Effect of Pullout Lessons on the Academic Achievement of Eighth Grade Band Students. Formatted According to the APA Publication Manual (6 th ed.

Pullout Lessons 1 Running head: EFFECT OF PULLOUT LESSONS Effect of Pullout Lessons on the Academic Achievement of Eighth Grade Band Students Formatted According to the APA Publication Manual (6 th ed.) Keywords: academic achievement, instrumental music, pullout lessons, specialized instruction

Pullout Lessons 2 Abstract This study examined the effect of pullout instrumental lessons on the academic achievement of eighth grade band students. Participants (N = 353) included 292 non-band students and 61 band students pulled once per week for music lessons in a single suburban K-8 school district in the Midwestern United States. Data indicated that eighth grade band students achieved significantly higher mean scores on the ACT Explore test than students who dropped band prior to eighth grade (n = 58) or never enrolled in the program (n = 234). In addition, no significant differences existed between all band students and the highest achieving non-band students, or students who discontinued band after at least one year and those who never enrolled. Although band students in this study tended to be more academically successful than non-band students at the outset, these results support the assertion that pullout lessons had no negative effect on academic achievement, regardless of the number of years students participated in the program.

Pullout Lessons 3 Effect of Pullout Lessons on the Academic Achievement of Eighth Grade Band Students Many elementary and middle schools excuse students from their regularly scheduled class to participate in music, speech, technology, and other subjects (Cronin & Raywid, 1990). Educators have traditionally referred to these activities as pullout programs; though the term specialized instruction is also sometimes used to prevent the bias against comprehensive schooling (MENC: The National Association for Music Education [MENC], 2007). Pullout programs in instrumental music typically consist of private or small group lessons that occur once or twice per week on a fixed or rotating schedule. Students taught on a fixed schedule are excused from the same class each lesson. Those taught on a rotating basis meet during a different period each lesson, resulting in less time out of a single subject (Fraedrich, 1997; Sanders, 2001; Wallick, 1998). A number of students throughout the United States receive some or all of their instrumental training through pullout lessons. Delzell and Doerksen (1998a; also see Doerksen & Delzell, 2000), for example, determined that 63.5% of bands and 74.3% of orchestras provided beginning instruction through this model. Of this number, 68.6% of band lessons and 76.7% of orchestra lessons met during academic classes, as opposed to general music, lunch, and recess. Creech (1987) found that 56.5% of elementary band programs in southeastern Missouri provided class lessons or sectionals but that this number decreased to 22.2% as students progressed through seventh and eighth grade when music frequently meets as a regular course. In spite of the prevalence of pullout lessons, teachers often express concern in students missing academic classes to participate in the band or orchestra (Beck, 1998; Casserly, 1987; Circle, 1989; Copland, 1960; Cronin & Raywid, 1990; Doerksen & Delzell, 2000; English, 1984; Hennessey, 1984; Kvet, 1985; Pruitt, 1969; Wallick, 1998). Engdahl (1994) determined that 80% of upper elementary teachers were pleased that students had the opportunity to participate in

Pullout Lessons 4 instrumental music, but sometimes felt burdened or annoyed by the interruption in classroom routine or the need to reteach material children missed while attending lessons. About half of the teachers (51%) also expressed concern that removing students from the regular classroom for specialized music instruction was sometimes detrimental to their academic achievement. The current emphasis on assessment may cause these concerns to increase among teachers over the next several years. A number of states have recently passed or are currently considering legislation requiring school districts to tie teacher evaluations to scholastic achievement (Hassel & Hassel, 2009; Lee, 2009; Williams, 2009), meaning teachers will probably be even more reluctant to allow students to miss academic instruction. Administrators, students, and parents have also expressed concerns regarding pullout programs (Circle, 1989; Corral, 1998; Dryden, 1992; Elovitz, 2002; English, 1984; Fraedrich, 1997; Kvet, 1985; Pruitt, 1969; Robitaille & O Neal, 1981; Taylor, 1985). Principals, for example, must often schedule pullouts in several subjects without disrupting a great deal of time in the regular classroom (Casserly, 1987; Cronin & Raywid, 1990). Students may feel frustration and anxiety concerning missed work and the additional expectations placed on them by teachers of specialized programs (Meyers, Gelzheiser, Yelich, & Gallagher, 1990; Sanders, 2001). Parents sometimes believe that leaving the classroom for instrumental lessons will cause their children to suffer academically and may not allow them to enroll (Gillespie, 1992) or continue if grades in academic subjects begin to slip (Creech, 1987; Delzell & Doerksen, 1998b). All of these concerns may contribute to a higher rate of attrition for programs that involve pullout lessons compared to those that meet solely during designated instructional time in the school day (Gamin, 2005). Although many stakeholders in the educational process have expressed concern that pullout lessons harm scholastic achievement (e.g., Engdahl, 1994; Gillespie, 1992), research has

