Amabile has proposed that the most valid way to measure creativity is by using experts' subjective assessment of creative products—a technique she has labeled “consensual assessment.” The purpose of this study was to test the reliability of the consensual assessment technique on children's musical compositions and to determine which group of judges provides the most reliable ratings of creativity for music compositions of fourth- and fifth-grade children. The groups that were compared were music teachers, composers, theorists, seventh-grade children, and second-grade children. The interjudge reliabilities for each groups creativity ratings on 11 children's musical compositions were: composers, .04; all music teachers, .64; music theorists, .73; seventh-grade children, .61; and second-grade children, .50. Significant correlations were found between the music teachers and music theorists, and between the two groups of children. There were very weak or negative correlations between the composers' scores and the scores of the other groups.

The purpose of this article is to present the idea that the music education profession’s current drive to include improvisation in school music is limited in its approach, and that teaching improvisation, in the traditional sense, is not possible. These beliefs are based on an examination of current methodologies and texts in light of the historical evolution of both improvisation and the teaching of improvisation. The article provides an examination of Jeff Pressing’s historical conceptions of improvisation as a continuum model and then briefly looks at the short history of improvisation in American music education in the 20th century. Current methods are examined in light of free improvisation techniques. This leads to a final argument for more free improvisation in school music balanced with the current skills approach used in the USA. The conclusion of this article examines the issues and realities for current practices in music education in light of the beliefs set forth.

I l COMPOSITION AND IMPROVISATION CREATIVE THINKING IN MUSIC Rather than focusing on training children to be creative, it might be better for music teachers to nurture children's inherent ability to think creatively in music.

ASSESSMENT RUBRICS FOR MUSIC COMPOSRubrics make evaluations concrete and objective, while providing students with detailed feedback and the skills to become sensitive music critics. hanks in part to the emphasis that the National Standards for Music Education have placed on comprehensive music instruction, composition is assuming a larger role in music classrooms and teaching situations.1 Teachers who involve their students in this creative undertaking often find, however, that the challenge to themselves lies in the area of assessment. Though music educators are usually adept at evaluating the quality of musical performance and levels of musical achievement, the task of assessing intrinsically subjective musical compositions poses special problems. While hearing and correcting inaccurate rhythms and notes or improving poor intonation is relatively easy, the prospect of rating a child's musical composition is often daunting to music teachers. What criteria should they use? What makes a musical composition "good" or "bad"? How can a teacher possibly give a formal letter grade to a piece that a student has composed?One reason why evaluating musical compositions is so difficult is that creating music and responding to it are inherently subjective acts. Beauty can Maud Hickey is assistant professor of music education and technology in the School of Music at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. Recent research has shown that music teachers can come to a reasonable agreement as to what is a good composition and what is not. be in the ear of the listener, as well as the eye of the beholder. However, recent research has shown that music teachers can come to a reasonable agreement as to what is a good composition and what is not.2 Given a variety of children's musical compositions to evaluate on a simple fiveor seven-point scale, teachers are able to agree consistently as to which compositions are the most creative, most appealing, or most technically solid. However, since this "consensual assessment technique" requires several judges, it is not practical for most teachers, who are generally the sole arbiters of musical quality in the classroom. Nor does it necessarily reinforce instruction or learning, since it does not provide useful feedback to students. Guidelines for CompositionFocusing on the challenges of assessment should not obscure an important fact about music composition: Music teachers should not always approach composing as a graded activity. Research clearly supports the notion that the prospect of evaluation or teacher surveillance often squelches children's intrinsic motivation and creativity.3 Composition should be an ongoing activity in the music classroom, providing opportunities for students to experiment freely with musical sound in order to discover how to manipulate and organize it. Students should be encouraged to compose, edit, revise, and "doodle" music as often as possible, keeping their "sketches" as well as final compositions in personal "portfolios" such as those visual artists use...

There is a growing interest in alternative forms of pedagogy for students in K–12 settings. Free improvisation, a relatively new and unfamiliar genre, offers potential as an ensemble for teachers to provide in order to offer more egalitarian and creative music experiences for their students. The purpose of this multiple case study was to determine common elements of instruction among four university free-improvisation instructors in order to inform K–12 music education. Pauline Oliveros, Fred Frith, Ed Sarath, and David Ballou were interviewed and observed in order to find common elements among their teaching. Data collection included transcripts from interviews and field notes, recordings, course materials, and other documents, such as course syllabi, university catalogues, texts, and press material about the pedagogues. The common themes that emerged among the four pedagogues included an array of unique teaching exercises, facility with nontraditional vocabulary, the establishment of a safe and egalitarian teaching space, lack of evaluation, leader as guide, comfort with spontaneity, and pedagogue as performer/improviser. The conclusion offers ideas for implementing these ideas in K–12 and music teacher education.