Youth orchestra handbook by Felipe Morales-Torres

CINCINNATI SYMPHONY

YOUTH ORCHESTRAS Program Revision and Curriculum Proposal FELIPE MORALES-TORRES CSYO CONCERT ORCHESTRA CONDUCTOR NOVEMBER 2017

PROGRAM REVISION & CURRICULUM PROPOSAL

Theory of Action

History and Mission ................................................................................................................... 3 Current Opportunities .............................................................................................................. 3 Existing Structure ....................................................................................................................... 4 Theory of Action ......................................................................................................................... 5

A New Stage

Revised Mission, Vision and Values ......................................................................................... 7 Educational Aims ........................................................................................................................8 Targeted Outcomes ...................................................................................................................9 Curriculum Design .................................................................................................................. 10 Learning Standards ................................................................................................................. 11 Alignment Map .........................................................................................................................13

Program Scope and Sequence

Administrative Responsibilities ..............................................................................................15 Program Components .............................................................................................................16 Support Structures ................................................................................................................... 16 Curriculum Implementation Overview ..................................................................................17 Sample Sequences ..................................................................................................................18

Evaluation Plan

Goals and Sample Guiding Questions ................................................................................. 23 Methods and Protocols .......................................................................................................... 24 Timeline .................................................................................................................................... 25 Sample Assessment Tools ...................................................................................................... 26

Appendices

Models for Further Study ......................................................................................................... 29 Resources .................................................................................................................................. 30

– Part 1 –

THEORY OF ACTION A Summary of Goals, Resources, and Needs

HISTORY & MISSION The CSYO was founded in 1964 as the Cincinnati Youth Symphony Orchestra by Max Rudolf — then music director of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra — and local music educators who recognized the importance of providing young musicians with the opportunity for serious training and extensive orchestral experience. CSYO aims to foster dedication, excellence, and passion in the development of those who are not only outstanding young musicians, but also outstanding young individuals. We strive to be premiere ensembles performing exciting orchestral repertoire at the highest level.

CURRENT OPPORTUNITIES Students currently have the opportunity to perform in one of two ensembles: CSYO Philharmonic Orchestra The Philharmonic is the most advanced youth ensemble offered by the Cincinnati Symphony. This group presents 4–5 concerts per season and plans to establish a recording project and touring cycle. Students play full, unabridged symphonic repertoire from the classical cannon, new commissions, and professional-level pops, theater and film arrangements. This ensemble performs alongside professional CSO musicians once per season. CSYO Concert Orchestra The Concert Orchestra presents 3—4 concerts per season, which may include regional touring activity. Students play full symphonic repertoire, either in original or edited form, and new works by prominent composers for student orchestra. In addition, CSYO currently offers the following awards and supports for students: Concerto Competitions Students in each orchestra can compete for a solo feature on one of their ensemble’s concerts. Norman E. Johns Chair Award The CSO Multicultural Awareness Council established this scholarship to encourage the participation of minority students who are traditionally underrepresented in youth orchestra programs. Tuition Assistance A needs-based award for students unable to afford tuition.

EXISTING STRUCTURE Partners and Stakeholders CSYO currently functions as a branch of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra. Other than the involvement of orchestra musicians in the audition and coaching processes, the youth orchestra does not maintain any direct partnerships with other local music organizations. It does, however, collaborate with school music programs for the purpose of recruitment and in the event of individual student needs or concerns. The programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current stakeholders are the students, families, program staff, and the parent organization (CSO). Learning Standards In interviews with the CSYO staff, it was explicitly clear that the program does not currently function as an educational organization and therefore carries no learning standards for its students. That said, a minimum proficiency is established for each of the existing ensembles (Nouveau, Concert, and Philharmonic). CSO musicians use those minimum criteria to select progressive excerpts for students to perform at auditions each year. Those excerpts demonstrate the studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proficiency in relation to readiness for each of the ensembles. How Students Become Involved Students currently join the program by completing an audition in August, provided they have the consent of their family, private teacher, and school teacher. In August 2017, students were required to audition from behind a screen in order to prevent bias from the adjudicators; all previous were not. No student is allowed to participate without demonstrating proficiency through the audition. Program and teaching staff recruit in the spring of each year via targeted mailers to school music directors and site visits if scheduling allows. Staffing CSYO currently has a full-time coordinator, two part-time conducting staff, and a paid music library intern. Although certain CSO musicians repeatedly coach sectionals, CSYO does not retain a consistent instrumental faculty dedicated to fundamental skill development. Evaluation Procedures Auditions and interviews aside, no summative or formative evaluation procedures are in place for students or conductors throughout the season. Conductors provide feedback to students at their discretion and reserve the right to hold a hearing for any student who is chronically absent or exhibiting sub-par preparation. The program coordinator and librarian are subject to CSO employee review protocols.

