentors had busy schedules and most sensed that they lacked administrative support; consequently, all of the mentors expressed that they needed a fellow. When a fellow was placed in a CMP school, she or he helped the mentors with 136 large classes, typically by helping students who were struggling. All of the mentors believed that fellows formed healthy relationships with students, and students benefitted from working with the fellows. However, a few mentors found that fellows were underprepared and noted that sometimes the fellows participated inconsistently in music classes. Mentors all desired a predictable schedule with the fellow, and they wished fellows were able to spend more hours per week in CMP schools. Mentors’ outcomes. Most mentors believed that fellows were helpful in some way with teaching in under-resourced school environments, and they tried to stay in contact with their fellows after the fellowship ended. Nevertheless, Daniel, Tony, Silvia, and Jeffrey claimed that they stayed in their teaching positions because they had schoolsystem retirement accounts, so leaving was not financially feasible. Only Ralph directly indicated that his experience in CMP influenced his decision to stay. The other mentors did not remain in their CMP schools. Fellows’ backgrounds and preparation. The 2012–13 fellows were all full-time, traditional college students, in the senior year of a music education bachelor’s degree, and living off campus. They were offered fellowships that required them to work for four to five hours each week in a CMP school, and they received a small stipend for their work. Those who held fellowships before 2012 worked eight to ten hours a week and received approximately double the stipend that the 2012–13 fellows received. Most of the former fellows were in their junior or senior year at San Jose State University as they completed their fellowship responsibilities. Similar to the mentors, most of the fellows attended suburban, middle-class or affluent schools during their pre-collegiate years. All 137 fellows felt that their undergraduate course work (i.e., instrument lessons, conducting, and music education methods courses) prepared them for the musical responsibilities of a fellowship. Ray, who was a nontraditional student, noted that his life-experience prepared him for his fellowship. However, most fellows believed that their courses did not prepare them for the specific context of an under-resourced school. Fellows’ help and interaction with mentors. The greatest help that the fellows offered was support for the mentors in large classes. The fellows gave group or individual lessons to students who were struggling, and they helped prepare more advanced students for auditions. Fellows helped with large ensembles by directing warm-ups, or they floated among the students, helping tune instruments and apply appropriate techniques while the mentor directed the ensemble. Some fellows also helped prevent students’ disruptive behavior, and some provided administrative help such as copying music, organizing music libraries, arranging music, and repairing instruments. Through observations of their mentors, most fellows found that building relationships with their students was a key factor in improving students’ music learning. Through interactive planning during a mentor’s prep period or lunch, some mentors and fellows optimized the time they had together; however, not all mentors and fellows engaged in planning. Outcomes. Reflecting on their CMP experiences, some fellows reframed help as valuable opportunity to practice teaching, and whether on the podium or teaching in small groups, fellows felt that their experiences in CMP schools helped them grow musically. All of the 2012–13 fellows planned to complete the California Music Credential program, 138 and all those who had fellowships before 2012 became licensed music teachers. Kristin and Kent taught for one year in low-income schools before leaving for more affluent schools. Ray took a teaching job in the low-income district that he attended when he was in high school and remained there. Walter taught for two years in a low-income school out-of-state because he was unable to find a music teaching job in California. During the course of this study, he reported that he was able to obtain a job in the San Jose area, which also was in a low-income school district. Limitations. Mentors and fellows noticed that there was no orientation to CMP that clarified expectations and little supervision as fellowships progressed. In addition, it was difficult for most of the fellows to balance university demands with their fellowship schedules; consequently all mentors and fellows wished that fellows could spend more time in CMP schools. Most of the fellows found the CMP experience limited because they received little, if any, feedback from mentors about their teaching. Some fellows also wished for podium time with a full instrumental ensemble. Summary of Primary Findings The primary findings of the study were related to the four research questions and thus were descriptions of indirect impacts of income inequality on CMP schools and mentor teachers, including those impacts that were ameliorated by the placement of a fellow into the music program. Findings also were descriptions of relationships between having a fellowship and learning to teach in an under-resourced school, and the extent to which the fellowship placement influenced a fellow’s decisions about pursuing teacher licensure and eventual employment. 139 Impacts of poverty and income inequality on CMP schools. Two systemic impacts of income inequality became apparent as data were analyzed: First, California had relatively low property tax, and second, California had large numbers of residents whose first language was not English. These two systemic issues directly impacted school resources and school operations. Low property taxes resulted in low per-pupil spending, and in some CMP schools, per pupil spending was lower than the state average. At the time of the study, the average percentage of students needing English language support in California schools was 23%, yet in many CMP schools, more than 50% of students required such support. Out of nine CMP schools, only one met Adequate Yearly Progress requirements. Consequently, CMP schools were required to provide tutoring and remedial instruction for large numbers of students. Furthermore, an associated financial incentive offered to principals kept ELA and math class sizes small in order to improve standardized test scores. Funding large remedial programs meant that there were few funds available to fund music programs in CMP schools. Additionally, because so many students in CMP schools were required to participate in remedial instruction and tutoring and thus were not allowed to enroll in elective courses, overall enrollment in music was low. Even in the two arts magnet schools represented in this study, music enrollment was limited to about 25% of the total school population. With such low enrollment, the music programs in these schools lacked variety in class offerings. Due to low enrollment, some CMP music teachers were itinerant in order to maintain full-time employment. Itinerancy and lack of opportunity to collaborate with colleagues contributed to CMP teachers’ sense of 140 isolation. With meager funding for their programs, large class sizes, and feelings of isolation, CMP teachers often sensed that they lacked administrative support. Learning to teach in an under-resourced school. All of the fellows reported that they gained music teaching experience through CMP, and some reported that their pedagogical skills improved. Nevertheless, few fellows reported that they developed strategies to deliver instruction in under-resourced schools, and some of the 2012–13 fellows were unaware that they had been placed in low-income schools. All of the 2012–13 fellows reported that they intended to earn their California teaching credential, and all former fellows completed their teacher licensure programs. None of the fellows interviewed for this study had left music teaching. Several fellows mentioned that they had become more open to teaching beginning instrumentalists or to teaching elementary music as a result of their fellowship placement. Fellows frequently mentioned that they had established a network with other music teachers in the Bay area, due to the CMP fellowship program. Among those who had fellowships prior to 2012, Kent and Kristin went on to receive their credentials and initially took jobs in low-income schools, but they found that working in such under-resourced environments was too challenging and they took positions in more affluent schools. Walter and Ray initially took positions in low-income schools and continued to affirm their commitments to teaching in such environments; however, nether attributed their decisions about employment to the CMP fellowship experience. Significant finding. I did not pose a question related to CMP mentors’ awareness of their school demographics and school climate, yet the most significant finding of this 141 study was the mentors’ ignorance of how the ecology of income inequality affected most aspects of their teaching, including their relationships with students, colleagues, and administrators. Ralph was aware of the high percentage of low-income students enrolled at his school as well as the high percentage of students whose primary language was Spanish. Sean also demonstrated his understanding that many students at his school had poor test scores, and that his school administrator had little choice except to fund remedial instruction and tutoring. Sylvia statement, “I’m the music teacher, so I don’t have anything to do with any of those things” was a sentiment echoed by many other mentors when I asked about how many low-income students were enrolled at their schools, why funding for music was so low, or why music class sizes were so large. Many mentors were angry about lack of funding for music, extra hours spent fundraising, large class sizes, and itinerant positions. It was rare for mentors to discuss specific strategies for teaching low-income students or helping English language learners in the context of band and orchestra. The mentors’ ignorance led to fellows’ ignorance of affects of income inequality on school music programs and music teachers, and opportunities to prepare new music teachers for working in under resourced schools were lost. Conclusions The overarching question of this study was whether the California Music Project Teacher Training Program was able to reach its goals of: (a) sustaining music programs in low-income schools; (b) contributing to music teachers’ longevity in such schools; and (c) preparing prospective music teachers for work in under-resourced education settings. 