Siletz Bay Music Festival ~ Lincoln City Schools Reflection E-Journal Entry #11: The Rubric Process
What was the rubric process like for your team?
The rubric process was oddly affirming though very challenging to complete. Affirming because the process we decided to pursue began with each of the members of our Management Team individually rating the 7 principles and the 19 descriptors. Team members expressed generally positive feelings about how project accomplishments in 2018 surpassed what we originally conceived of as possible in 2014. Challenging because ratings on individual descriptors varied and attempts at consensus were futile. We decided to capture our various perspectives using tallies and examples to illustrate areas of agreement and differences. This significantly increased time required for conversations and entering data in rubric. •
Who participated and how?
The seven participants in the Pilot included members of our Management Team: Principals – Majalise Tolan (Taft 7-12 HS), Nick Lupo (Taft Elementary), Sandy Mummey (OceanLake Elementary) Teacher: Mike Freel, (Music Director Taft 7-12) Non-Profits: Niki Price (Exec Director, Lincoln City Cultural Center), Mark Sanders, (Exec Director, Siletz Bay Music Festival) Project Lead: Christine Tell (Siletz Bay Music Festival). Of the seven, two team members in the Pilot (Nick Lupo and Niki Price) participated in the development of the rubric with the OCF Evaluation Team. OCF materials were circulated to the team including the S2S Draft Principles Rubric. All members individually rated the 7 principles and the 19 descriptors and participated in a follow-up meeting. All seven members then transmitted data to Christine Tell, Project Lead to compile. Individual follow-up interviews were held with three members. Christine compiled and circulated draft back out to group prior to submission to Evaluation Team at OCF. •
When you came together to talk about the rubric, was there agreement among team members? What differences, if any, surfaced through this process?
When we met, the team was buoyed by the news that our choir, concert band and jazz band would be competing at state. This was a first in the history of Taft 7-12! Many of these students had come through the music program we began with Studio to School in 2014. While we all had a sense of accomplishment, there was not consensus on ratings and apparent differences.
Our school administrators (Lupo, Mummey, Tolan) who created an amazingly successful collaboration across schools by adjusting schedules, sharing staff and using resources to maximize participation of all students tended to rate all descriptors and principles high. Non-profits came from the perspective of providing support from the community.
Closer to the students on a daily basis, our teacher of mandatory 6th band (Freel) identified the need to incorporate culturally diverse music. He encouraged us to ask whether or not each student was getting the individual instruction she/he needed in our mandatory program.
All questioned whether we were making full use of our community musicians who lead sectionals in band class. How could we involve parents on a deeper level? Sustainability is foremost in our thoughts and while we created a “music library for instruments” maintaining a ready supply of quality instruments is a challenge. We talked about what might be a follow-up to decisions made early on such as requiring band for all 6th graders. Couldn’t mandatory music include choir as well as band for those same students?
Did filling out the rubric help you reflect on your project’s progress? • What, if any, new insights about your project did filling out the rubric generate?
The happy outcome to all of this very detailed work was that we now actually have a comprehensive list aspects of our project that need focus, follow-up or improvement. •
What, if any, aspects of your project did you identify that could use improvement/more attention?
1. Develop a comprehensive plan for sustaining the parts of the Studio to School Project that members deem essential after June 2019. We feel it is critical to more specifically define roles of district, non-profits including LCCC and SBMF. Should those organizations contribute direct funding or should they contribute programming e.g. support personnel or both?
2. We have finalized budget for 2018-19, but not yet how efforts like outreach will transition and move forward during the final year of the project. We underestimated funding for one part of our annual plan (instructional assistants) and managed to cover outreach through alternate means that fortunately worked out well in 2017-18. Need formal plan for outreach, master classes, instrument repair, etc.
3. It’s become pretty clear to us that we need to keep both of our non-profits in partnership with the schools to maintain the level of commitment and outside resources needed to keep the school programs enriched and enhanced by other complementary student-focused experiences.
4. Add music/composers to programming at all levels that reflect diverse cultures and interests of our Hispanic community.
5. Evaluate and increase professional development opportunities for Music Educators and Instructional Assistants to encourage their long-term commitment to our schools.
6. Engage our parent community continually in all aspects of the program. Now that Taft Boosters have taken on music program as well – find ways to engage Boosters.
7. Continue monthly Management Team meetings of principals and music (arts) teachers after June 2019 to sustain the attention and interest in the arts.
What feedback do you have about the rubric or the pilot process? What, if any, changes to the rubric itself or the process of using it would you recommend?
Some things we noticed – please use or discard as you see needed. •
WHAT IS MISSING IN THIS RUBRIC – Change of personnel, leadership and programming appears to be a major issue with our 18 sites. How do the project teams handle change of personnel, leadership and resources? How do the project teams engage in on-going planning, vision process and maintaining momentum moving forward as key personnel shift? This will impact sustainability! •
Regarding arts teachers – rubric does not seem to address continual change that projects are experiencing with turnover of arts educators. • It is critical that projects not be “person dependent” but have an infrastructure of support that continues programs despite personnel changes. •
The descriptors of principle #3 seemed less clear and perhaps aspects of diversity are better grouped in another principal Principle: Build appreciation and support for arts education in schools and communities. •
We encourage another look at principle #7 (as described in the “draft” rubric) in terms of performing arts like music and theatre. There are different ways to “display” art. •
Finally, perhaps reword description of “thriving” under student performances /exhibitions to be more inclusive of rural communities? “Student performances/ exhibitions are celebrations of students as artists, and are traditions anticipated and well-attended by the community, held in professional, discipline-appropriate venues.”
Is there a way to reflect those of us who do not have professional performance spaces but have had to create/transform existing venues (eg. Taft 7-12 HS Commons) with lights and sound to create a performance venue?
Perhaps make it less labor intensive. Perhaps share examples of differing approaches among sites?