It has been nearly twenty years since the field of music education has been introduced to the National Standards for Arts Education. And, like most states, Kansas adopted those standards as the basis for its standards, including the most recent revision in 2005. In my own setting, I found the standards to be useful in a number of ways: as a curricular guide for my classroom, our school district and within my own state; as an advocacy tool to strengthen the position of music as a core subject; and, most importantly, as a means to be reflective about my own teaching and the learning of my students as I tried to help them develop their knowledge, skills and understandings of music. I strongly believe that the teachers who are deliberately using the standards "will be better equipped to teach music in ways to strengthen both the cognitive and the affective aspects" (Huser, 2005, p. v.) of their students musical experiences.

While many may argue that the existing set of national and state standards suit the needs of the profession, the ever-evolving field of education and constant calls for reform and accountability deem review and revision quite necessary. Some policies and movements, such as the development of the Common Core Standards, 21st-Century Skills, No Child Left Behind and, of course, the attached financial incentives, place music education in a position to align or potentially find itself relegated to a position outside the "core" and, in turn, potentially lose some of the political gains our existing standards have brought to our profession (Elpus, 2013, p. 23). With those concerns in mind and, in the light of all of the changes to education in the past twenty, a long overdue conversation of our nine National Standards, the process of creating "National Music Education Standards 2.0" is well underway at the publication of this article.

And with that, the National Coalition for Core Arts Standards (NCCAS) was formed with representatives from all of the national arts education organizations to create the National Core Music Standards. According to the NCCAS Conceptual Framework: In June of 2013, a draft of the standards was released for public input and arts educators across the country were given their first glimpse of the new standards, how the new standards are structured and organized, and their content for grades PreK to 8. The standards for high school ensembles (of all types) as well as specialized courses in, for example, theory or composition are still in the process of development. All of the new standards, at this point, are considered to be incomplete and, following input from a variety of sources and stakeholders and additional review, they should be released in their final version by March of 2014.

The standards are organized by what are called the artistic processes of creating, responding and performing—the authentic ways in which musicians interact with music on a daily basis. These processes served as the frame for the 1997 National Assessment of Education Progress in the arts and they serve as the foundation of standards for several states—including those of my home state, Minnesota. In general, music educators here have found these standards easy to understand and implement at every grade and within every type of learning environments (classrooms, ensembles, etc.). In the new standards, the artistic processes are further defined by what are called "anchor standards." I find that they provide additional context for the processes. The processes are also broken into action items known "process components." In my mind, these components outline the various steps involved with a musician's work when they are performing, creating and responding. For example, when responding to music, musicians typically do the following: they select a piece; then they analyze it for its musical and contextual content; then they interpret it to determine a composer's intent and potential meanings; and finally they evaluate it in a way that brings further meaning to themselves. There are, of course, similar process components for creating and performing.

The content of the existing National and Kansas standards are nicely prepared for alignment within this new framework. (In fact, they are organized in very similar fashion to the existing Kansas standards for PreK.) In the Kansas standards for the basic, intermediate, proficient and advanced groupings, the standards are also synchronistic. For example, the existing standards for sing and play certainly fall under the category of performing in the 2013 revisions. And, improvising, composing and arranging are all considered ways to create music. Under responding, listening, analyzing, describing and evaluating also fit. As for reading and notating and the two existing standards relating to relating to the other arts, history and culture, I believe that those have been immersed into one or all of the artistic processes.

Another change for Kansas's music educators to consider is the presentation of each of the standards by grade rather than grade bands (such as K-4, 5-8, 9-12). My sense is that educators will appreciate seeing a sequential set of standards and use them as a means to compare their own students' progress. In writing the sequence within a standard, the change from grade to grade is highlighted using italics making it obvious where growth is expected. And, it has been shared that the final document will include hyperlinks to supporting materials, definitions, skills, repertoire and other tools that might be helpful in implementing the standards.

An additional highlight of the new document is the listing of "Enduring Understandings" and "Essential Questions" for each of the process components. Those of you familiar with the work of Wiggins and McTighe (Understanding by Design) will already be familiar with these statements. I find that they help to summarize the standards and assist me in keeping my eye on the "big picture." And, to further assist music educators, the development team is developing "cornerstone assessments" that will provide evidence of how student learning might be discerned and reported.

Several years ago, I had the honor of serving as the co-chair for the revision and implementation of the Minnesota Standards for Arts Education. As a member of the committee I recall the genuine enthusiasm held by arts educators from across the state as they reviewed and considered implementation of the new standards. Wonderful and fruitful conversations stemmed from consideration of the content of each standard and benchmark and many found the document as a wonderful tool for professional development. In addition, the revisions prompted educators to further consider their own curricula, assessments and their philosophical positions related to music education and its role in the lives of their communities and (most importantly!) their students.

And, as you might expect, the revised standards raised issues of concern as well. Many teachers were concerned about the magnitude and scope of the standards and doubted whether or not they would be able to meet the expectations set forth in the document. Many anticipated problems related to lack of contact time, professional development opportunities to meet and collaborate with colleagues on how they might implement the standards, and a desired sense of direction in terms of how each standard and benchmark might be assessed. Even administrators and stakeholders who were in full support of the new standards expressed concerns about finding the funds to fully integrate the benchmarks into their schools. And, without any legitimate accountability system in place, many felt that the standards were simply another document for their files.

In my own review of the new national standards, I am quite pleased to see an emphasis on authentic learning experiences that will provide opportunities for students to become lifelong, independent musicians—a rather auspicious goal! I look forward to the final version of the new national standards and I am quite confident that they will provide direction and outline the type of music education that will meet that goal. My personal sense is that the new standards will spawn a great deal of conversation amongst members of our community. While the publication is likely to cause some controversy, my experiences remind me that those conversations are the best way to help our profession advance.

Works Consulted: