The purpose of this explanatory sequential mixed methods study was to examine the status of school orchestra programs in Oregon and to explain the reasoning behind the descriptive data. The quantitative phase of the study reported the data on the number of school districts and schools by type that offer orchestra instruction as well as the profile of those schools, their orchestra programs, and orchestra teachers. Unexpected findings from the quantitative phase indicated that among the three large school districts that are comparable in size, budget, and students’ demographics, only one offers orchestra instruction in every school within the district (n = 65) while the other two districts offer orchestra instruction in one high school each. This finding prompted the qualitative phase of the study that illuminated factors that inhibit and promote the quality of education within Oregon schools. The mixed methods findings explained the discrepancy in music offerings among the three large school districts through the perspectives of the three arts administrators, one from each district.
AbeelC. (1995). The status of strings in Virginia: 1994 results of a survey of the public schools (Unpublished master’s thesis). George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
2.
AbrilC. R.GaultB. M. (2008). The state of music in secondary schools: The principal’s perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 68-81. doi:10.1177/0022429408317516
3.
BergonziL. (1995). The national standards in music education: A call for comprehensive music education for all children. In HotchkissG. (Ed.), Layola symposium on national music standards: Implications for string education (pp. 31-45). New Orleans, LA: Loyola University.
4.
CreamerE. G. (2018). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
5.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6.
CreswellJ. W. (2016). 30 essential skills for the qualitative researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
7.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
8.
DoerksenP. F.DelzellJ. K. (2000). Grade starts & scheduling practices: Recommended vs. actual opportunities in beginning string programs. American String Teacher, 50(2), 58-63. doi:10.1177/000313130005000210
9.
EbieB. D. (2002). Characteristics of 50 years research samples found in the Journal of Research in Music Education, 1953-2002. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 280-291.
10.
ElpusK.AbrilC. R. (2011). High school music ensemble students in the United States: A demographic profile. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59, 128-145. doi:10.1177/0022429411405207
11.
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015).
12.
FowlerC. (2001). Strong arts, strong schools: The promising potential and shortsighted disregard of the arts in American schooling. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
GillespieR.HamannD. L. (1998). The status of orchestra programs in the public schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 75-86. doi:10.2307/3345761
14.
GillespieR.HamannD. L. (2010). An investigation of new string programs established in American schools between 1999 and 2009. String Research Journal, 1, 25-38.
15.
GillhamB. (2000). Development of questionnaires. Edinburgh, UK; A&C Black.
16.
Give A Note Foundation. (2017). The status of music education in United States public schools-2017. Reston, VA: Author.
17.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, P.L. 103-227, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (1994).
18.
HamannD. L.GillespieR. (2012). Strategies for teaching strings: Building a successful string and orchestra program. New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
HamannD. L.GillespieR.BergonziL. (2002). Status of orchestra programs in the public schools. Journal of String Research, 2, 9-35.
20.
HorvathK. (1995). The state of strings in Ohio: Teacher profile, program structure, and implications for the future. Triad, 62, 36-38.
21.
HumpreysJ. T. (1989). An overview of American public school bands and orchestra before WWII. Bulletin for the Council for Research in Music Education, 101, 50-60.
22.
KantorskiV. J. (1995). A content analysis of doctoral research in string education, 1936-1992. Journal of Research in Music Education, 43, 288-297.
LeonhardC. (1991). The status of arts education in American public schools. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 105, 1-21.
25.
MikszaP.ElpusK. (2018). Design and analysis for qualitative research in music education. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
MossK. D. (2002). Attitudes toward curricular string instruction among South Georgia’s public school superintendents. Journal of String Research, 2, 89-102.
27.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
28.
PrichardS. (2017). A mixed-methods investigation of preservice music teaching efficacy beliefs and commitment to music teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 65, 237-257. doi:10.1177/0022429417710387
29.
SaldanaJ. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
30.
SchmidtC. P.BakerR.HayesB.KwanE. (2006). A descriptive study of public school music programs in Indiana. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 169, 25-37.
31.
SeidmanI. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
32.
SmithC. M. (1997). Access to string instruction in American public schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 650-662.
33.
StewartC. (1991). Who takes music? Investigating access to high school music as a function of social and school factors (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan). Available from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (UMI No. 9208660)
34.
TastR. L. (2014). The status of public school orchestras in Kansas. String Research Journal, 5, 39-54.
35.
TurnerK. (2001). A history of string programs. American String Teacher, 5(3), 74-81.