THEORY OF ACTION In the final product, this section will address the following questions: Does the current framework work? Why or why not? Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s missing? Why is it important? How will we introduce and sustain those changes? How will we evaluate the effectiveness of new programming and curriculum?

– Part 2 –

A NEW STAGE

Proposed Changes and Curriculum Outline

MISSION To seek and share inspiration. As an extension of the CSO, CSYO will maintain the fundamental mission of its parent organization.

VISION CSYO will engage and inspire the region’s musical youth by offering profound artistic, educational, and interpersonal opportunities not available through traditional school music programs. Ensembles and programming will not compete to replace school music programs, but rather to complement them by offering students an outlet to enrich their musical development and experiences.

VALUES Access and Excellence CSYO will include as many children as possible for as long as possible, regardless of background, by eliminating socioeconomic barriers and increasing the attainability and approachability of intensive, accelerated training. The most committed and gifted will be poised for higher education, careers, or continued enjoyment in music. Rigor, Ambition and Achievement Rehearsals and classes will be focused and fast-paced, demanding commitment, personal responsibility, and a strong work ethic. The organization (students, staff, families, community) will reach higher together on a regular basis and sustain that ambition through a consistent supply of accomplishment and joy. Continuum of Development CSYO will provide students with a continuous, consistent, and coherent musical experience across their years and stages of development. The sequence will be attuned to the abilities, needs, aesthetic qualities, and social interests of regional students and teachers in order to maintain relevance and significance. Ensemble The curriculum will be based in ensemble experience and group learning, with individualized attention within and beyond the group setting. Ensembles offer students a model of society focused on shared aspirations and investment rather than competition. Citizen–Artist–Teacher–Scholar Teaching staff will act as active musicians, supportive educators, inquisitive learners, and responsible civic contributors. The visible embodiment of these roles teaches students how to participate fully in life, which causes music to be seen as a valuable part of life and critical to holistic development.

VALUES (CONT.) Partnership Students will have access to a robust network of resources made possible by collaborations between CSYO and community organizations or entities, including but not limited to close mentorship from CSO musicians. Rather than be all things individually, partners will position their strengths in support of the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; development. Foundations for Future In believing that children are our best chance for a bright future, all programming will attempt to help students develop skills, understandings, and preferences that encourage longterm involvement in classical music. The goal is not only to produce fine performers, but also dedicated audience members, patrons, advocates, and supporters.

EDUCATIONAL AIMS By participating in CSYO programs that uphold these values, students will have the opportunity to develop:

Musical Excellence Personal Agency Cultural Competency Lifelong Enjoyment 8

TARGETED OUTCOMES In addition to individual student development (Aims), dedication to these values will enable the CSYO to achieve the following: Quality Instruction and Opportunities to Learn (Specific aspirations would be detailed for each of these outcomes in the final product.) Ensembles Approaching Professional Quality

Increased Participation (Recruitment)

Longterm Student Involvement (Retention)

Large, Active Parent Network

Community Awareness/Appreciation of CSYO Opportunities

Competitive Employment Opportunities

CURRICULUM DESIGN This curriculum is designed to achieve CSYO’s mission and vision while focusing on its educational aims, which reflect the unique priorities and needs of music students, teachers, and professionals in Cincinnati. As shown below, the curriculum contains five components:

General Organization of Proposed Curriculum DOMAINS OF KNOWLEDGE

Executive Skills • Artistry • Engagement

CONTENT AREAS Music Literacy, Aural Skills, Instrument Proficiency Preparation, Ensembleship, Expression, Contextualization, Reflection Outreach, Creative Communication, Career Readiness

STANDARDS End-of-Program Goals for Content Areas

LEARNING TASKS Specific skills and knowledge developed at four levels: Baseline, Developing, Proficient, Advanced

LEARNING SEQUENCES

SUCCESS INDICATORS

LEARNING STANDARDS Domains of Knowledge Executive Skills: Technical skills and musical understandings required to perform on an instrument. Artistry:Â Skills, understandings and practices that contribute to a high level of music making. Engagement: Elements that enable musicians to connect with and include their community. Learning Standards by Content Area The following are focused statements that serve as targets for all levels of performance; all levels of achievement in all content areas are measured in the context of the ultimate goal indicated in these standards. 1. Music Literacy* Students demonstrate sequential literacy skills (decoding and comprehension), defined as an association

