The purpose of this study was to describe the grades given to students in U.S. public high school music courses and to examine the relationships between student characteristics, music course grades, and grades in additional subjects. Using descriptive statistics, logistic regression, and latent profile analysis, I analyzed over 5,000 student transcripts from the U.S. Department of Education’s High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 that contained at least one grade in music. Fifty-six percent of all music grades were As, and 79% were As or Bs. Ensemble grades were generally higher than general music grades, which were more evenly distributed. Regression modeling revealed that ethnoracial identity, socioeconomic status, and having an individualized education program (IEP) were closely associated with students’ music grades, with students representing two or more minoritized populations being particularly unlikely to earn an A in music. Latent profile analysis illustrated that student demographics explained differences in music grades even among students with equivalent grades in other school subjects.
AbrahamsF. (2019). Assessment and critical pedagogy. In BrophyT. S. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of assessment in music education (Vol. 2, pp. 307–323). Oxford.
2.
AppleM. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.). Routledge.
3.
AsparouhovT.MuthénB. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling, 21(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915181
4.
BarrettJ. R. (2006). Developing the professional judgment of preservice music teachers: Grading as a case in point. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 15(2), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837060150020103
5.
BazanD. E. (2010). Planning and assessment practices of high school band directors. In ThompsonL. K.CampbellM. R. (Eds.), Issues of identity in music education: Narratives and practices (pp. 109–125). Information Age.
6.
BoyleJ. D.RadocyR. E. (1987). Measurement and evaluation of musical experiences. Schirmer.
7.
BradbyD.PedrosoR.RogersA. (2007). Secondary School Course Classification System: School Codes for the Exchange of Data (SCED) (NCES 2007-341). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007341.pdf
BrookhartS. M.GuskeyT. R.BowersA. J.McMillanJ. H.SmithJ. K.SmithL. F.StevensM. T.WelshM. E. (2016). A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the most common educational measure. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 803–848. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316672069
10.
CalarcoJ. M. (2014). Coached for the classroom: Parents’ cultural transmission and children’s reproduction of educational inequalities. American Sociological Review, 79(5), 1015–1037. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414546931
11.
CollinsL. M.LanzaS. T. (2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis. Wiley.
12.
ConwayC. M.JeffersT. (2004). Parent, student, and teacher perceptions of assessment procedures in beginning instrumental music. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 160, 16–25. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319215
13.
DeciE. L.KoestnerR.RyanR. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071001001
14.
EisnerE. W. (1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
15.
ElpusK.AbrilC. R. (2019). Who enrolls in high school music? A national profile of U.S. students, 2009–2013. Journal of Research in Music Education, 67(3), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429419862837
16.
EndersC. K.KellerB. T.LevyR. (2018). A fully conditional specification approach to multilevel imputation of categorical and continuous variables. Psychological Methods, 23(2), 298–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000148
17.
FeldmanJ. (2019). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform schools and classrooms. Corwin.
18.
GonzalesW. G. (2017). Assessment in secondary music classrooms: A replication study [Master’s thesis, University of Maryland]. https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/19532.
GriffioenK. (2018). Establishing a metacognitive model for instrumental music assessment: A case against non-musical assessment criteria. In BrophyT. S.FautleyM. (Eds.), Context matters: Selected papers from the Sixth International Symposium on Assessment in Music Education (pp. 147–167). GIA.
21.
GuskeyT. R. (2014). On your mark: Challenging the conventions of grading and reporting. Solution Tree.
22.
GuskeyT. R.JungL. A. (2013). Answers to essential questions about standards, assessments, grading, & reporting. Corwin.
23.
GuskeyT. R.LinkL. J. (2019). Exploring the factors teachers consider in determining students’ grades. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(3), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1555515
24.
HarackiewiczJ. M.BarronK. E.ElliotA. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When are they adaptive for college students and why?Educational Psychologist, 33(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3301_1
25.