142 As this study was ending, I found no way to draw simple, direct conclusions, but I considered each part of the overarching question in turn. Sustaining music programs. It appeared that CMP took an indirect approach to sustaining music programs in low- and middle-income schools. The idea was that, if a fellow was placed with a music teacher, the mentor would feel supported and remain in his or her teaching position. In principle, the students attending CMP schools would benefit from consistent instruction; there would be no teacher turnover and no opportunity for administrators to cut the music program because they were unable to find a qualified music teacher. Thus, the CMP program was set up to stabilize school music programs in under-resourced schools. Had CMP been set up to sustain music programs, it might have included professional development for music teachers, educating them about the effects of poverty on their schools, and classrooms. Such professional development might have included cultural competence components, particularly because most CMP mentors were White and most students enrolled in their schools were Hispanic. Further, sustaining music programs would have required providing access to comprehensive music education for all of the students at CMP schools. Although CMP stated a goal to sustain music programs, the program did not implement procedures and practices to achieve such a goal. Contributing to music teachers’ longevity. Several mentors were veteran teachers with 20 or more years of experience in the music classroom. Their work was stressful because they taught large classes, felt isolated from their school communities, and sensed that their school administrators were not supportive. The fellows were helpful, 143 sharing teaching responsibilities in large classes, working with students who were struggling or who needed to prepare for extracurricular auditions, and in some cases, simply sharing collegial conversations. Therefore, it was reasonable to conclude that CMP mentors were sustained in several ways by having fellows placed in their classrooms; however, the mentors tended to attribute their longevity in their respective positions to retirement benefits rather than to CMP. Two mentors, Alexis and Becky, left positions in low-income schools after teaching in those situations for only a few years. In interviews, Alexis and Becky both implied that they felt young and inexperienced when fellows were placed in their respective classrooms; Alexis commented that she did not know how a fellow could help in her classroom. According to much of the research literature, early career teachers benefit from support, but for these two inexperienced mentors, a fellow was not the support they needed to navigate a challenging teaching environment. Across several years of the fellowship program, Andrew volunteered to have six fellows placed at his school, yet Andrew was outspoken in his claims that he had no interest in creating a music program to serve the poor students at his school. It was not a surprise toward the end of this study when Andrew announced that he was leaving his CMP school for a new position in an affluent school district that “valued education.” In spite of leaving their positions in challenging, high-poverty schools, these three teachers reported reduction in stress and isolation, as well as benefits to their students’ musicianship from having a fellow. Sean was a first-time mentor at the time of this study, so the extent to which his 144 longevity was attributable to CMP remained unknown. There was only one mentor, Ralph, who explicitly credited CMP for his longevity in a challenging teaching position. It seemed probable that Ralph was more committed to music teaching than most new teachers, because he left a successful career in technology in order to earn his teaching credential. Ralph was an early-career teacher when a fellow was first placed with him in 2006, and fellows then were paid for ten hours of work each week, so a fellow was able to support Ralph in ways that allowed for a successful transition into a new career and new school. In spite of Ralph’s story, CMP was not successful overall at contributing to music teachers’ longevity in schools. Preparing teachers for work in under-resourced schools. Fellows had opportunity to assist in the music programs of under-resourced schools; however, two out of three fellows from the 2012–13 cohort were unaware that they were teaching in such environments. Because students with the lowest state test scores and students who struggled with English language were not allowed to participate in music electives, the fellows did not work with a broad cross-section of the school population. Additionally, the fellows only assisted in the music program for four hours each week; they were not required to participate in the larger life of the school, such as faculty meetings or extracurricular events. They reported no formal orientation to the school setting, such as meeting with a school administrator. It was not surprising, then, that the fellows’ attention was focused primarily on improving their music teaching skills, instead of reporting that they were learning to work in under-resourced school environments. Therefore, it was reasonable to conclude that 2012-2013 fellows were inadequately 145 prepared to work in under-resourced school environments. However, those who had placements prior to 2012 had fellowships that required them to spend eight to ten hours each week in CMP schools, so they might have known more about the general operation of CMP schools. Nevertheless, all former fellows valued the pedagogical skills that they gained during their fellowship more than they valued learning to teach in an under-resourced school. Although fellows initially took music-teaching positions in low-income schools, Kristin and Kent moved after one year to positions in more affluent schools. Ray and Walter stood apart from the other fellows because they remained committed to staying in under-resourced schools, and although neither of them attributed this commitment to the CMP program, it seemed possible that their fellowships supported already existing beliefs about the effects of poverty, as well self-efficacy beliefs about teaching in challenging environments. Therefore, it was reasonable to conclude that CMP had been somewhat effective, prior to 2012, preparing prospective music teachers for work in under-resourced environments. Implications for Practice The primary findings and conclusions of this study lead to several implications for music teacher education practice and on-going music teacher support. First, an orientation seminar would not only clarify expectations, but also would help prepare fellows and mentors alike for working in high-poverty, challenging school settings. In addition, a professional learning community would help CMP mentors study their own schools, present their findings to others, and advocate for more responsive music programs. Next, because mentors are intended to influence the fellows, the process of 146 selecting mentors and schools for the CMP program, or other similar programs, should be weighed carefully. Finally, an on-going professional development program associated with CMP, expanded to in-service and preservice teachers in the Bay area, would increase impact of the program, identify best practices of music teaching in high-poverty schools, provide networking opportunities, and help CMP with identification and selection of mentors and fellows. Orientation seminar. One of the features lacking in CMP is an orientation seminar for all participants. This limitation was acknowledged during interviews with mentors and fellows; none were fully aware of program expectations. Further, fellows were somewhat reluctant to make initial contact with their mentors, and some did not understand logistics, such as how to sign in at the school. An orientation session would introduce fellows and mentors and clarify program expectations; however, there is a more important reason to recommend it. One of the most surprising findings of this study was that mentors generally had little awareness of their school populations. In some cases, mentors were itinerant teachers, and busy travel schedules kept them from becoming engaged in the overall life of their schools. In other cases, school policies prevented students who scored poorly on California State Tests from enrolling in music classes. Students who did not score well on tests were most likely to be poor, immigrant, or nonnative English speakers. It follows, then that most mentor teachers have never worked with the full range of students in their school populations. The mentors’ ignorance, in turn, was passed on to the fellows; two out of the three fellows from the 2012–13 cohort, for example, did not understand they were assigned to schools in low 147 socioeconomic, highly-impacted communities. Thus, an orientation to CMP would help all participants become more sensitive toward the impacts of poverty and income inequality in the region, particularly on children, their families, and their neighborhoods. Such an orientation would help mentors and fellows understand how poverty and income inequality affect schools and music programs. Orientation topics could include statistics on racial, ethnic, language, and socioeconomic diversity, school funding, understanding administrators, English immersion in music classrooms, and understanding school violence and disruption. Professional learning community. In addition to an orientation seminar, establishing a professional learning community for CMP mentors would give them opportunity to study their own schools and present their findings to other mentors. By requiring mentors to make yearlong commitment to a professional learning community, a supportive environment would be created for mentors’ professional growth. In such a community, mentors could understand the experiences of poor students in their schools, and they could learn to advocate for inclusion of all students in music programs. At least, mentors could start to recognize how school budgets are limited and pressured, and they might comprehend factors underlying their small music enrollments, large class sizes, and itinerant positions. Finally, such a professional learning community could help mentors become more aware of the circumstances of family and neighborhood living that contribute to students’ disruptive behavior in schools. Overall, mentors would have opportunities to become more attuned to their students and find productive ways to engage students in music. 148 Selection of schools. At the time of this study, CMP selected music programs in public schools where the student population consisted of 90% English as Second Language (ESL) learners, or where 90% of the student population qualified for free or reduced lunch (Hollinger, 2007). Jeffrey’s school had 17.8% ESL and it served only 15% low-income students. Perhaps the dynamics of the school changed between the time that the school was initially designated as a CMP site and the time of this study; however it did not meet established criteria, and it proved anomalous among the CMP schools in terms of variety of music classes offered and parent support provided in support of music. I recommend that, each year when a mentor applies for a fellow, the mentor should disclose the percentage of low-income students in the school population. In that way, CMP will ensure that the program severs the schools and teachers it has set out to serve. Selection of mentors. A program such as CMP that aims to support music programs and music teachers in challenging school environments should seriously consider not only which teachers need the most support, but which teachers would provide the best mentoring for preservice music teachers. The mentors who served as informants for this study might be categorized as (a) early career music teachers, (b) second career music teachers, and (c) veteran teachers. If CMP intends to contribute to music teachers’ longevity in under-resourced school environments, it seems that the latter category of teacher does not need support from a fellow. Nevertheless, as exemplified through this study, veteran teachers enthusiastically welcome fellows and provide opportunities for the fellows to observe expert pedagogy. Early career teachers are inexperienced and struggling to find their way in music teaching. As the mentors in this 149 study suggested, early career teachers need support, but a fellow is not the most appropriate support for their circumstances. The second career teacher interviewed for this study, Ralph, seems to be an ideal type of mentor. Although it seems likely that his pedagogy is less developed than the veteran teachers’ pedagogies, his commitment to his school and his students is unwavering. He has the kinds of professional experience that allow him to envision how he and his music students might benefit from a fellow’s talents and presence, and at the same time, he imagines ways in which a fellow might gain valuable teaching experience in his school. Researchers suggest that alternative routes to licensure have potential to attract more Black and Latino candidates than traditional licensure programs (Villegas & Geist, 2008), and further, Black and Hispanic teachers might have more humanistic commitment toward working in hard-to-staff schools (Achinstein et al., 2010). A surprising finding of this study was that, in CMP schools where 40% to 90% of the school population identified as Hispanic, none of the music teachers in this study identified as Hispanic. Although an Hispanic music teacher in a predominantly Hispanic school does not guarantee a successful music program, a placement situation such as this should be considered for CMP, as well as other similar programs. Finally, two mentors interviewed for this study spoke out against inclusion of poor students in their music programs. Although those mentors might have admirable music teaching techniques, their dispositions appear to run counter to the goals of CMP, and fellowship placements with such mentors should be discouraged. 