EXECUTIVE SKILLS

of sound to symbol, in a given musical context. These include predictive components (understanding through audiation) and knowledge of notation as applied to performance. 2. Aural Skills* Students demonstrate the following abilities: matching and manipulating pitch; playing with a sense of tonality and harmonic function (horizontal-vertical relationships); aural and kinesthetic awareness of pitch accuracy and intonation; perform all rhythms with steady pulse and a sense of metric organization. 3. Instrument Proficiency* Students perform with a lengthened and balanced posture, support instrument without tension, and demonstrate ease of motion; demonstrate technical facility and the ability to apply contextually appropriate fingerings; control expressive variables (articulation, dynamics, vibrato) while maintaining characteristic tone. 1. Preparation Students demonstrate a habit of practice and are able to achieve performance readiness through

ARTISTRY

independent study; they deconstruct larger, more complicated passages into focused excerpts and apply appropriate strategies to improve execution; and they attend rehearsals having first reviewed their parts and any changes made during the previous rehearsal(s). 2. Ensembleship* Students perform in an ensemble, demonstrating decorum, sensitivity and the ability to adjust and maintain a uniform sense of rhythm, tempo, articulation, tone, blend, balance and dynamics; they respond to conducting gestures, communicate with their section, and are able to synchronize interpretation. 11

3. Expression* Students employ agency to manipulate their technique in a way that communicates abstract thoughts,

ARTISTRY (Cont.)

ideas, and meaning; the depths of the human experience; self-expression and self-understanding. 4. Contextualization* Students experience and respond to music in a culturally authentic manner, reflecting the diverse nature of people across the world. Performances demonstrate an understanding of historical, cultural, and functional contexts and reflect stylistic traditions and practice. 5. Reflection* Students evaluate and analyze music for executive skill, musicianship, and artistic considerations; they evaluate and analyze themselves and others based on appropriate criteria and provide logical suggestions for improvement. 1. Outreach** Students critically curate a variety of resources to construct and share knowledge, produce creative artifacts, and make meaningful experiences for themselves and others who may be interested in or

ENGAGEMENT

benefit from live music. 2. Creative Communication** Students communicate clearly and express themselves creatively for a variety of purposes using the platforms, tools, styles, formats, and digital media appropriate to the goal of engaging audiences. 3. Career Readiness Students are able to present themselves professionally and competently, demonstrate self-awareness and understanding, collaborate productively in non-musical group tasks, and employ appropriate strategies or tools for the purpose of succeeding in an employment scenario before and after the interview.

* Adapted from the 2011 ASTA Curriculum for Strings & Orchestra Teachers ** Adapted from the 2016 ISTE Standards for Students

ALIGNMENT MAP Curriculum implementation can begin with any element below. Relationships are cyclical: decisions in one area may cause the need to revise others. Opportunities and Structures are co-dependent: no opportunity should be offered without appropriate resources in place; no structure should exist without purpose.

Mission, Vision, Values

Curriculum

Teaching Staff

OPPORTUNITIES To Learn

To Perform

To Engage

+ STRUCTURES Support

Administration

Learning Standards

Educational Aims 13

Targeted Outcomes

– Part 3 –

PROGRAM   SCOPE & SEQUENCE Components Necessary to Achieve New Goals

ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES CSO Financial Stability and Management Ensure the continued financial health of CSYO through effective financial planning, development and stewardship of financial resources, as well as the continued review and enhancement of fiscal planning. Marketing and Awareness Build awareness of CSYO, its mission and programs with the families of potential participants, the music and education communities, and potential individual and corporate donors. Education and Community Engagement Department Personnel Secure and support high quality artistic and administrative personnel required to support CSYOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mission and continued artistic growth. Develop and provide professional development to encourage continued growth. Facilities and Infrastructure Proactively identify and secure administrative and artistic/educational facilities required to support CSYOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mission and continued artistic growth. Enrichment Opportunities Provide additional opportunities, such as masterclasses, guest artists, concerts and workshops, each year to enrich and broaden participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; educational experience. Program Evaluation Implement protocols to monitor effectiveness and achievements as related to curriculum and targeted outcomes. Research and Development Establish long term outcomes and evaluate against exemplars in the youth orchestra field. Research other programs to identify, develop, and implement effective components, policies, and procedures. Teaching Staff Core Ensembles Provide a musical experience at the highest level possible to challenge participants from their entry into CSYO through high school. Recruitment and Student Engagement Maintain relationships with school programs, directors, and private teachers in order to achieve visibility in the music education community, actively recruit students, and develop mutually beneficial opportunities for students and teachers. Student Evaluation Observe, assess, and provide feedback for students based on the learning standards and targeted outcomes. Implement pre-determined protocols and develop new methods based on specific needs or changes.

