The Politics of Public Accountability: Implications for Centralized Music Education Policy Development and Implementation

Abstract

This article addresses accountability issues that affect music education policy and implementation in the neoliberal education system. Using examples from education reform in Ontario, Canada, the author argues that two forms of accountability imbalances fostered by the neoliberal state-hierarchical answerability over communicative reason and top-down over bottom-up policymaking-allow the use of music curricula for political ends, to the detriment of curricular integrity and classroom delivery. The article also discusses how central governments that are responsible for developing standardized music curricula and allocating resources in an accountability vacuum may tacitly establish that "basic" subjects such as literacy, numeracy, and science are "more mandatory" than a mandated music curricula. The article concludes by recommending ways in which the centralized development of music education policy and resource allocation can be made more equitable both for those who encounter the curriculum at the local level and for the subject.

South–South Comparisons: A Syntegrated Approach to the Teaching of the Arts for Primary School Teacher Preparation in South Africa and Australia

“…Schools and policymakers often identify the arts as a lower educational priority. The arts are also marginalized as a consequence of the push for a back-tobasics approach focusing on literacy and numeracy (Brewer 2009;Horsley 2009). Research reflects the marginalization of arts disciplines through terms such as "the narrowing of the curriculum" (Meyer 2004, 35) or the "ever-diminishing art education curriculum" (Grey 2010, 10).…”

Looking Backwards to Reach Forward: A Strategic Architecture for Professional Development in Music Education

“…Develop the capability to match choice of content to social, cultural, racial, and gendered representations in classroom contexts (Flores and Day 2006;Geertz 1976;Green 2002;Hamblen 1985;Koza 2006;McCarthy et al 2003;Reynolds 1996) A professional development framework that links teachers' professional development plans with evaluation cycles would be well received politically as well. One possible strategy would be the development of three-year plans designed to foster sustainability and complex views of pedagogical needs and revise notions of accountability as "giving an account" (see Horsley 2009). This integration of professional development into the fabric of the school culture could create new understandings of teacher development, in which assessment and strategic curriculum development work in tandem.…”

The Cyclical Integration Model as a Way of Managing Major Educational Change

“…It is often at this point of "now do it", such as in the case of the outcomes-based education scenario that has recently plagued Western Australian education [19,20], that a grass-roots outcry erupts. Research literature suggests that it is not unusual for teachers to feel "dumped upon from on high", when encountering implementation directives for which they feel no ownership [21][22][23][24][25][26]. Perhaps the bluntest assessment of a hierarchically managed bureaucracy, written in the British context, comes from the pen of Minogue [27]:…”