150 A broader context for professional development. Beginning teachers, such as Becky and Alexis, needed support that a fellow did not provide. With the exception of Jeffrey’s school, which did not serve low-income students primarily, the music programs at CMP schools were limited to traditional ensembles and an occasional keyboard class. Among all the CMP schools represented in this study, not more than 25% of the student body was enrolled in the mentors’ music program, even in the two arts magnet schools. Such circumstances imply need for a music educator professional development program connected to CMP that provides preservice teacher preparation, induction support for beginning teachers, and on-going support for mid- and late-career music teachers. If such a program existed, it would capitalize on an asset of CMP: the networking opportunities it provides for novice and experienced teachers. Similar to the Center X Teacher Education Program at the University of California-Los Angeles, one focus of on-going professional development would be social justice; that is, teachers would use a professional development program as a space to inquire systematically about which children are being left out of music education in the Bay area, and what conditions existed around such marginalization. Do diverse, wellfunded music programs exist in Bay area schools? If so, such programs could be called model programs, and CMP mentors and fellows could receive financial support to observe in those schools and meet with teachers and administrators in such model programs. In addition to providing a space for inquiry, the professional development program could provide workshops on diverse musical practices, including mariachi and 151 banda, Mexican musical traditions popular elsewhere in California schools that involve instrumentation already present in CMP schools. Another logical medium for the Bay area would be iPad ensembles, given that the corporate headquarters of Apple, Inc. is located in the region. Other similar programs should consider whatever kinds of music are appropriate for their region. A professional development program should also provide teachers with training in advocacy, so that teachers develop confidence speaking to school administrators and to the public about why all students should have access to a comprehensive music education. If such a broad-based professional development program could be accessible to all music educators (preservice and in-service) in the Bay area, it would have even greater impact. It could function not only as a networking opportunity for teachers, but also as a way for the CMP coordinator to recruit the most qualified mentors and fellows for the program. Researchers who have followed graduates of Center X found that a high percentage of graduates were African-American, Latino, and Asian, and graduates of Center X who taught in urban environments showed significantly higher rates of retention compared to national averages (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Quartz & TEP Research Group, 2003). Perhaps if a broader professional context was built for CMP, similar findings might eventually ensue. Implications for Further Research The findings of this study imply that more research should be conducted to better understand the California Music Program as an intervention in poverty. The most obvious follow-up to the present research is a comparative case study of the three CMP 152 sites. In addition, the findings of this study imply that a more comprehensive understanding of the reasons for veteran teachers’ longevity, and more in-depth understanding of preservice teachers’ existing beliefs about poverty and music education are needed to inform and strengthen CMP. Findings from such studies also have potential to inform other music teacher development programs in the U.S. In accordance with prior research, CMP would benefit from a survey of California schools to identify Hispanic and Asian leaders in music education. Finally, the findings of this study imply a lack of communication between mentor teachers and their administrators, so more research is needed to explore differences in music teachers’ and administrators’ perspectives on the purposes and value of music education. Replication at other CMP sites. This case study was conducted at the San Jose site of CMP; however there are additional CMP sites in San Diego and Los Angeles. Some features of CMP are common across sites; for example, San Diego and Los Angeles sites comprise schools with low funding per pupil and high percentages of Hispanic students. However, other aspects of CMP at the San Diego and Los Angeles sites might be different than San Jose. For instance, there might be a broader variety of music classes or different selection processes for mentors and fellows. A comparative case study of the three sites would help identify practices that sustain music programs, contribute to music teachers’ longevity, and prepare preservice teachers for work in under-resourced education settings. Implications from a comparative case study might confirm needs for orientation and professional development programs and could 153 subsequently help shape the content and implementation of such programs.2 Longevity in teaching music. Several of the mentors who informed this study were seasoned teachers with twenty or more years of teaching experience. The veteran teachers were grateful for support from a fellow, but they did not attribute their longevity in music teaching specifically to the fellowship program. Beyond retirement benefits, what motivates these veteran teachers to stay at their high poverty schools? A study designed to identify personal characteristics and attitudes that keep veteran teachers going would help CMP identify strong mentors, and it might also uncover some program incentives that could be used in support of veteran teachers. Uncovering fellows’ beliefs. As fellows, Ray and Walter developed commitment to teaching in low-income schools, yet they did not explicitly attribute such commitment to their CMP fellowship experiences. However, as I indicated previously, some facet of their fellowship placement or relationship with a mentor may have supported these fellows’ preexisting beliefs about music education and about poor students and families. A study to help uncover the beliefs of CMP fellows seems necessary. Do particular beliefs make fellows more suitable for CMP? Are there matches between a fellow’s preexisting beliefs and a placement in a particular school or with a particular mentor that should be considered? Which facets of CMP challenge the fellow’s preexisting beliefs, and which aspects of CMP support beliefs? How do beliefs change during the course of the fellowship? Designing a study to address questions such as these would identify significant events or experiences within CMP that help confirm or alter preservice music                                                                                                                 2 After I completed this study, unfortunately, the CMP programs came to an end. 154 teachers’ beliefs about music education in high-poverty environments, thus lending improved placements and organizational structure to CMP. A study of this nature would not only be important to CMP, but also to any program attempting to prepare music teachers for work in high-poverty, challenging schools. Survey of California music educators. One of the more interesting findings of this study was that all mentors and fellows identified as White or Asian and as native English speakers. In contrast, researchers such as Achinstein et al. (2010) suggested that Black and Hispanic teachers may be more committed to work in hard-to-staff schools. Census statistics indicated that more than 25% of Californians were new immigrants in 2011. Further, census statistics indicated that the population of California was almost 40% Hispanic or Latino and 14% Asian in 2012 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). One might reasonably conjecture that there should be more Hispanic and Asian music teachers in California than anywhere else in the country, yet the San Jose site of CMP uses only a few Asian teachers and no Hispanic teachers as mentors. A survey of California music educators to determine where Hispanic and Asian teachers are leading programs would be useful in mentor and fellow recruitment for CMP, and might also be a way to identify greater variation in types of music classes offered to California students Comparing perceptions of mentors and administrators. Most of the mentor teachers interviewed for this study expressed that they lacked support from their administrators because they lacked funding for their music programs—the mentors seemed to be unaware of the budgetary pressures on their schools. Although administrators were not interviewed for this study, they might have been equally unaware 155 of the financial needs of a music program as well as the impact that a music program might have if all children in their school had access to music instruction. A study comparing mentors’ and administrators’ perceptions of the value and function of music in CMP schools would help open communication between administrators and music teachers, and would suggest ways to benefit and support student learning. Such a study would be important not only for CMP, but also for any high-poverty school that has a music program. Coda President Lyndon Johnson began a War on Poverty in 1964; since then, the divide between the rich and the poor has become greater. Fifty years later, income inequality continues to be a defining challenge for U.S. citizens. In his 2014 State of the Union Address, President Obama said: Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by—let alone get ahead (Obama, 2014a). Simply put, at the core of education problems, in California and elsewhere in the U.S., are poverty and income inequality. In this study, I examined the California Music Project Teacher Training Program as an intervention in poverty, directed at music programs and music teachers. I concluded that CMP was successful at helping some veteran music teachers by reducing the stresses associated with their daily work, and in particular, helping them to 156 differentiate music instruction. In addition, I concluded that CMP provided preservice teachers with opportunity to gain valuable pedagogical skills. For a few of those preservice teachers, CMP seemed to help support beliefs that, in spite of many challenges, teaching music in low-income schools was a worthy calling. As an intervention program, CMP could be better designed to educate mentors and fellows about how poverty affects schools, teachers, and music programs. Further, CMP could be a more successful intervention if it helped teachers and school administrators alike understand the importance of music for all students, regardless of their race, social class, or English proficiency. With such improvements, CMP would have genuine potential to reduce disparities in music education outcomes in the San Jose area. Nevertheless, CMP was one small intervention in California music education. As I pointed out in Chapter 6, CMP helped reduce mentor teachers’ sense of isolation, and helped mentors better address all students in large classes. However, the program was not designed to address systemic impacts of low funding per pupil, high incidence of English learners, and mandated remedial instruction in California’s schools. Moreover, CMP was not designed to increase the minimum wage, construct affordable housing, or provide healthcare for families. It was not designed to reduce crime in neighborhoods of chronic poverty. In short, the California Music Project Teacher Training Program was designed to address symptoms rather than causes of race and social class disparities. On April 10, 2014 in tribute to Lyndon Johnson, Obama showed his optimism for winning the War against Poverty: 157 Like countless citizens who have driven this country inexorably forward, President Johnson knew that ours in the end is a story of optimism, a story of achievement and constant striving that is unique upon this Earth. He knew because he had lived that story. He believed that together we can build an America that is more fair, more equal, and more free than the one we inherited. He believed we make our own destiny. And in part because of him, we must believe it as well (Obama, 2014b). We in music education must not give up, so we must continue to invest in programs such as the California Music Project Teacher Training Program that have potential to reduce racial and social class disparities in music education outcomes. However, our greater investment as citizens must be in elimination of chronic poverty and creating a more fair and more equal United States. 