PROGRAM COMPONENTS The curriculum will be administered sequentially and developmentally via the following offerings for students: Junior Division El Sistema modeled small group instruction focused on Executive Skills Core Ensembles Introductory ensembles: String Orchestra, Woodwind Choir, Brass Choir, Percussion Ensemble Full Orchestras: Level 1, 2, 3 (names TBD) Enrichment Opportunities Masterclasses Workshops Residencies Internships Performance Tours Outreach Projects Chamber Music Intensive Junior Diversity Fellowship CSO Concert Attendance

SUPPORT STRUCTURES

While the previous components are needed to achieve learning standards, the following components are necessary in order to maintain the programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s values: Financial Aid (Specific elements for each will be listed in final product.) Junior Diversity Fellowship Geographic Accessibility Awards and Recognitions Formative Assessment Professional Development Partnerships and Resources 16

CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW The following diagram represents the projected depth and breadth of the CSYO curriculum in action. Artistry will remain the primary focus of the organization, with a new and significant emphasis on Career Readiness. Executive Skills will be continuously addressed in ensembles alongside Artistry; it will also benefit from targeted study in the small group class components of the Junior Division.

ARTISTRY Ensemble Clinics Chamber Music Intensive Performance Tours Festivals / Competitions

EXECUTIVE SKILLS Junior Division Masterclass Series Residencies Breathing Gym Bowing Bootcamp

ENGAGEMENT Internships Outreach Projects CSO Concert Attendance Mock Auditions Mock Interviews

Core Ensembles (Final product will show distribution of standards across all program components.)

SAMPLE SEQUENCES Executive Skills Sequence INSTRUMENT PROFICIENCY

BASELINE

Establish posture on all instruments. Introduce instrument-specific techniques (e.g. pizzicato -vstonguing). Practice initial finger patterns to develop fundamental facility. Introduce varied articulations, related first to length (e.g. long -vs- short).

DEVELOPING

Expand command instrument-specific techniques (e.g. extensions, positions, finger substitutions). Practice intermediate finger patterns to develop greater facility. Apply varied articulations, related to eﬀect or style.

PROFICIENT

Introduce advanced/nuanced applications of instrument-specific techniques, including but not limited to vibrato, complex articulations (e.g. louré, triple-tongue), finger patterns, and manipulation of tone.

ADVANCED

Demonstrate mastery of fundamental and advanced techniques. Dissect and adjust individual elements to achieve specific detail or variation within (e.g. diﬀerent types of staccato).

STANDARD

Students perform with a lengthened and balanced posture, support instrument without tension, and demonstrate ease of motion; demonstrate technical facility and the ability to apply contextually appropriate fingerings; control expressive variables (articulation, dynamics, vibrato) while maintaining characteristic tone.

(Sequences will be outlined for all standards at all levels in final product.)

Enrichment Opportunities Targeting Executive Skills CSO Masterclass Series (In the final product, each of these branches will be correlated with specific standards and sequences, broken down by levels.) Artists-in-Residence Breathing Gym Bowing Bootcamp

SAMPLE SEQUENCES (CONT.) Artistry Sequence EXPRESSION BASELINE DEVELOPING PROFICIENT ADVANCED STANDARD

Students employ agency to manipulate their technique in a way that communicates abstract thoughts, ideas, and meaning; the depths of the human experience; self-expression and selfunderstanding.

(Sequences will be outlined for all standards at all levels in final product.)

Enrichment Opportunities Targeting Artistry Ensemble Clinics (In the final product, each of these branches will be correlated with specific standards and sequences, broken down by levels.) Chamber Music Intensive Performance Tours Festivals or Competitions

Engagement Sequence CREATIVE COMMUNICATION BASELINE DEVELOPING PROFICIENT ADVANCED STANDARD

Students communicate clearly and express themselves creatively for a variety of purposes using the platforms, tools, styles, formats, and digital media appropriate to the goal of engaging audiences.

(Sequences will be outlined for all standards at all levels in final product.)

Enrichment Opportunities Targeting Engagement Internships (In the final product, each of these branches will be correlated with specific standards and sequences, broken down by levels.) Outreach Projects CSO Concert Attendance Mock Auditions Mock Interviews

– Part 4 –

EVALUATION PLAN Protocols and Recommendations for Ensuring Success

EVALUATION GOALS Using research and planning done by Youth Orchestras of Los Angeles (YOLA) as a model, this evaluation plan is a preliminary framework for how an extensive review of the program should be completed. Refinements would be necessary upon implementation. When YOLA was first beginning, the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing (CRESST), recommended a two-part evaluation that focused on program processes and targeted outcomes. Based on the CRESST recommendations, CSYO will evaluate the following elements: 1. PROGRAM STRUCTUREâ&#x20AC;¨ How the program is actually being implemented; the degree of effectiveness for each component; recommendations for improvement. 2. TARGETED OUTCOMES Immediate, short term and long term impacts of programming. 3. LEARNING STANDARDS Objective measurements of educational goals, quality of instruction, and performance.