Pullout Lessons 5 yet to produce findings that support this assertion. A number of studies have examined the academic achievement of non-instrumental students vs. instrumental students involved in pullout lessons by comparing scores of the two groups on various standardized achievement tests (Circle, 1989; Corral, 1998; Cox, 2001; Dryden, 1992; Engdahl, 1994; Friedman, 1959; Groff, 1963; Holmes, 1997; Kvet, 1985; Robitaille & O Neal, 1981; Wallick, 1998; also see Gillespie, 1992; Hash, 2004). In every case, findings indicated either no significant differences between the two groups, or significant differences in favor of instrumental students. Dryden (1992), for example, found that band students significantly outperformed non-instrumentalists on the reading vocabulary and reading comprehension portions of the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills. Wallick (1998), in addition, found that fourth grade string students scored significantly higher than non-string students on the reading and citizenship portions of the Ohio Proficiency Test. Circle (1989), Holmes (1997), and Cox (2001) attained similar results. Several studies have pointed to the possibility that instrumental music may attract higher achieving students from the outset. Cox (2001) found that instrumental students attained a higher level of academic achievement in fourth grade prior to enrolling in band or orchestra. Holmes (1997) found that fifth grade beginning instrumentalists scored higher than their noninstrumental peers on the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills administered the previous year. Fitzpatrick (2006) found that instrumental students outperformed non-instrumental students in every subject and at every grade level on the Ohio Proficiency Test, regardless of socioeconomic status. Kinney (2008) examined sixth and eighth grade urban middle school students achievement test scores before (fourth grade) and during enrollment in a performing ensemble. Analyses indicated that sixth grade instrumentalists scored significantly higher than noninstrumentalists on every subtest of sixth and fourth grade achievement tests. Eighth grade instrumentalists, in addition, scored significantly higher than non-instrumentalists on fourth

Pullout Lessons 6 grade reading and math, and every subtest of the eighth grade achievement test except social studies. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of pullout lessons on the academic achievement of eighth grade band students. Two questions guided this research. (a) Is there a significant difference in the English, mathematics, reading, science, or overall achievement of eighth grade non-band students and band students pulled from class for instrumental lessons? (b) Is there a significant difference in the English, mathematics, reading, science, or overall achievement of eighth grade students who dropped out of band after one or more years of pullout lessons compared to students who participated through eighth grade or never enrolled in the program? Although several authors have examined the effect of pullout lessons on scholastic achievement (e.g., Circle, 1989; Corral, 1998; Cox, 2001; Dryden, 1992; Engdahl, 1994; Friedman, 1959; Groff, 1963; Holmes, 1997; Kvet, 1985; Robitaille & O Neal, 1981; Wallick, 1998), all of the studies thus far have involved first or second year instrumentalists. This study included students engaged in this type of instruction for almost five years. Furthermore, the last study (Cox, 2001) occurred over 10 years ago. Research should occur periodically to determine if the effects of pullouts on academic achievement change as standards and expectations rise (Hash, 2004). The debate on pullouts will likely continue for some time, as schools revise curricula, scheduling, and instruction in an effort to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind act of 2001 and other recent education mandates. This study will add to the previous literature and provide current information that will help stakeholders make informed decisions regarding specialized music instruction. Findings should be shared will all administrators of pullout programs and discussed at meeting of music educators, classroom teachers, and parents.

Pullout Lessons 7 Method Participants in this study (N = 353) included 61 eighth grade band students and 292 eighth grade non-band students from a single suburban K-8 school district in the Midwestern United States during the 2007-08, 2008-09, or 2009-10 academic years. The district serves approximately 1100 student in three buildings a pre-kindergarten and kindergarten facility, an elementary school for grades one through five, and a middle school for grades six through eight. According to information provided by the state, the student population in 2009 included 46.2% white, 32.5% Asian, 10.7% black, 9.8% Hispanic, and 0.9% Native American or multi-ethnic children. In addition, 24.1% were classified as low income and 12.4% had limited English proficiency. Students in the district generally scored between 10%-15% higher than the state average on standardized assessments. The band program begins in the fourth grade and consists of a beginning band, a fifth grade band, and two ability based middle school bands. All beginners participate in one 30- minute rehearsal and one 15-minute private or 30-minute group lesson per week. Students in the fifth grade band and the lower middle school band participate in two 50-minute rehearsals and one 15-minute private or 30-minute group lesson each week. Members of the top middle school band attend four 33-minute rehearsals, one 80-minute rehearsal, and one 42-minute lesson per week. Large group rehearsals occur outside the school day, while pullout lessons meet during regular instructional periods on a rotating basis. One full time and one part time instructor currently teach the program. All but seven band students in this study began instruction in fourth grade and had participated in pullout lessons ever since. The remaining seven joined the program after grade four and participated in specialized instrumental instruction every year thereafter.