HarrisonS. D.LeblerD.CareyG.HitchcockM.O’BryanJ. (2013). Making music or gaining grades? Assessment practices in tertiary music ensembles. British Journal of Music Education, 30(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051712000253
26.
HeeringaS. G.WestB. T.BerglundP. A. (2017). Applied survey data analysis (2nd ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC.
27.
IngelsS. J.PrattD. J.HergetD. R.BryanM.FritchL. B.OttemR.RogersJ. E.WilsonD. (2015). High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) 2013 update and high school transcript (NCES 2015-036). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015036
KotoraE. J. (2005). Assessment practices in the choral music classroom: A survey of Ohio high school choral music teachers and college choral methods professors. Contributions to Music Education, 32(2), 65–80. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24127154
MantieR. (2019). The philosophy of assessment in music education. In BrophyT. S. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of assessment in music education (Vol. 1, pp. 33–55). Oxford.
36.
MarzanoR. J. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. ASCD.
McQuarrieS. H.SherwinR. G. (2013a). Assessment in music education: Relationships between classroom practice and professional publication topics. Research and Issues in Music Education, 11(1), Article 6. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/rime/vol11/iss1/6
39.
McQuarrieS. H.SherwinR. G. (2013b). Assessment in music education: Relationships between training, experience, and common practice. In BrophyT. S.Lehmann-WermserA. (Eds.), Music assessment across cultures and continents: The culture of shared practice (pp. 141–151). GIA.
40.
MuthénB. O. (2001). Latent variable mixture modeling. In MarcoulidesG. A.SchumackerR. E. (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 1–33). Erlbaum.
41.
O’ConnorK. (2018). How to grade for learning: Linking grades to standards (4th ed.). Corwin.
ParkesK. A. (2020). What are we doing? Assessment quandaries of the 21st century. In BrophyT. S.HaningM. (Eds.), Advancing music education through assessment: Honoring culture, diversity, and practice (pp. 17–33). GIA.
44.
PellegrinoK.ConwayC. M.RussellJ. A. (2015). Assessment in performance-based secondary music classes. Music Educators Journal, 102(1), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432115590183
45.
RauschenbergS. (2014). How consistent are course grades? An examination of differential grading. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(92), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n92.2014
46.
RussellJ. A.AustinJ. R. (2010). Assessment practices of secondary music teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429409360062
47.
ShawB. P. (2018). Music assessment for better ensembles. Oxford University Press.
ShawB. P. (2022a). Music grades: Ubiquitous, consequential, and somehow under the radar. In BrophyT. S.Lehmann-WermserA.HaningM. A. (Eds.), Assessment in music education: Theory, practice, and policy (pp. 53–60). GIA.
50.
ShawB. P. (2022b). A national analysis of music coursetaking, social-emotional learning, and academic achievement using propensity scores. Journal of Research in Music Education, 69(4), 382–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224294211006415
ShermanC. P. (2006). A study of current strategies and practices in the assessment of individuals in high school bands (Publication No. 3237098) [Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University]. ProQuest Dissertation & Theses. https://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/305346305/
53.
St. PierreN. A.WuttkeB. C. (2017). Standards-based grading practices among practicing music educators: Prevalence and rationale. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 35(2), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123315604468
54.
StigginsR. (2007). Assessment for learning: An essential foundation of productive instruction. In ReevesD. (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and learning (pp. 59–76). Solution Tree.
55.
TracyL. H. (2002). Assessing individual students in the high school choral ensemble: Issues and practices (Publication No. 3065486) [Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University]. ProQuest Dissertation & Theses. http://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/275903196/
56.
VaugeoisL. C. (2019). Institutional music education and ranking as a form of subjectification: The merits of resistance and resilience. In ElliottD. J.SilvermanM.McPhersonG. E. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophical and qualitative assessment in music education (pp. 27–50). Oxford.
57.
WiliamD. (2007). Content then process: Teacher learning communities in support of formative assessment. In ReevesD. (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and learning (pp. 183–204). Solution Tree.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
