Volume 1 - Issue 1 - DBU Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership - Page 55

Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership 53 Introduction and Background The last decade has featured a substantial increase in the volume of research and literature supporting the benefits of public school music education (Collins, 2014; Davis, 2012; Martin, 2012; Zuk, Benjamin, Kenyon, & Gabb, 2014). This information comes to decision makers at a time when eco - nomic conditions have forced reductions in funding for public education, specifically in public school music educa - tion (DeLorenzo, 2012; Major, 2013; Sanders, 2014). At the same time, music education (a non-tested subject) faces the fallout from an increased emphasis on standardized curric- ulum and high-stakes testing (Beveridge, 2010; Elpus, 2014; Joseph, 2011). A robust body of literature exists linking stu- dent achievement to school leadership (Labby, Lunenburg, & Slate, 2012; Marzano, Waters, &McNulty, 2005; Soehner & Ryan, 2011). Nearly absent is research concerning the public school music administrator. System-wide benefits of music education include im - proved academic performance, improved attendance, and higher graduation rates (Texas Music Educators Associa- tion, 2014). In addition, the literature suggests that expo- sure to systemic arts education is a pragmatic imperative for the future of the American economy (Pink, 2006). Research also exists that demonstrates school district cost savings through strengthening music education—the reverse is true when music education is cut (Benham, 2011). Furthermore, support from an administrator certified in music has been found to have a positive effect on music teacher retention (Siebert, 2008). The literature contains gaps in the area of public school music administration in comparison to academic adminis- tration. While the literature is able to assist in the hiring and evaluation of academic school leadership (Rammer, 2007; Cavazos, 2012), there is little known to assist such practices for the music administrator. Public education has a fidu - ciary responsibility to ensure proactive stewardship, which includes monitoring evaluation of its music programs. In 2014-2015, the Texas Association of School Admin- istrators (TASA) and Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) listed 106 Texas public school districts with a Director of Fine Arts—the central office music administrator—which is up from 85 in 2009-2010 (Texas Association of School Ad - ministrators & Texas Association of School Boards, 2010, 2014). This 25% increase in Texas music administrators over a five-year period underscores the importance for study in this area. Purpose The purpose of the current study was to establish the re - search-based building blocks for the hiring of music and arts public school administrators. The study sought to de- termine what educational competencies are considered im - portant in the selection of a central-office music administra - tor from the perspective of music administrators in Texas. This question is a response to the following educational problem: A robust body of literature links student achieve- ment to academic school leadership. Nearly absent is liter- ature concerning research-based educational competencies Jeremy L. Earnhart, Ed.D. COMPETENCIES OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL MUSIC ADMINISTRATOR: TEXAS MUSIC ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVES Educational Leadership K-12 2017, VOL. 1, ISSUE 1 http://www.dbu.edu/doctoral/edd