Pullout Lessons 8 I determined academic achievement using scores on the ACT Explore College Readiness Test as the dependent variable. Explore is a norm-referenced achievement test divided into four subsections English, math, reading, and science. Each section takes 30 minutes to administer and includes 28-30 questions. Students receive a score between 1 and 25 on each subject test as well as a composite score calculated as the average of the four sub sections rounded to the nearest whole number. Explore is designed to serve as a baseline to monitor academic progress for eighth or ninth grade students entering or beginning high school and as the entry point into ACT' s other assessment systems (ACT, 2010). The school district granted permission for this study and supplied the data. I also consulted the full-time band instructor, the school web site, and the district report card published by the State Board of Education for additional information. I conducted three analyses to compare the academic achievement of non-band students and band students pulled for specialized instrumental instruction. All comparisons involved descriptive statistics, as well as one-way ANOVA to identify any significant differences in mean test scores between the two groups. When comparing three groups in the second analysis, I followed the ANOVA with a post hoc Scheffé test to pinpoint specific differences among each pair. Results The first analysis compared Explore scores of the total sample of band students (n = 61) and non-band students (n = 292) to determine if there were any significant differences between the two groups. One-way ANOVA indicated that all subject test and composite scores were significantly higher for band students than non-band students for each year separately and for all years combined. Furthermore, all but four of the 20 tests were significant at the p <.001 level (see Table 1).

Pullout Lessons 9 <INSERT TABLE 1> The second analysis compared mean composite scores of students who dropped out of band after at least one year with those who persisted through eighth grade, and those who never enrolled in the program. These findings may help determine the academic level of students who joined and continued in band throughout middle school. A one-way ANOVA found significant differences between the three groups, F (2, 350) = 30.35, p <.001. A post hoc Scheffé indicated no significant difference (p =.163) between students who dropped band after at least one year (n = 58, M = 16.57) and those who never participated (n = 234, M = 15.77). Students who persisted through eighth grade (n = 61, M = 18.95), however, scored significantly higher than those who dropped out (p <.001) as well as those who never enrolled in the program (p <.001). Another ANOVA also indicated that students with one to five years of band experience (n = 119, M = 17.79) significantly outscored their peers without band experience, F (1, 351) = 37.64, p <.001. The third analysis applied a higher standard for band students by comparing their Explore scores with only those of non-band students who attained a composite score above the mean. This procedure helped equalize the groups and control for the possibility that children who elected to enroll and continue in the band program were among the most academically successful in the class (e.g., Cox, 2001; Fitzpatrick, 2006; Kinney, 2008). One-way ANOVA indicated no significant differences between the two groups on any of the subtests or composite scores for separate years and all years combined (see Table 2). <INSERT TABLE 2> Discussion The first analysis determined that eighth grade band students involved in pullout lessons since their first year of instruction scored significantly higher than non-band students on every part of the Explore test for all three years examined in this study. Although these findings

Pullout Lessons 10 support the assertion that pullouts do not negatively affect academic achievement, such profound differences likely indicate that band students in this school district do not represent the population as a whole. An examination of the descriptive statistics supports this hypothesis, revealing that lower bound confidence intervals of band students exceeded upper bound limits of non-band students for all composite scores and subject tests, except reading in 2007. Even when considering the most extreme possibilities suggested by the 95% confidence interval for the mean, band students continued to outscore non-band students on all but one measure of the Explore test. A number of advocacy resources (e.g., MENC, 2007; National Association of Music Merchants/MENC, n.d.; Pearson, n.d.) have suggested that findings such as these indicate that music instruction improves scholastic achievement. It is more likely, however, that academically successful students elect to participate (Cox, 2001; Fitzpatrick, 2006; Kinney, 2008) and continue (Demorest & Morrison, 2000) in instrumental music. The second analysis examined this possibility and found that eighth grade band students significantly outscored students who initially joined, then dropped out of band, as well as students who never enrolled in the program. Further analysis revealed that, as a group, eighth graders with any band experience (n = 119) achieved significantly higher composite scores than students who never studied an instrument (n = 234). Considered together, these analyses suggest that students who enrolled in beginning instrumental instruction were more academically successful than those who did not, and that children who persisted in the program through eighth grade represented the highest achieving students of the entire population. Other writers have also acknowledged that the most academically successful students choose to enroll (e.g., Cox, 2001; Fitzpatrick, 2006; Kinney, 2008) and persist (Demorest & Morrison, 2000) in instrumental music. Perhaps instrumental teachers should examine reasons