STANDARDS

OUTCOMES

STRUCTURE

SAMPLE GUIDING QUESTIONS

Is the program being delivered as planned? What elements of the implementation are working according to staff expectations? What elements needs to be reconsidered and/or adapted? Are teaching staff embodying the mission, vision, and values? Are teaching staff faithfully deploying the curriculum? What barriers exist between students/families and the program? How can we eliminate them? How do enrollment, retention, and attrition compare to previous seasons? How many and in what roles are families involved in the organization? Which schools are most/least represented at auditions? How are they hearing about them? How many people are applying for open positions? Of what quality are their materials/experiences? To what extent are students meeting the goals stated on pp. 11-12? In which domain(s) are students exhibiting the most/least success? Which program components or learning sequences are contributing to success? What changes are necessary to increase success? Are the standards reasonable and attainable within the current program structure?

ASSESSMENT METHODS & PROTOCOLS Auditions Teaching staff will continue to collaborate with CSO partner musicians to select five rotations of excerpts that reflect the standards aligned with each ensemble. Excerpts will be organized into a continuum of skills, levels 1-6, from which students can select two to perform for the adjudicators. The two selections should be representative of their best playing and made in collaboration with their private, school, or CSYO teachers. Staff will make excerpt recommendations for each ensemble to be included in the audition information distributed to students, thereby communicating the minimum expectation for each group. In order to eliminate biases, auditions will be done using a screen and proctor to ensure student/evaluator anonymity. Adjudicators will evaluate performances using the revised audition rating sheet (see Sample Assessment No. 1), which has been calibrated to the programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposed learning standards and written in a way that promotes consistency between adjudicators and individual hearings. Space has been provided for adjudicators to make formative comments to be shared with students. In addition, all auditions will be recorded in order for teaching staff to review for seating and student feedback. Prior to auditions, all adjudicators and teaching staff will receive training and practice in using the required tools. Following, results will be compared with previous yearsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in order to make trend observations. Student Juries (Specific protocols and criterion would be detailed for each of these outcomes in the final product. Further insight and implementation proposals are included in the timeline on the next page.) Rehearsal Samplings Rehearsal Observations Third-Party Performance Evaluations Student, Family, Teacher Surveys (Reflections) Teacher Evaluations Comparative Studies Program Portfolio Review / Audit 24

EVALUATION TIMELINE AUG

SEP

OCT   NOV   DEC

JAN

• Students audition and receive feedback via rating sheet; results compared to prev. year • Directors review recordings for their rosters and make notes/goals to share with students • Coaching staff make observational notes during ensemble rehearsal

• Coaching staff provides instruction/feedback during sectional; directors make   observational notes.

• First performance is recorded • Coaching staff makes observations during performance • Students complete self-reflections at next rehearsal; forms reviewed for commonalities • Performance recording and rating sheets distributed to third-party evaluators • Midterm reviews for teaching/coaching staff • Directors share performance reviews and progress with ensembles; revise goals • Ensemble clinic with third-party conductor/teacher • Collect copies of ratings/comments from students participating in OMEA S&E

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

• Second performance is recorded • Coaches make observations, students complete reflections; compared with Fall results • Recording and rating sheets distributed to third-party evaluators; compared with Fall

• Student juries (junior division) and individual performance samplings (core ensembles)

• Final performance is recorded, distributed, and assessed by third-party team • Summative reflection and survey for students, families, private/school teachers • Teaching/coaching staff year-end reviews

JUN

• Season portfolio assembled and distributed to third-party evaluator • Comparative performance evaluation with similar programs’ concert videos • Program staff year-end reviews

JUL

• Teaching and program staff review curriculum alignment; plan next season

SAMPLE ASSESSMENT TOOLS 1. Youth Orchestra Audition Rating Sheet (Google Form) STUDENT NUMBER: ____ SCALE: [ ] Major / Minor ___ In tune throughout ___ Clean shifts/breaks ___ Fluid, confident technique ___ Consistent tone throughout ___ Appropriate tempo Comments: EXCERPT: _________________________________ (Appears three times on sheet.) 5 - Demonstrates superior preparation and attention to expressive detail. Excerpt performed   with exact orchestral context in mind. 4 - Demonstrates very good preparation with some expressive detail. Excerpt shows general   awareness of orchestral context. 3 - Demonstrates decent preparation, but little expressive detail. Excerpts performed with   some contextual references. 2 - Demonstrates little preparation and attention to detail. Excerpts performed without   contextual references. 1 - Demonstrates poor preparation and no attention to detail. Excerpts uncharacteristic of   orchestral context. Comments: PREPARED SOLO 5 - Advanced/Professional performance. Virtuosic technical skill and profound/nuanced   expressiveness. 4 - Accomplished performance. High level of technical skill and convincing expressiveness. 3 - Proficient performance. Well prepared, demonstrating requisite technical skill and   developing expressiveness. 2 - Developing performance. Prepared, but displaying significant technical deficiencies. 1 - Poor performance. Unable or unprepared to play the repertoire. Comments: SIGHT-READING EXCERPT: _______ ___ Prepares appropriately. (Practices fingerings/bowings, audiates, asks questions, etc.) ___ Maintains pulse, with very few or no fluctuations (unless specified). ___ Plays rhythms correctly, with very few or no mistakes. ___ Plays pitches correctly, with very few or no mistakes. ___ Plays expressively, demonstrating stylistically appropriate articulations and/or dynamics. Comments: 26

– Part 5 –

APPENDICES

Models for Further Study and Additional Reading

MODELS FOR FURTHER STUDY The following are all youth orchestra programs that achieve high performance standards, maintain close relationships with major symphony orchestras, and whose programming/curricula can be used as a model for further study and development: Baltimore Symphony Youth Orchestra (BSYO) + OrchKids www.bsomusic.org Boston Youth Symphony Orchestras www.bysoweb.org Chicago Youth Symphony Orchestras (CYSO) www.cyso.org D.C. Youth Orchestra Program (DCYOP) www.dcyop.org Louisville Youth Orchestra (LYO) www.lyo.org Youth Orchestras of Bucks County (YOBC) www.yobc.org Youth Orchestra of Los Angeles (YOLA) https://www.laphil.com/education/yola

RESOURCES Benham, S. J., Wagner, M. L., Linne Aten, J., Evans, J. P., Odegaard, D., & Lyonn Lieberman, J. (2011). ASTA Curriculum: Standards, Goals, and Learning Sequences for Essential Skills and Knowledge in K-12 String Programs (2011 ed.). Fairfax, VA: American String Teachers Association. Booth, E. (2013). Fundamental Elements of Venezuela's El Sistema. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from https:// www.laphil.com/sites/default/files/media/pdfs/shared/education/yola/ el_sis_fundamentals_jan_2013.pdf Cincinnati Symphony Youth Orchestras Handbook. (2017). Retrieved November 11, 2017, from https:// drive.google.com/open?id=1mNFuH6GV592dcbo_H-Z1fj46z9yre02PTzUJqRu3KYw Clough, P. (2017). Youth Orchestra of Bucks County Strategic Plan. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http:// yobc.org/PDFs/YOBC_StratPlan_17-22.pdf International Society for Technology in Education Standards for Students. (2016). Retrieved November 24, 2017, from http://www.iste.org/standards/for-students#startstandards Landin, A., Roldan, C., Sandoval, E., & Zanussi, S. (2013). Say Yes to Assess: An Exploration in El Sistema Inspired Assessment Practice. Retrieved November 22, 2017, from https://www.laphil.com/sites/ default/files/media/pdfs/shared/education/yola/introduction-to-assessment-evaluation.pdf Louisville Youth Orchestra Audition Process. (2017). Retrieved November 23, 2017, from https://www.lyo.org/ audition-process Silk, Y., Griffin, N. C., & Chow, K. (2008, December). Youth Orchestra LA: Theory of Action and Proposed Evaluation Plan. Retrieved November 18, 2017, from https://www.laphil.com/sites/default/files/media/ pdfs/shared/education/yola/yola_expo_theory_of_action.pdf Youth Orchestra of Bucks County Ensemble Prerequisites. (n.d.). Retrieved November 22, 2017, from https:// yobc.org/audition-information/placement-philosophy/ensemble-prerequisites/