158 Appendix A: Interventions to Mitigate Against Poverty and Income Inequality 159 Interventions to Mitigate Against Poverty and Income Inequality Intervention Type Income subsidy Quality of childcare Key Studies Key Findings 160 Blau and Currie (2006) Income subsidy increased maternal employment, but effects could not be generalized. Duncan, Morris, and Rodrigues (2011) Programs with earnings supplements added to income and reduced welfare. Greater family income is correlated with preschool children’s achievement. Early Training Project Gray and Klaus (1970), Gray and Ramsey (1982), Gray, Ramsey, and Klaus (1982) Initially higher IQ and achievement scores for treatment group, but fade out by fourth grade. Children in treatment group were less likely to be placed in special education or to repeat a grade. Treatment group was more likely to graduate from high school. High/Scope Perry Weikart, Bond, and McNeil (1978), Schweinhart and Weikart (1980), Schweinhart, Barnes, and Weikart (1993) Initially higher IQ scores for treatment group, but fade out by age 8. Higher academic achievement and greater likelihood of high school graduation for treatment group. By age 27, treatment group had fewer arrests, higher employment, and greater earnings. Syracuse Family Development Research Program Honig, Lally, and Mathieson (1982), Lally, Mangione, and Honig (1988), Aos, Phips, Barnoski, and Lieb (2001) Initially higher IQ scores for treatment group but fade out by age 5. Better social-emotional functioning for treatment group. Girls from treatment group had better grades and low school absences. Fewer probation case files for treatment group. Head Start Impact U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2010) Improvement of language skills and social-emotional skills, but fade out by first grade. Strong evidence of better dental care and suggestive evidence of improved health. Reduced class size Schanzenbach (2006/7), Chetty et al. (2011) Black students and free lunch students benefit almost twice as much as White and advantaged students from small class size. Treatment group students were more likely to enroll in college, own a home, and contribute to savings. Intervention Type Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) Key Studies Key Findings 161 Success for All Borman and Hewes (2001) Treatment group had six-month reading advantage and three-month math advantage by eighth grade and lower referrals to special education. For low achievers, SFA was significantly less costly than remedial and special education. Cormer Schools Cook, Hunt, and Murphy (2000) School decision-making involved the entire school community. Minor gains in math and reading. No evidence of social or behavioral gains. Career Academies, Kemple and Willner (2008) Participants had significantly higher earnings and sustained employment than nonparticipants. May have been selection bias. Charter schools Sass (2006), Curto, Fryer, and Howard (2011), Dobbie and Fryer (2009) Mixed results. Some positive effects in established charter schools, but results may be difficult to measure because of selection bias and high rates of student turnover in charter schools. Further, researchers question whether charter school practices are broadly sustainable. Financial incentives for teachers Figlio and Kenny (2007), Clotfelter, Glennie, Ladd, and Vigdor (2006), Steele, Murnane, and Willet (2009) Modestly higher student achievement in low and middle income schools when teachers have merit pay, but no causal effect proven. Middle school math, science and special education teachers, in contrast to high school teachers, more likely to be retained in under-resourced schools with signing incentive in NC. No significant differences between participants and nonparticipants for GTF program in CA. New teacher mentoring and induction Kapadia, Coca, and Easton (2007) All novices who received intensive contextual induction reported intention to continue teaching and plans to remain at the same school. However, self-report offered no evidence of novices actually staying. Cohen and Fuller (2006) TxBESS participants had higher rates of retention than nonparticipants. Results held across high-poverty and high-ethnic minority schools. Smith and Ingersoll (2004, 2005) Mentoring reduced likelihood of leaving, but increased likelihood of moving from high-poverty schools. No statistically significant effects across high-poverty and low-poverty schools for participation in teacher collaboration or external networking. New teacher mentoring and induction Intervention Type Alternative paths to licensure Preservice preparation Key Studies Key Findings Glazerman et al. (2010) No significant differences between treatment and control groups on teacher mobility or retention. Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger (2006) Little difference in student academic outcomes between teachers prepared through traditional programs and teachers prepared through alternative pathways. Pathways to Teaching, Clewell and Villegas (2001), Villegas and Clewell (1998) Greater numbers of Black and Latino teachers recruited. Seventy-five percent remained employed in hard-to-staff schools. Center X at UCLA, Cochran-Smith (2004), Quartz and TEP Research Group (2003) Majority Black, Latino and Asian graduates. Significantly higher retention in urban schools. 162                                        Appendix B: Participant Recruitment Email   163    Participant Recruitment Email DATE Dear ________ I am writing to let you know about an opportunity to participate in research conducted by Kara Ireland D’Ambrosio for her doctoral dissertation at Boston University. It will be a case study about the extent to which the California Music Project Teacher Training Program is reaching its goals of (a) sustaining music programs in low-income schools; (b) contributing to music teachers’ longevity in such schools; and (c) preparing prospective music teachers for work in under-resourced education settings. The San Jose State University site records indicate that you have been a mentor or a fellow in the program (either in the pilot or current year), which makes you eligible to participate in this research. If you do not wish to hear more about this study, or be contacted further, please reply to this email indicating you are opting out of any further contact. If we do not hear from you within two weeks, we will assume you are willing to be contacted. Kara Ireland D’Ambrosio will contact to give you more information regarding the study. Should you wish to have further information about the study before making a decision as to whether or not you wish to be contacted please contact Kara Ireland D’Ambrosio by phone (XXX) XXX XXXX or e-mail XXXX@xxxxxx.xxx. Agreement to be contacted or a request for more information does not obligate you to participate. Thank you for considering this research opportunity. 164 Appendix C: Consent Form 165 Consent Form   A Case Study of the California Music Project Teacher Training Program as an Intervention in Poverty Principal Investigator: Kara Ireland D’Ambrosio Introduction Please read this form carefully. The purpose of this form is to provide you with important information about taking part in a research study. This form may contain words that you do not understand. Please ask the study staff to explain any words that you do not understand. If you have any questions about the research or any portion of this form, please ask us. Taking part in this research study is up to you. If you decide to take part in this research study we will ask you to sign this form. We will give you a copy of the signed form. The person in charge of this study is Kara Ireland D’Ambrosio, doctoral candidate at Boston University, who can be reached at (XXX) XXX-XXXX. We will refer to this person as the “researcher” throughout this form. Dr. Susan Wharton Conkling is the faculty research advisor and can be reached at (XXX) XXX-XXXX. Why is this study being done? The purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which the CMP has achieved its goals of: (a) sustaining music programs in low-income schools; (b) contributing to music teachers’ longevity in such schools; and (c) preparing prospective music teachers for work in under-resourced education settings. We are asking you to take part in this study because you are currently or have been a mentor or fellow in the CMP at SJSU. About 20 subjects will take part in this dissertation study, which is not funded from any outside sources. How long will I take part in this research study? We expect that you will be part of this research study for four to six months. During this time, we will ask you to have an interview with the researcher, and with your building administrator’s permission, the researcher will observe in your music classroom. What will happen if I take part in this research study? Study Visit 1 Visit 1 will take about 90 minutes to complete, and it will take place at a quiet location where you will feel comfortable addressing interview questions. At this visit, the researcher will ask you questions about your involvement in the California Music Project Teacher Training Program and how it has influenced your practices as a music teacher. We will also review artifacts that you may bring with you to help describe your experiences such as curriculum maps, daily schedules, lists or photographs of your music 166 resources, any materials a mentor has created to guide a fellow, or any materials a fellow has created for students while in residence. Study Visit 2 This visit will take 3–5 hours to complete while the researcher observes in your music classroom. We will wait to receive your building administrator’s permission before this visit is scheduled. The researcher will try to be as unobtrusive as possible (no audio- or video-recording will take place), although we acknowledge that any observer can influence normal routines. Audio-recording We would like to audio-record your interview to promote greater accuracy in this study. If you are audio taped it may be possible to identify you in the recording. We will store the recording on a password-protected hard drive and will label these audio files with a code instead of your name. The researcher will keep the key to the code in a physical file in a locked file cabinet to which only the researcher will have access. Audio files will be stored only until the dissertation study is defended. Do you agree to let us audio you during this study? ______YES ______NO _______INITIALS How Will You Keep My Study Records Confidential? We will develop a pseudonym to identify you in all research reports. If you agree to audio-recording, we will store the recording on a password-protected hard drive and will label these audio files with a code instead of your name. Transcriptions of interviews and field notes from observations will also be identified with a code instead of your name. The researcher will keep the key to the code in a physical file in a locked file cabinet to which only the researcher will have access. We will make every effort to keep your records confidential. However, there are times when federal or state law requires the disclosure of your records: Reporting child abuse: If, during your participation in this study, we have reasonable cause to believe that child abuse is occurring, he/she must report this to authorities as required by law. The researcher will make every reasonable effort to protect the confidentiality of your research information. However, it might be possible that a civil or criminal court might demand the release of identifiable research information. Reporting Suicidal Risk: If, during your participation of this study, we have reason to believe that you are at risk for being suicidal or otherwise harming yourself, we are required to take the necessary actions. This may include notifying your doctor, your therapist, or other individuals. If this were to occur, we would not able to assure confidentiality. The following people or groups may review your study records for purposes such as quality control or safety: 167 • • • The