Pullout Lessons 11 for this phenomenon in an effort to better attract and serve children who struggle academically. This process will likely involve finding ways to modify instruction and provide other supports for this population such as peer tutoring, private lessons, and supplemental materials (e.g., Mixon, 2007). Based on the second analysis, teachers, administrators, and parents might continue to argue that pullout lessons negatively affected band students in this study and that the results of the first analysis were due to the fact that these children were simply among the brightest of the class. The third analysis addressed this possibility by only comparing band students to the most academically successful non-band students. The finding of no significant differences between these two groups on any of the scores examined is probably more accurate than data from the first analysis because this comparison likely involved students similar in academic ability. Due to limitations of the data supplied by the school district, it was not possible to match pairs of students (e.g., Kevet, 1985; Wallick, 1998) or apply a covariant based on test scores recorded prior to enrollment in the band program (e.g., Holmes, 1997). This procedure would have provided additional information on the effects of pullout instruction by comparing band students to non-band students with similar characteristics and accounting for initial differences in achievement prior to beginning instrumental music. Nonetheless, findings from this study indicated that in this particular school district: Eighth grade band students dismissed from academic classes for specialized instruction for up to five years achieved significantly higher scores on the ACT Explore test than students who discontinued participation prior to eighth grade or never enrolled in the program. No significant differences existed between Explore scores of all eighth grade band students and the highest achieving non-band students.

Pullout Lessons 12 No significant differences existed between the Explore scores of eighth graders who discontinued band after at least one year and those who never participated. Students who enrolled in beginning band tended to be the most academically successful in the class and those who persisted through eighth grade were among the highest achieving students in the entire sample. These results support the assertion that pullout lessons had no negative effect on the academic achievement of band students, regardless of the number of years they participated in the program. This study should be generalized with caution, however, due to the limited sample size and the fact that only one school district was involved. Future studies should continue to examine the effects of specialized instrumental instruction in a variety of educational settings (e.g., urban, rural), at different levels of schooling (e.g., elementary, middle school, high school), among diverse learners (e.g., low socio-economic, gifted, learning disabled), and using various models of scheduling (e.g., fixed vs. rotating). Qualitative or survey research may also be helpful in determining why students who achieve at a lower academic level often choose not to enroll, or eventually drop out of instrumental music. Reasons for this phenomenon may include socioeconomic status and the need for parents to provide their child with an instrument, difficulties with transportation when full ensemble rehearsals meet after school, or a lack of effective strategies for teaching lower achieving students. Case studies examining successful programs that have overcome these challenges may suggest solutions that will help other teachers improve instruction and reduce attrition. Teachers involved in pullout lessons should also conduct their own action research to determine the effect of pullout lessons in their own school, since locally acquired empirical data will be more useful and meaningful to administrators making decisions about instructional schedules for their own buildings. Music educators can use this or other studies as a model for

Pullout Lessons 13 their own and, if necessary, ask a university professor or graduate student to help conduct the analysis (MENC, 2007). By working together, music educators, administrators, and classroom teachers, can effectively implement specialized music instruction without detrimental effects to students academic achievement.

Pullout Lessons 14 References ACT (2010). Explore: ACT's college readiness test for 8th and 9th graders. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/explore/index.html Beck, T. (1998). The music of deliberation. Educational Leadership, 55(7), 37-40. Casserly, M. A. (1987). Guiding the middle school schedule: Avoiding the pitfalls of pullouts during the school day. NASSP Bulletin, 71(51), 51-52. doi: 10.1177/019263658707150114 Circle, D. (1989). Hard data. Unpublished manuscript, Shawnee Mission School District 512. Copland, C. (1960). Instrumental programs in the elementary school. Instrumentalist, 14(7), 32, 36. Corral, S. J. (1998). A comparison study of the California Test of Basic Skills between fourth and fifth grade instrumental music pullout students and students not involved in the instrumental music program. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED430013). Cox, R. W. (2001). Effects on academic achievement for fifth-grade students in a band pull-out program. (Master's thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1405730) Creech, M. (1987). A survey of instrumental music scheduling status in public schools of southeast Missouri. Missouri Journal of Music Education Research, 5(4), 21-49. Cronin, B. W., & Raywid, M. A. (1990). Fractured days. American School Board Journal, 177(3), 26, 39. Delzell, J. K., & Doerksen, P. F. (1998a, April). Beginning band and orchestra programs in the United States: Actual versus recommended opportunities to learn by regions, grade levels, and population densities. Paper presented at the 56th National Biennial In-Service Conference of Music Educators National Conference, Phoenix, AZ.