Felipe Morales-Torres Contemporary Topics in Music Education Fall 2017 Final Project Narrative What does the Cincinnati Symphony Youth Orchestras (CSYO) program do? That was the driving question of my final project, which ultimately took the form of a proposed curriculum and contingent program revisions for the organization’s existing structure. Having worked with the program for two years already, I knew that our primary focus was in providing ensemble training for high school students at the highest possible level. To me, the word training has always implied an educational function: we are teaching students and they are learning about the craft and context of performing symphonic music. Since there is teaching and learning, it stood to reason that there must be some sort of curriculum in place to guide the program staff from year to year. However, interviews with the CSO Education and Community Engagement Department, which manages CSYO, revealed that no concrete curriculum has ever been articulated for the organization. When asked why, one staff person insisted that “CSYO is not an educational organization” (EdComm Department, personal communication, November, 15, 2017). This was surprising to me and in direct conflict with my own experience. I certainly conducted my ensemble with a pedagogical focus, and I know that pedagogical skill is always considered when reviewing candidates for open positions and coachings. The program certainly has educational foundations and functions, even if they are not explicitly understood. Following these interviews, I decided to investigate how to clarify the program’s function (what does it do?) and articulate a framework that could help maintain consistency and validity as it evolves.

In beginning to develop a curriculum for CSYO, it became vividly clear how important it would be to articulate educational aims first. In order to convince the “non-believers” on staff to implement a curriculum, I would need to present them with a clear and compelling purpose that supported the extra-curricular objectives of the organization. As Noddings points out in her article, “The Aims of Education,” doesn’t answer the question “What do we do?” but rather speaks to the deeper questions of what we are trying to accomplish, what that means, and who benefits (Flinders & Thornton, 2009). In order to present those answers in the clearest and most relevant way possible, I decided to identify educational aims within the context of mission, vision and value statements, which are the preferred format for nonprofit organizations. At this point I studied the 2017 CSYO Handbook, as well as a Cincinnati Symphony Volunteer Association Handbook, in order to understand the organization’s current mindset. I discovered that the youth orchestra had not been aligned with the larger strategic plan, so I set out to do that first. I decided that the youth orchestra’s mission statement should mirror that of its parent organization, but the vision and value statements were customized to reflect the difference in function being more educational than cultural (pp. 7-8). The vision and values are aligned in a way that would help students achieve four educational aims––Musical Excellence, Personal Agency, Cultural Competence, Lifelong Enjoyment––which were distilled from aspirations and past participant feedback shared with me in the interviews (EdComm Department, personal communication, November, 15, 2017). Because stakeholders were consulted prior to articulating any of the curriculum’s features, it could be said that this proposal followed a process reminiscent of Paolo Freire, as described in Curriculum and Aims (Walter & Soltis, 2009).

With these philosophical foundations in place, I set out to identify learning standards that could help program staff achieve their expressed aspirations in a more methodical way. I used the 2011 ASTA Curriculum as a model for the curriculum’s general organization because of the clarity with which it outlined the relationship between broad concepts and specific sequences, which is something I believe will be necessary and challenging as CSYO begins to implement a curriculum for the first time. The diagram on page 10 of my proposal outlines that breakdown. The Domains of Knowledge were selected based on perceived focuses in evaluative and planning conversations during my time on the CSYO staff and with the proposed mission, vision, values, and aims in mind. Similar to the Tylerian model described in Curriculum and Aims (Walker & Soltis, 2009), I then subdivided those domains into content areas, learning standards, and sample sequences. The standards for Executive Skills and Artistry were fairly easy to define, especially with the help of the 2011 ASTA Curriculum, which provides singular target statements for each of its content areas. The Engagement standards were more challenging given that they are the least traditional to music education. They were important to include, however, due to the CSYO’s interest in preparing musicians for collegiate or professional success and to engage with future audiences. In search of a model, I turned to the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), which developed a set of standards for students in 2016. I adapted language from their Creative Communicator and Knowledge Constructor standards to articulate outcomes appropriate to music outreach training. There are two standards original to this proposal which I designed to reflect the proposed vision, values and aims. The first was Preparation, which is a habit of practice and revision observable in musicians with high levels of artistry. The second

was Career Readiness, which would measure student’s abilities to represent themselves in professional and evaluative settings. This standard was inspired by the programming offered by ArtWorks Cincinnati, which offers art-based career skills training to high school students. CSYO would consult with ArtWorks’s director, Tamara Harkavy, to determine best practices and appropriate programming. Some ideas have been listed in the scope and sequence portion of this proposal (p. 20). With standards articulated, I began to outline a program scope and sequence, which includes a delegation of administrative needs and responsibilities, key program components or offerings, and requisite support structures (pp. 15-20). All these items were conceived with the mission, vision, values, and aims in mind, so they should each be included in the final program structure in order to achieve those goals. To clarify the importance of each of the components and standards to the overall curriculum, I developed the diagram on page 18 based on Joseph Schwab’s commonplaces of curriculum making, focusing on the intersection between subject matter and milieu (Walter & Soltis, 2009). Similar to the proportional adjustments proposed by Wing (1992), this diagram visually identifies both the hierarchy and correlation between Domains of Knowledge and program components, showing that Artistry remains the top priority of the organization despite the new curriculum. Since this is a theoretical proposal, and given that I do not have the authority to make detailed decisions on my own, I only provided one sample sequence for one learning standard, with the understanding that further delineation would be necessary should this curriculum be implemented. This proposal shows that each of the standards would need to be subdivided by level and that those levels should each relate to the ultimate goal expressed in the learning standard (2011 ASTA Curriculum). The teaching staff