Researcher and any member of her research team. The Institutional Review Board at Boston University. The Institutional Review Board is a group of people who review human research studies for safety and protection of people who take part in the studies. Federal and state agencies that oversee or review research. The study data will be stored on a password protected hard drive. Audio files will be kept until the dissertation is defended and then destroyed. Transcriptions will be stored for three years after the study has been completed. The results of this research study may be published or used for teaching. We will not put identifiable information on data that are used for these purposes. Study Participation and Early Withdrawal Taking part in this study is your choice. You are free not to take part or to withdraw at any time for any reason. No matter what you decide, there will be no penalty or loss of benefit to which you are entitled. If you decide to withdraw from this study, the information that you have already provided will be kept confidential. The researcher may take you out of this study without your permission. This may happen because: • The researcher thinks it is in your best interest • You can’t make the required study visits • Other administrative reasons What are the risks of taking part in this research study? Interview Risks You may feel emotional or upset when answering some of the questions. Tell the researcher at any time if you want to take a break or stop the interview. You may be uncomfortable with some of the questions and topics the researcher will ask about. You do not have to answer any questions that make you feel uncomfortable. Loss of Confidentiality The main risk of allowing us to use and store your information for research is a potential loss of privacy. We will protect your privacy by labeling your information with a code and keeping the key to the code in a password-protected computer. Are there any benefits from being in this research study? You may not benefit directly from taking part in this research study; however, the field of music education may benefit in the future from what we learn through this study. What alternatives are available? You may choose not to take part in this research study. 168 Will I get paid for taking part in this research study? We will not pay you for taking part in this study. What will it cost me to take part in this research study? There are no costs to you for taking part in this research study; however, there maybe a small cost associated with transportation and parking, depending on where we choose to meet for the interview. What happens if I am injured as a result of participating in this research study? If you are injured as a result of taking part in this research study, we will assist you in getting medical treatment. However, your insurance company will be responsible for the cost. Boston University does not provide any other form of compensation for injury. If I have any questions or concerns about this research study, who can I talk to? You can call us with any concerns or questions. Our telephone numbers and contact times are listed below: Kara Ireland D’Ambrosio, researcher XXX-XXX-XXXX 9:00am–4:00pm Pacific Monday-Friday Dr. Susan Wharton Conkling, faculty advisor XXX-XXX-XXXX 9:00am–4:00pm Eastern Monday-Friday If you have questions about your rights as a research subject or want to speak with someone independent of the research team, you may contact the Boston University IRB directly at XXX-XXX-XXXX. Statement of Consent I have read the information in this consent form including risks and possible benefits. I have been given the chance to ask questions. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in the study. I have been given a copy of this form. SIGNATURE ______________________________________ Name of Subject ______________________________________ Signature of Subject ____________________ Date I have explained the research to the subject and answered all his/her questions. I will give a copy of the signed consent form to the subject. ________________________________________ Name of Person Obtaining Consent ________________________________________ Signature of Person Obtaining Consent 169 _______________________ Date Appendix D: Interview Protocols 170 Mentor Interview Protocol 1. How long have you been teaching? At this current position? At other schools? Would you describe each school you have worked at? What school did you work at while a mentor or other work history? At each school: What was the socioeconomic status of the students? What was the ethnic diversity of the students? Where was the school(s) located? What were the resources like at the school? 2. How would you describe your school—the people and programs—to someone who doesn’t know it? (Review documents and artifacts to enhance description) 3. Please tell me your current assignment—and schedule. How often you see your students. (How many times a week?) a. I understand that your assignment is to teach X. Beyond that, what other responsibilities do you have? [X = specific assignment/schedule] b. To what extent can you address California standards in this amount of time? c. Do you have enough resources to teach what you are expected to teach? What additional resources do you need? d. How many and which students receive instruction? What is the focus of the instruction? What is the ratio of teacher to students in the music classrooms? e. How is the school music program funded? f. What are the benefits and limitations of this music program to students and their families? 4. How did you decide to teach in this environment? What inspired you? 5. Did you attend an under-resourced school at any time during your K-12 schooling? 6. Has teaching at this school been what you expected? Why? Why not? a. Can you compare your expectations before you entered this position to your current expectations? What are the challenges you face? (Most challenging part of your position/job placement?) Expectations of the school setting/students b. Did your MUED prep program prepare you for this school setting? If not, who did? c. Where do you go for information or advice about what and how to teach? d. Is music teaching a “good fit” as a career for you? Why? Why not? 171 7. I am interested in your relationship with other teachers in your school building. Can you tell me how often you talk with other teachers, in what kinds of situations, and what you talk about? Do you watch other teachers teach? a. Do you reach out to other music teachers beyond your building? If so, how has this been helpful to your teaching? b. Can you describe your current administrator’s support? (Do you feel they support your program, you? If so—How? If not, what is lacking?) How has s/he been helpful to you? Example? Any situation you can share? 8. How long do you plan to stay in teaching? If you want to leave, what has influenced your plans? a. If respondent plans to leave teaching: What would it take to keep you in teaching longer? Why did you leave the low-income school? b. If informant plans to stay in teaching: Will you stay in a low-income SES school/district? c. Has the CMP program been part of your decision to stay or leave? How? 9. Would you list the issues your students from low-income, poverty homes face at school, in their neighborhood and at home? Can you speak about concerns you may have about the children that you are teaching in the program and their families? a. Do these issues affect your music program? Attendance? Tardy? Missing classes or concerts? b. How do you deal with these issues in the music classroom? Can you give an example of a situation you had and how you dealt with it? 10. What drew you to the California Music Project Teacher Training Program? How long have you been involved with it? How did you apply? Did you receive a stipend? Number of years you have been involved? Why not current year? a. Did you feel you needed a fellow because of the challenges you faced in _____(year of being a mentor)? b. Does the program provide the kinds of support you expected? What additional support could it provide for you? 11. Have you generally been pleased with the fellows assigned to you? What benefits do you think they receive from the program? Do you think early-field experience was beneficial? How? Do you think it’s better for the fellow to receive earlyfield experience or wait until student teaching or their first assignment? a. Did your Fellow(s) improve through the year/semester? 172 b. What kinds of support does/did your CMP fellow provide for you? c. What are the limitations your fellow(s) experience? d. What are the benefits of having a CMP fellow to the mentor teacher? To the students? To families? e. What was your planning like with the mentor/fellow? Did you have time? f. What is your favorite experience/story from your fellowship/mentorship(s)? Review any other artifacts, such as curriculum maps, daily schedules, lists or photographs of your music resources, any materials a mentor has created to guide a fellow, or any materials a fellow has created for students while in residence that was brought to the interview. 173 Current Year Fellow Interview Protocol 1. What year are you currently in at SJSU music education program? Are you in the credential program? 2. Did you attend an under-resourced school at any time during your K-12 schooling? (Altruism?) Urban school? 3. What school were you assigned to (in each fellowship)? What was the socioeconomic status of the students? What was the ethnic diversity of the students? Where was the school(s) located? What were the resources like at the school? 4. What inspired you to participate in the CMP program? How long have you been involved with it? Was there a stipend offered? Did this effect your decision to be a fellow? How did you apply? 5. How do you like being a fellow in an under-resourced school music program? a. Does the program provide the kinds of support you expected? What additional support could it provide for you? b. Have you generally been pleased with the mentors assigned to you? What benefits do you think they receive from the program? c. Did you feel sufficiently prepared to support your mentor? d. Can you describe how you have helped your mentor? 6. Can you describe your fellowship assignment? a. Has the fellowship been what you expected? Why? Why not? b. Can you compare your expectations about the program, mentor and/or students before you entered this position to your current expectations? c. Where do you go for information or advice about what and how to teach? d. What is your favorite experience/story from your fellowship thus far? 7. So far, does it feel like music teaching is a “good fit” as a future career for you? Why? Why not? 8. What do you like about being a fellow there? Are there things you dislike? a. What challenges do you face? b. What benefits do you experience? What are the limitations you experience? 174 c. What was your planning like with your mentor? 9. As a fellow, did you learn about the ins and outs of music teaching on a daily basis? Including budgets, grant writing, advocacy (specifically for a budget, scheduling, personnel … etc.) communicating with parents and administration, interpersonal skills, relationships with admin, parents … etc.? Did you learn any stress reducing skills? 10. Did this experience make you feel prepared to step into your own classroom? What skills have made your feel prepared? Were you able to balance your college commitments and those from CMP? 11. How does your mentor “critique” or “give feedback” to you? How does this help? 12. Do you have any contact with other teachers at the school or administration? Have you learned about collaboration or connections with other departments from your mentor? Or how to communicate with administration in order to get support for your program? 13. At this time, do you think you will complete teacher licensure and go into music teaching? a. In what kind of environment would you most like to teach? b. How has CMP influenced these choices? c. How have early field experiences through the CMP shaped their outlook on working in high poverty schools? 14. Would you list the issues your students from low-income, poverty homes face at school, in their neighborhood and at home? Can you speak about concerns you may have about the children that you are teaching in the program and their families? a. Do these issues affect the music program? Attendance? Tardy? Missing classes or concerts? How dose your mentor deal with these issues in the music classroom? Can you give an example of a situation you observed? 