1. Most acceptance addresses of former recipients of the Senior Researcher Award can be found in alternate years beginning in 1988 of the Fall issues of the Journal for Research in Music Education: Madsen (1988); [Britton (1990, unpublished)]; Le Blanc (1992); Carlson (1994); Yarbrough (1996); Radocy (1998); Geringer (2000); Campbell (2002).
2.
2. Music Educators National Conference (MENC), The School Music Program: A New Vision (Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference, 1994).
3.
3. On a personal note, one of my earliest professional experiences with children and adults with disabilities was in a residential institutional setting where I worked as a music therapist. Increasingly more children with disabilities were included in regular schools and communities as a result of the deinstitutionalization movement and particularly with the mandate of The Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, now known as The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). My experiences in music education, music therapy, and teacher training provided an ideal opportunity to combine my professional goals for research and teaching. For information about the field of music therapy, contact the American Music Therapy Association (musictherapy.org).
4.
4. Many current curricular and instructional practices in special education can be traced to the early actions of professionals and parents who questioned the quality of educational services for persons with severe disabilities. Until the 1970s, the human development model dominated curricular and instructional decisions in special education services. A significant challenge to the model was presented in a 1978 paper by Lou Brown, Mary Beth Mc Lean, Susan Hamre Nietupski, Ian Pumpian, Nick Certo, and Lee Gruenewald tided “A Strategy for Developing Chronological Age Appropriate and Functional Curricular Content for Severely Handicapped Adolescents and Young Adults.” The paper was first published by the authors in 1978 in a grant report, Curricular Strategies for Developing Longitudinal Interactions Between Severely Handicapped Students and Others and Curricular Strategies for Teaching Severely Handicapped Students to Acquire and Perform Skills in Response to Naturally Occurring Cues and Correction Procedures, Vol. VIII, Part 1. Madison, WI: MMSD. A revised version appeared in 1979 in the Journal of Special Education, 13 (1), and a 1996 version is available on the first author's Web site through the University of Wisconsin. Ideas from these authors and other “rebels” who challenged early educational practices are noted by Ed Sontag and Norris G. Haring in “The Professionalization of Teaching and Learning for Children with Severe Disabilities: The Creation of TASH, ” The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21 (1), 1996.
5.
For an interesting and contemporary overview of basic concepts, supportive research, and strategies that have been used to facilitate inclusion and improve the quality of life of individuals with mild and severe disabilities, refer to Diane L. Ryndak and Douglas Fisher (Eds.), The Foundations of Inclusive Education: A Compendium of Articles on Effective Strategies to Achieve Inclusion, 2nd ed., 2003, available from TASH (tash.org).
6.
5. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The NAEP 1997 Arts Report Card (NCES 1999-486 by Hilary R. Persky, Brent A. Sadene, and Janice M. Askew, Washington, DC: 1998); also available online at nces.ed.gov.
7.
6. For detailed statistical reports, refer to the following publications from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: Overview of Public and Secondary Schools and Districts: School Year 2001-02 (NCES 2002-411, by Lee Mc Graw Hoffman, Washington, DC: 2002) and Projections of Education Statistics to 2013 (NCES 2004-013, by Debra E. Gerald and William J. Hussar, Washington, DC: 2003); also available online at nces.ed.gov.
8.
7. Teacher shortage data, prepared by the MENC Information Resources Department, were presented by Carolynn A. Lindeman, past-president of MENC, in a speech, “How Can Higher Education Address the K-12 Music Teacher Shortage?” at the 78th Annual Meeting of The National Association of Schools of Music in New Orleans, November 2002. The speech is published in Proceedings: The 78th Annual Meeting, 2002 (Number 91, July 2003): 30–33.
9.
8. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Arts Education in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, 1999–2000 (NCES 2002-131, by Nancy Carey, Brian Kleiner, Rebecca Porch, and Elizabeth Farris. Project Officer, Shelley Burns, Washington, DC: 2002); also available online at nces.ed.gov.
10.
9. Judith A. Jellison. “How Can All People Continue to Be Involved in Meaningful Music Participation” in Clifford K. Madsen (Ed.), Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music Education (pp. 111–137). Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference, 2000.
11.
10. Clifford K Madsen, Ed., Vision 2020: The Housexvright Symposium on the Future of Music Education (Reston, VA: MENC: The National Association for Music Education, 2000).
12.
11. The Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music Education, which took place in September 1999 at The Florida State University in Tallahassee, was the vision of June Hinkley, then president of MENC. Vision 2020, as it was called, was created and developed in the spirit of the Tanglewood Symposium of 1967 and named to honor Wiley Housewright for his leadership as president of MENC during the implementation of the findings of Tanglewood. The published document begins with Michael Mark's description of Tanglewood and the historical context for Vision 2020. His article is followed by papers from six commission authors (Terry Gates; Judith Jellison; Paul Lehman; Bennett Reimer; Carlesta Spearman; Cornelia Yarbrough) who were asked to respond to questions that would give direction to music education in the next millennium. Responses to authors' papers by professionals in education, music administration, music performance, and music industry are included in the document. The final product was the result of the collective wisdom of small groups of members working with authors, commission members, and more than 150 participants representing music education at all levels and with representation from industry and the community. In keeping with the tradition of Tanglewood, the symposium ended with a summation of agreements concerning the future of music education.
13.
12. National Education Commission on Time and Learning, Prisoners of Time (Washington, DC; U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994). Public Law 102–62 (The Education Council Act of 1991) established the National Education Commission on Time and Learning as an independent advisory body and called for a comprehensive review of the relationship between time and learning in the nation's schools. Many of the concerns regarding instructional time and learning expressed in the commission's 1994 report persist in contemporary educational settings.
14.
13. Archived Information, Prisoners of Time, April 1994, available online at ed.gov/pubs/Prisoners Of Time/Prisoners. No page numbers available. Refer to section “The Imperative for an American Transformation.”
15.
14. I am aware of the danger in attempting to summarize what have been defined as two conflicting philosophies of music education and refer you to extensive descriptions of each in major books by the proponents. One of the historically influential philosophies, “aesthetic education, ” has been articulated for the field of music education by Bennett Reimer (A Philosophy of Music Education, 2nd ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall, 1989). David J. Elliot proffers a new philosophy based on music as human activity (Music Matters, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).
16.
15. Jerome Bruner, in his book On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand, put forward the idea of “a spiral curriculum in which ideas are first presented in a form and language, honest though imprecise, which can be grasped by the child, ideas that can be revisited later with greater precision and power until, finally, the student has achieved the reward of mastery” (New York: Atheneum, 1976 [originally 1962]): 107–108.
17.
16. The MMCP and comprehensive musicianship practices were innovative programs that had their beginnings in 1965. One phase of MMCP included a “spiral” curriculum with emphasis on expressive music making and creativity throughout the curriculum. The idea of comprehensive musicianship was based on recommendations from collaborations among teachers and composers as participants in the Contemporary Music Project during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Consult Ronald B. Thomas, Manhattanville Music Curriculum Program: Final Report. (New York: Manhat-tanville College. ERIC document number ED 045865AA000653, 1970) and William Thomson, Comprehensive Musicianship through Classroom Music (Belmont, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1974).
18.
17. Robert A. Duke, “Measures of Instructional Effectiveness in Music Research, ”Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, no. 143, 1–48.
19.
18. Rudolf E. Radocy, Senior Researcher Acceptance Address. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 346.