would then develop unilateral alignments based on their ensembles/programs individual needs and abilities. Should certain gaps exist, recommendations would then be made to expand program components appropriately. Making that determination is a matter of evaluation, which would be critical to determining whether the program is meeting its philosophical, educational, and practical objectives. When considering types of evaluations, I read a theory of action created for the Youth Orchestra of Los Angeles (YOLA) by the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). The center recommended a two-part evaluation focused on program processes and planned accomplishments (Silk, Griffin & Chow, 2008), both of which would be relevant to CSYO’s needs for understanding how the program is being delivered and whether it is achieving the targeted outcomes (p. 9). Because YOLA is social justice oriented, the assessment recommendation does not include an explicit evaluation of student learning standards, which I believe would be important in order to understand whether the goals are appropriate and whether program components are contributing to success. Taking note from the CRESST recommendations, I brainstormed some sample guiding questions on page 23 for all three evaluation goals: program structure, targeted outcomes, and learning standards (Silk, Griffin & Chow, 2008). In order to identify specific evaluation methods and instruments, I reviewed the proposed learning standards and sample sequences to determine appropriate evidence. Given that nearly all the objectives are performance oriented, I listed possible assessment methods and protocols, along with an evaluation timeline (pp. 24-25). The assessments suggested are not comprehensive, but they are intended to increase the objectivity and validity of tools used to

evaluate the program, student achievement, and staff performance. The audition protocol (p. 25) and accompanying rating sheet (p. 27), for example, have both been redesigned to reflect best practices described by Walters in his book, A Concise Guide to Assessing Skills and Knowledge (2010). Some of those practices include adjudicator training, student anonymity, performance recordings, five-point scales, and criterion with consistent language (Walters, 2010). Another protocol that can increase objectivity is a third-party performance evaluation (Silk, Griffin & Chow, 2008). Since CSYO also maintains a goal of increasing community investment, I think it would be wise to form an evaluation team of school teachers, collegiate faculty, CSO musicians, and private teachers who are not already directly involved in the implementation of the program. By sharing performance recordings with them with an accompanying rating tool (to be designed), CSYO benefits from objective evaluations and a team of consistent evaluators. For all of these protocols, an important component would be a comparative analysis between current and previous results. This would help to determine the reliability of assessment instruments, like the audition rating sheet, and the validity of assessments in relation to the program components (Walters, 2010). The CRESST recommendation included a program portfolio assessment, which would be completed by a program review committee or third-party organization based on appropriate evidence determined in advance and gathered throughout the year (Silk, Griffin & Chow, 2008). This model resembles the portfolio assessments proposed by Chuang (n.d.) and makes sense as a model for the CSYO given its lack of experience in implementing and assessing curriculum. None of these assessments, nor the sequences, standards, and other components outlined in this proposal should be considered authoritative plans. Rather, the goal of this project was to

develop a philosophical grounding and a practical outline which could be fleshed out by all the appropriate stakeholders, including current and future CSO or CSYO staff. However, by drawing on educational research, tested curriculum models, and successful program structures, my hope is that the CSYO team can be more confident in their assertions that we are providing students with ensemble training––read: music education––at the highest possible and of the highest possible quality.

Noddings, N. Ch. 24: “The Aims of Education”

International Society for Technology in Education Standards for Students. (2016). Retrieved November 24, 2017, from http://www.iste.org/standards/for-students#startstandards Silk, Y., Griffin, N. C., & Chow, K. (2008, December). Youth Orchestra LA: Theory of Action and Proposed Evaluation Plan. Retrieved November 18, 2017, from https://www.laphil.com/sites/default/files/media/ pdfs/shared/education/yola/yola_expo_theory_of_action.pdf Walker, D. & J. Soltis (2009). Curriculum and aims (5th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Walters, D. (2010). A concise guide to assessing skills & knowledge with music achievement as a model. Chicago: GIA Publications Wing, L. (1992). Curriculum and its study. In R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 196-217). New York: MacMillan.