15. Do you have a favorite story from your fellowship(s)? Review any other artifacts, such as curriculum maps, daily schedules, lists or photographs of your music resources, any materials a mentor has created to guide a fellow, or any materials a fellow has created for students while in residence that was brought to the interview. 175 Former Fellow Interview Protocol 1. When were you a fellow in the CMP? Who were your mentor(s)? 2. What year(s) were you at SJSU music education program? Credential Program? 3. Did you attend an under-resourced school at any time during your K-12 schooling? In an urban setting? 4. What school(s) were you assigned to (in each fellowship)? What was the socioeconomic status of the students? What was the ethnic diversity of the students? Where was the school(s) located? What were the resources like at the school? 5. Please describe your current teaching assignment (and any other schools you have worked at post-graduation from SJSU/Credential program. (Including socioeconomic status, ethnic diversity of students, resources available and location of school) 6. I understand that your current assignment is to teach X. Beyond that, what other responsibilities do you have? a. How many times a week do you see your students/class? b. To what extent can you address California (or your state) standards in this amount of time? c. Do you have enough resources to teach what you are expected to teach? d. What additional resources do you need/or wish you had? 7. How did you decide to teach in this environment? What inspired you? Did your fellowship influence your decision to work at this school? 8. Has teaching at this school been what you expected? Why? Why not? a. Can you compare your expectations before you entered this position to your current expectations? b. Is music teaching a “good fit” as a career for you? Why? Why not? 9. I am interested in your relationship with other teachers in your school building and administrators. Can you tell me how often you talk with other teachers, in what kinds of situations, and what you talk about? Do you watch other teachers teach? a. Do you reach out to other music teachers beyond your building? If so, 176 how has this been helpful to your teaching? b. Can you describe your current administrator’s support? How has s/he been helpful to you? Do you feel administration supports you and your program? If yes, how? If not, what is lacking? c. Where do you go for information and advice on what and how to teach? 10. How long do you plan to stay in teaching? If you want to leave, what has influenced your plans? a. If respondent plans to leave teaching: What would it take to keep you in teaching longer? (Why did you leave the low-income school?) b. If informant plans to stay in teaching: Will you stay in a low-income SES school/district (if currently teaching in low-income school)? 11. Would you list the issues your students from low-income, poverty homes face at school, in their neighborhood and at home? Can you speak about concerns you may have about the children that you are teaching in the program and their families? Do these issues affect your music program? Attendance? Tardy? Missing classes or concerts? How do you deal with these issues in the music classroom? Can you give an example of a situation you had and how you dealt with it? 12. What drew you to the California Music Project Teacher Training Program? Did the stipend have any effect on participating in CMP? a. Did the program provide the kinds of support for your mentor that you expected? What additional support could it provide for a mentor and/or a fellow? b. Have you generally been pleased with the mentor(s) assigned to you? What benefits do you think they receive from the program? Can you describe how you helped your mentor? c. How has CMP influenced your decision on where to teach once you graduated from your credential/teaching program? Has it had an effect on whether you decided to stay at or leave your current or past teaching assignment since you graduated? d. What is your favorite experience/story from your fellowship(s)? 13. Thinking back and reflecting on your time as a fellow, please describe your preparation, support, guidance from supervisor or mentor you experienced as a fellow? a. Do you feel you supported your mentors? b. Did you feel prepared to support your mentor? c. What were the challenges you faced? 177 d. What benefits did you experience? What are the limitations you experienced? e. What was your planning like with your mentor? 14. As a fellow, did you learn about the ins and outs of music teaching on a daily basis? Including budgets, grant writing, advocacy (specifically for a budget, scheduling, personnel … etc.) communicating with parents and administration, interpersonal skills, relationships with admin, parents … etc.? Did you learn any stress reducing skills? a. Did you feel prepared to step into your own classroom? Were you able to balance your college commitments and those from CMP? b. How have early field experiences through the CMP shaped their outlook on working in high poverty schools? Review any other artifacts, such as curriculum maps, daily schedules, lists or photographs of your music resources, any materials a mentor has created to guide a fellow, or any materials a fellow has created for students while in residence that was brought to the interview. 178 Appendix E: Permission Request for Observation 179 Permission Request for Observation DATE Name of Principal/School Dear ________________: I am completing my dissertation research at Boston University, conducting a case study of the California Music Project Teacher Training Program (CMP). Your music teacher, (insert name), is a mentor in this program and has consented to participate in the research; the purpose is to determine the extent to which the CMP is reaching its goals of (a) sustaining music programs in low-income schools; (b) contributing to music teachers’ longevity in such schools; and (c) preparing prospective music teachers for work in under-resourced education settings. I request your permission to add to my data collection by observing the music program in your school. My observation will be as detached as possible in the school setting, and I will have no overt interaction with students. Because the California Music Project Teacher Training Program is the unit of study, mentors and fellows who participate in the research, as well as the schools in which they teach, will be identified by pseudonym. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter or my research, please contact me at my phone number or email address below. I can share my approved dissertation proposal as well as Boston University IRB approval to show that human subjects are appropriately protected in this research. I look forward to hearing from you. Kara Ireland D’Ambrosio Boston University, D.M.A. candidate (XXX) XXX-XXXX XXXXX@XXXX.XXX 180 Appendix F: Protocol for Observations and Field Notes 181 Protocols for Observation and Field Notes   Date Pseudonym for Planning to find Descriptive notes school, mentor and/or fellow Physical setting/working conditions Resources: space, instruments, piano, textbooks, other materials, how organized Daily schedule, prep time, collaboration time, lunch Class make-up and size, languages spoken, exceptional students with or without an aide, multigrade/single-grade groupings, homogeneous or mixedability groupings Music class activities, interactions between mentor teacher and students, between mentor and fellow, between fellow and student Out-of-class activities (in between classespassing time, prep, before or after-school), interactions between mentor teacher and students, between mentor and fellow, between mentor teacher and other school staff, teachers, administration, parents 182 Reflective notes Other Notes: 183 Appendix G: Excerpt from Codebook 184 Excerpt from Codebook   THEME CATEGORY CODE BACK DEFINITION How the backgrounds of the participants from childhood to professional training (college) to professional development (postcollege) have affected the choice to work in a low-middle-high income school. And the background of the schools CMP serve (demography, ratio of teachers to students, workload and schedule of mentor) CONTEXTS/ SUBCODES LAYERS Background demographic information on the fellow/mentor: K-12 Education BACKDEMO F ATTDLOWSES/ Background information on the K-12 experience of ATTDHIGHSES current fellow in Low-Middle-High SES Schools Fellow Attended 15% poor; high/middle SES school 15% rich FF ATTDLOWSES/ Background information on the K-12 experience of ATTDHIGHSES former fellow in Low-Middle-High SES Schools Former fellow. Own experience was in private school, so she is comfortable to work in private school M ATTDLOWSES/ Background information on the K-12 experience of ATTDHIGHSES mentor in Low-Middle-High SES Schools Mentor Attend middle/high SES school F ATTDLOWDIV/ Background information on the current fellow ATTDHGIHDIV attending a low-middle-high ethnic diversity school Fellow Attended all white school FF ATTDLOWDIV/ Background information on the former fellow ATTDHGIHDIV attending a low-middle-high ethnic diversity school Former Fellow ATTD low diversity 75% white; 25% mostly Latino M ATTDLOWDIV/ Background information on the mentor attending a ATTDHGIHDIV low-middle-high ethnic diversity school Mentor Attd low diversity school in early years F ATTDURBAN Background information on the current fellow /ATTDNOTURB attended a rural, urban or suburban school during their Fellow Attended AN K-12 experience. Suburban school FF ATTDURBAN Background information on the former fellow /ATTDNOTURB attended a rural, urban or suburban school during their Former Fellow went to AN K-12 experience. urban school M ATTDURBANBackground information on the mentor attended a /ATTDNOTURB rural, urban or suburban school during their K-12 Mentor Attended inner AN experience. city high school Background information on the fellow/mentor MUED Prep or lack of Prep; Activities that continue their music teaching skills/growth BACKPREP MPREP PERF Mentor feels performing prepared him/her for the teaching position or doesn’t feel prepared; Mentor Becoming an excellent performer was best Mentor feels MUED program prepared him/her for the teaching position or didn’t prepare them (or some General Ed classes didn’t MPREP MUED parts did, and some parts didn’t) help 185 MPREP LIFE Mentor’s personal life experience prepared or didn’t prepare them for this teaching position; this may be how they lived as a child or teaching w/our before a preparation program PREP Fellow feels prepared for the fellowship; their background experience and/or MUED prep program is connected to their feelings of being prepared. Mentors also commented on whether or not they felt Fellow felt prepared for their fellow was prepared. this OPP OPP NOPREP Fellow does not feels prepared for the fellowship, notes whether it’s due to experience and/or MUED program prep. Also notes on when the mentor doesn’t Fellow not uneasy with feel the fellow was prepared. no prep PROFDEVMentor PROFDEVCONF Very sensitive to POOR kid’s struggles—he grew up very poor, homeless A mentor, former fellow or current fellow goes to their mentors (from CMP or from MUED/University program) for support, guidance, and development as a Support = fellow goes to teacher or fellow. mentor for advise A mentor, former fellow or current fellow goes to conferences (local, state, national or workshops) for support, guidance, and development as a teacher or fellow. Attends conferences Description the schools that are in the CMP. Demography, Ratio of student to teacher, teacher’s workload and schedule CMP SCHOOL DEMO MUSIC4ALL Highly diverse Demographics of the school population, SES, Ethnic backgrounds from diversity; where kids come from that go to this school different walks of life Who has access to music at this school? Music program and/or mentor get parents support through financial or other means. Could be just a PARENT SUPP feeling of support OR LACK of support 186 Music program set up with opportunities for all … regardless of SES Fellow feels mentor gets parent support References Abril, C. R., & Gault, B. M. (2008). The state of music in secondary schools: The principal’s perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 68–81. Achinstein, C., Ogawa, R. T., Sexton, D., & Freitas, C. (2010). Retaining teachers of color: A pressing problem and a potential strategy for “hard-to-staff” schools. Review of Educational Research, 80, 77–107. Ananat, E. O., Gassman-Pines, A., & Gibson-Davis, C. M. (2011). The effect of local employment losses on children’s educational achievement. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 299–314). New York NY: Russell Sage. Anderson, P. I., & Meier-Hedde, R. (2001). Early case report of dyslexia in the United States and Europe. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 9–21. Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities. New York NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis. Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. (2001). The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime (Version 4.0). Olympia: Washington State Institute. Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., & Tahan, K. (2011). The condition of education 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education National Center for Educational Statistics. Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. Future of Children, 5(3), 25–50. Barone, D. M. (2011). Case study research. In N. K. Duke & M. H. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (2nd ed., pp. 7–27). New York, NY: Guildford. 187 Berger, M. C., & Black, D. A. (1992). Child care subsidies, quality of care, and the labor supply of low-income single mothers. Review of Economics and Statistics, 74, 635–642. Berrueta-Clement, J. R., Schweinhart, L. J., Barnett, W. S., Epstein, A. S., & Weikart, D. P. (1984). Changed lives: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through age 19 (Vol. 8). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research. Berry, B., Montgomery, G., & Snyder, J. (2008). Urban teacher residency models and institutes of higher education: Implications for teacher preparation. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Bettinger, E. P. (2005). The effect of charter schools on charter students and public schools. Economics of Education Review, 24, 113–147. Blau, D. M., & Currie, J. (2006). Pre-school, day care, and after-school care: Who’s minding the kids? In E. Hanushek & F. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (vol. 2, pp. 1163–1278). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: NorthHolland-Elsevier. Blau, D. M., & Tekin, E. (2007). The determinants and consequences of child care subsidies for single mothers. Journal of Population Economics, 20, 719–741. Bloom, H. S., Ham, S. Melton, L., & O’Brien, J. (2001). Evaluating the accelerated schools approach: A look at early implementation and impacts on student achievement in eight elementary schools. New York, NY: MDRC. 188 Booker, K., Gilpatric, S. M., Gronberg, T., & Jansen, D. (2008). The effect of charter schools on traditional public school students in Texas: Are children who stay behind left behind? Journal of Urban Economics, 64, 123–145. Borman, G. D., & Hewes, G. M. (2001). The long-term effects and cost-effectiveness of Success for All. Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education of Students Placed at Risk. Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Madden, N., & Chambers, B. (2007). Final reading outcomes of the national randomized field trial of Success for All. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Ronfeldt, M., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The effect of school neighborhoods on teacher’s career decisions. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 377–396). New York, NY: Russell Sage. Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). Explaining the short careers of high-achieving teachers in schools with low-performing students. American Economic Review, 95, 166–171. Brainerd, C. (1978). The stage question in cognitive developmental theory. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 173–213. Broughton, J. (1981). Piaget’s structural development psychology: Knowledge without a self and without history. Human Development, 24, 320–345. 189 Burdick-Will, J., Ludwig, J., Raudenbush, S. W., Sampson, R. J., Sanbonmatsu, L., & Sharkey, P. (2011). Converging evidence for neighborhood effects on children’s test scores: An experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational comparison. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Ed.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality and the uncertain life chances of low-income children (pp. 255–276). New York, NY: Russell Sage. California Constitution Article 13A [Tax Limitation]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A California Department of Education. (2012). Class size reduction. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/cs/ California Department of Education. (2013). Adequate yearly progress information guide. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/ Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Hilger, N., Saez, E., Schanzenbach, D. W., & Yagan, D. (2011). How does your kindergarten classroom affect your earnings? Evidence from Project STAR. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 1593–1660. Clewell, B., & Villegas, A. (2001). Evaluation of the DeWitt Wallace–Reader’s Digest Fund’s Pathways to Teaching Careers Program. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Clotfelter, C., Glennie, E., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2006). Would higher salaries keep teachers in high-poverty schools? Evidence from a policy intervention in North Carolina. NBER Working Paper 12285. 190 Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Stayers, leavers, lovers and dreamers: Insights about teacher retention. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 387–392. Cohen, B., & Fuller, E. (2006). Individual and organizational moderators of induction program effects in Texas with an additional focus on induction effect duration. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center. (2006). Report on elementary school comprehensive school reform models. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Compton-Lilly, C. (2013). Case studies. In A. Trainor & E. Graue (Eds.), Reviewing qualitative research in the social sciences (pp. 54–65). New York, NY: Routledge. Cook, T. D., Hunt, H. D., & Murphy, R. F. (2000). Comer’s school development program in Chicago: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 535–597. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Curto, V. E., Fryer, R. G. Jr., & Howard, M. L. (2011). It may not take a village: Increasing achievement among the poor. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 483–506). New York, NY: Russell Sage. 191 Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Inequality in teaching and schooling: Supporting highquality teaching and leadership in low-income schools. In R. D. Kahlenberg (Ed.), A notion at risk: Preserving public education as an engine for social mobility (pp. 127–167). New York, NY: Century Foundation Press. DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field Methods, 23, 136–155. Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R. G., Jr. (2009). Are high-quality schools enough to close the achievement gap? Evidence from a bold social experiment in Harlem. NBER Working Paper No. 15473. Duncan, G. J., Morris, P. A., & Rodrigues, C. (2011). Does money really matter? Estimating impacts of family income on young children’s achievement with data from random-assignment experiments. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1263– 1279. Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. J. (2011). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances: Russell Sage. Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Emmerich, W. (1971). Disadvantaged children and their first school experiences. Structure and development of personal-social behaviors in preschool settings. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. 192 Figlio, D. N., & Kenny, L. W. (2007). Individual teacher incentives and student performance. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 901–914. Futernick, K. (2007). A possible dream: Retaining California’s teachers so all students learn. Sacramento: California State University. Gardner, R. D. (2010). Should I stay or should I go? Factors that influence the retention, turnover, and attrition of K–12 music teachers in the United States. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(3), 112–121. Gelbach, J. (2002). Public schooling for young children and maternal labor supply. American Economic Review, 92, 307–322. Glazerman, S., Isenberg, E., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Grider, M., & Jacobus, M. (2010). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Final results from a randomized controlled study (NCEE 2010-4027). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers. New York, NY: Longman. Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Gray, S. W., & Klaus, R. A. (1970). The early training project: A seventh year report. Child Development, 41, 909–924. Gray, S. W., & Ramsey, B. K. (1982). The early training project: A life-span view. Human Development, 25, 48–57. Gray, S. W., Ramsey, B. K., & Klaus, R. A. (1982). From 3 to 20: The early training project. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. 193 Haack, P. (2003). Challenges faced by beginning music teachers. In C. Conway (Ed.), Great beginnings for music teachers: Mentoring and supporting new teachers (pp. 9–24). Reston, VA: The National Association for Music Education. Hancock, C. B. (2009). National estimates of retention, migration, and attrition: A multiyear comparison of music and non-music teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 92–107. Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., Rivkin, S. G., & Branch, G. F. (2005). Charter school quality and parental decision making with school choice. NBER Working Paper No. 11252. Harlem Children’s Zone. (2012). Program. Retrieved from http://www.hcz.org Helburn, S., & Culkin, M. L. (1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child care centers: Executive summary. Denver: Economics Department, University of Colorado. Hill, L. E. (2012). California’s English Learner Students. Retrieved from http://www .ppic.org/main/publication_quick.asp?i=1031 Hollinger, D. M. (2006). Instrument of social reform: A case study of the Venezuelan system of youth orchestras (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 324129) Hollinger, D. M. (2007). The San Jose music project: A new definition of collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/diana.hollinger/sjmp.html Holmes, G. M., DeSimone, J., & Rupp, N. (2003). Does school choice increase school quality? NBER Working Paper No. 9683. 194 Honig, A. S., Lally, J. R., & Mathieson, D. H. (1982). Personal–social adjustment of school children after five years in a family enrichment program. Child Care Quarterly, 11(2), 138–146. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Education Research Journal, 38, 499–534. Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 80(8), 30–33. Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81, 201–233. Jacob, B. A., & Ludwig, J. (2009). Improving educational outcomes for poor children. In M. Cancian, & S. Danziger (Ed.), Changing poverty, changing policies (pp. 266– 300). New York, NY: Russell Sage. Jepsen, C., & de Alth, S. (2005). English leaners in California schools. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org /content/pubs/report/R_405CJR.pdf Jepsen, C., & Rivkin, S. (2002). Class size reduction, teacher quality, and academic achievement in California public elementary schools. Retrieved from http://www .ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_602CJR.pdf Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 195 Johnson, S. M., Birkeland, S. E., & Peske, H. G. (2005). A difficult balance: Incentives and quality control in alternative certification programs: Project on the next generation of teachers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114, 1–39. Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D. (2006). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. NBER Working Paper 12155. Kapadia, K., Coca, C., & Easton, J. Q. (2007). Keeping new teachers: A first look at the influences of induction in the Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Karoly, L. A., Greenwood, P. W., Everingham, S. S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, M. R., Rydell, C. P., … Chiesa, J. (1998). Investing in our children: What we know and don’t know about the costs and benefits of early childhood interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Kaushal, N., Magnuson, K., & Waldfogel, J. (2011). How is family income related to investments in children’s learning? In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 187–206). New York, NY: Russell Sage. 196 Kemple, J. J., Herlihy, C. M., & Smith, T. J. (2005). Making progress toward graduation: Evidence from the talent development high school model. New York, NY: MDRC. Kemple, J. J., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2004). Career academies: Impacts on labor market outcomes and educational attainment. New York, NY: MDRC. Kemple, J. J., & Willner, C. J. (2008). Career academies: Long-term impacts on labor market outcomes, educational attainment, and transitions to adulthood. New York, NY: MDRC. Kirk, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (2011). Crime and the production of safe schools. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 397–418). New York, NY: Russell Sage. Krueger, P. J. (2000). Beginning music teachers: Will they leave the profession? Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 19, 22–26. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus Groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ladd, H. (2009). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of policy-relevant outcomes? CALDER Working Paper No. 33. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001440-Teachers-Perceptions.pdf Lally, J. R., Mangione, P. L., & Honig, A. S. (1988). The Syracuse University Family Development Research Program: Long-range impact of an early intervention with low-income children and their families. In D. R. Powell & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Parent education as early childhood intervention: Emerging directions in theory, research and practice (pp. 79–104). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 197 Lamb, M., & Sternberg, K. (1990). Do we really know how day care affects children? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 11, 351–379. Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 37–62. Lazar, I., & Darlington, R. (1982). Lasting effects of early education: A report from the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 47, 2–4. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Madsen, C. K., & Hancock, C. B. (2002). Support of music education: A case study of issues concerning teacher retention and attrition. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 6–19. Magnuson, K., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2009). Enduring influences of childhood poverty. Institute for Research on Poverty: Focus, 26(2), 32–37. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Meyers, M. K., Heintze, T., & Wolf, D. A. (2002). Child care subsidies and employment of welfare recipients. Demography, 39, 165–180. Music for All. (2004). The sound of silence—The unprecedented decline of music education in California public schools. Retrieved from http://music-for-all.org /sos.html 198 National Highlights Report. (2014). District disruption and revival: School systems reshape to compete and improve. Education Week’s Quality Counts 2014. Nelson, C. A., III, & Sheridan, M. A. (2011). Lessons from neuroscience research for understanding causal links between family and neighborhood characteristics and educational outcomes. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 27–46). New York NY: Russell Sage. Obama, B. (2014a). President Barack Obama’s state of the union address. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/president-barack -obamas-state-union-address Obama, B. (2014b). Remarks by the President at LBJ Presidential Library Civil Rights Summit. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04 /10/remarks-president-lbj-presidential-library-civil-rights-summit Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Phillips, D. A., McCartney, K., & Scarr, S. (1987). Child-care quality and children’s social development. Developmental Psychology, 23, 537–543. Phillips, M. (2011). Parenting, time use, and disparities in academic outcomes. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 207–228). New York, NY: Russell Sage. Pressley, M., & Woloshyn, V. (1995). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children’s academic performance. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. 199 Quartz, K., & TEP Research Group. (2003). Too angry to leave: Supporting new teachers’ commitment to transform urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 99– 111. Quint, J., Bloom, H., Black, A. R., Stephens, L., & Akey, T. (2005). First things first: The challenge of scaling up educational reform. New York, NY: MDRC. Raudenbush, S. W., Jean, M., & Art, E. (2011). Year-by-year and cumulative impacts of attending a high-mobility elementary school on children’s mathematics achievement in Chicago, 1995 to 2005. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 359–376). New York NY: Russell Sage. Reardon, S. F., & Bischoff, K. (2011). Growth in the residential segregation of families by income, 1970–2009. US2010 Project. Sass, T. (2006). Charter schools and student achievement in Florida. Education Finance and Policy, 1, 91–122. Schanzenbach, D. W. (2006/2007). What have researchers learned from Project STAR? Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 205–228. Schwartz, A. E., & Stiefel, L. (2011). Immigrants and inequality in public schools. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 419–442). New York NY: Russell Sage. Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V., & Weikart, D. P. (with Barnett, W. S., & Epstein, A. S.). (1993). Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 27 (vol. 10). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research. 200 Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1980). Young children grow up: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through age 15 (vol. 7). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research. Slavin, R. E. (1995). A model of effective instruction. The Educational Forum, 59, 166– 176. Sleppin, D. S. (2009). New teacher isolation and its relationship to teacher attrition. Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI No. 3342445) Smith, T. J. (2008). Striking the balance: Career academies combine academic rigor and workplace relevance. Washington, DC: National High School Center. Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41, 681–714. Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2005). Do mentorship and other induction activities reduce beginning teacher turnover in high-poverty schools? Unpublished Work. Snipes, J. C., Holton, G. I., Doolittle, F., & Sztejnberg, L. (2006). Striving for success: The effect of Project GRAD on high school student outcomes in three urban school districts. New York, NY: MDRC. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stake, R. E., & Trumbull, D. (1982). Naturalistic generalizations. Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science, 7(1), 1–2. 201 Steele, J., Murnane, R., & Willet, J. (2009). Do financial incentives help low-performing schools attract and retain academically talented teachers? Evidence from California. Working Paper. U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Population. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov /compendia/statab/cats/population.html U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Head Start impact study: Final report. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/hs_impact _study_final.pdf Villegas, A. M., & Clewell, B. (1998). Increasing the number of teachers of color for urban schools: Lessons from the Pathways National Evaluation. Education and Urban Society, 31, 42–61. Villegas, A. M., & Geist, K. (2008). Profile of new teachers of color in U.S. public schools: A look at issues of quantity and quality. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New York. Vinovskis, M. A. (2005). The birth of Head Start. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Warren, C. A. B. (2001). Qualitative interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Ed.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 83–101). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Weikart, D. P., Bond, J. T., & McNeil, J. T. (1978). The Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project: Preschool years and longitudinal results through fourth grade. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research. 202 Woodworth, K. R., Gallagher, H. A., Guha, R., Campbell, A. Z., Lopez-Torkos, A. M., & Kim, D. (2007). An unfinished canvas. Arts education in California: Taking stock of policies and practices. Full report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zaslow, M. (1991). Variation in child care quality and its implications for children. Journal of Social Issues, 47, 125–139. Zeichner, K. (2003). The adequacies and inadequacies of three current strategies to recruit, prepare, and retain the best teachers for all students. Teachers College Record, 115, 490–519. 203 CURRICULUM VITAE KARA ELIZABETH IRELAND D’AMBROSIO Kara Ireland D'Ambrosio has served on the music faculty of San Jose State University in San Jose, California since 2007. She has taught graduate music education methods, undergraduate music education methods, practicum, and supervised phase I and II/III students during their student teaching. Concurrently, she has taught at Woodside School in Woodside, California since 2000 and at the Stanford University National Board Resource Center in Stanford, California since 2007. At Woodside School, she taught TK8 general and choral music classes and at the NBRC at Stanford was a support provider for music, art, and PE teachers. Kara has kept active in her vocal performing with singing at weddings, funerals, church services, local talent shows, and as a guest artist at colleagues’ vocal recitals. Previously she worked at Peninsula Girls Chorus, Burlingame, CA; Burlingame United Methodist Church, Burlingame, CA; Cantabile Youth Chorus, Los Altos, CA; Schola Cantorum, Mountain View, CA; Cantabella Children’s Chorus, Livermore, CA; and The Music Schools, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Saratoga, CA as an early childhood music specialist, choral conductor for adults and youth, and guest choral artist. Kara received her Bachelor of Music Education Degree from the University of New Hampshire. Subsequently, she continued her professional development when she earned her State of California Single Subject Credential (Music), a Graduate Certificate in Orff-Schulwerk from Mills College (1997) and a Graduate Certificate in Music for the Unborn from Silver Lake College in Wisconsin (2001). Continuing her pursuit as a life204 long learner, she received her Master of Music Education Degree with a Kodaly emphasis from Holy Names University in Oakland, CA and then persevered to improve her teaching by receiving her National Board Certification in Early/Middle Childhood Music Education in 2004. Empowered and inspired by the National Board Certification process, she served on the Bay Section CMEA Board as the Special Representative for classroom music where she volunteered to coordinate excellent professional development workshops for Bay Area music teachers. She also authored several articles for the TEMPO CMEA magazine. She began her doctoral education at Boston University in 2008. Kara has received several accolades such as Grammy Gold in 2002 for Excellence in Music Education, Best 100 Communities for Music Education in American, and Superintendent’s Award for Outstanding Leadership in 2003 while at Woodside School. Furthermore, the California Music Educators Association recognized her for her work in music education by awarding her with the CMEA Peripole-Bergerault General Music Educators Award 2011 and by the Bay Section CMEA organization with the Outstanding Classroom General Music Award 2012. In 2013, AERA Division J accepted Kara into the Emergent Scholar program. Kara is a life member of OAKE, Organization of American Kodaly Educators and NCAKE, Northern California Association of Kodaly Educators; and also a member of NAfME, National Association of Music Educators, CMEA, California Music Educators Association; ACDA, American Choral Directors Association. 205