Pullout Lessons 15 Delzell, J. K., & Doerksen, P. F. (1998b). Reconsidering the grade level for beginning instrumental music. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 16(2), 17-22. Demorest, S. M., & Morrison, S. J. (2000). Does music make you smarter?. Music Educators Journal, 87(2), 33-58. doi: 10.2307/3399646 Doerksen, P. F., & Delzell, J. K. (2000). Grade starts and scheduling practices: Recommended vs. actual opportunities in beginning string programs. American String Teacher, 50(2), 58-63. Dryden, S. (1992). The impact of instrumental music on the academic achievement of fifth grade Students (Unpublished master s thesis). Fort Hayes State University, Kansas. Elovitz, L. H. (2002). Let s cut out all those classroom interruptions. Principal, 81(5), 57-58. Engdahl, P. B. (1994). The effect of pullout programs on the academic achievement of sixthgrade students in South Bend, Indiana (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9428809) English, F. (1984). Pullouts: How much do the erode whole-class teaching?. Principal, 63(5), 32-36. Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2006). The effect of instrumental music participation and socioeconomic status on Ohio fourth-, sixth-, and ninth-grade proficiency test performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 73-84. doi: 10.1177/002242940605400106 Fraedrich, E. (1997). Art of elementary band directing. Galesville, MD: Meredith Music. Friedman, B. (1959). An evaluation of the achievement in reading and arithmetic of pupils in elementary school instrumental music classes. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 20(9), 3662.

Pullout Lessons 16 Gamin, R. M. (2005). Teacher perceptions regarding attrition in beginning instrumental music classes during the first year of study, Contributions to Music Education, 32(2), 43-64. Gillespie, R. (1992). The elementary pull-out crisis: Using research effectively. American String Teacher, 42(2), 79-81. Groff, F. H. (1963). Effect on academic achievement of excusing elementary school pupils from classes to study instrumental music. Dissertations Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 25(9), 5014. Hash, P. M. (2004). Hash, P. M. (2004, winter). Literature review: Pullout lessons in instrumental music education. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 159, 1-10. Hassel, B. E., & Hassel, E. A. (2009, December). Race to the top: Accelerating college and career readiness in states. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from http://www.achieve.org/rttt- TeacherEffectiveness Hennessey, G. S. (1984). Pull-outs disrupt class teaching. Instructor, 94(2), 18. Holmes, D. M. (1997). An examination of fifth-grade instrumental music programs and their relationships with music and academic achievement. Dissertations Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 58, 2126. Kinney, D. W. (2008). Selected demographic variables, school music participation, and achievement test scores of urban middle school students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 145-161. doi: 10.1177/0022429408322530 Kvet, E. J. (1985). Excusing elementary school students from regular classroom activities for the study of instrumental music: The effect on sixth-grade reading, language, and mathematics achievement. Journal of Research in Music Education, 32, 45-54. doi: 10.2307/3344757

Pullout Lessons 17 Lee, K. (2009, December 10). Districts cautious with state s race to the top. Illinois Statehouse News. Retrieved from http://illinois.statehousenewsonline.com/tag/race-tothe-top/ Meyers, J., Gelzheiser, L., Yelich, G., & Gallagher, M. (1990). Classroom, remedial, and resource teachers views of pullout programs. Elementary School Journal, 90(5), 533-545. MENC: The National Association for Music Education (2007). Specialized music instruction MENC position statement. Retrieved from http://www.menc.org/about/view/specializedmusic-instruction Mixon, K. (2007). Reaching and teaching all instrumental music students. Lanham MD: Rowan and Littlefield. National Association of Music Merchants/MENC: The National Association for Music Education (n.d.). Keep music education strong [advocacy brochure]. Retrieve from http://www.nammfoundation.org/support-music No Child Left Behind Act (2001). Public Law 107 11, 115 Stat. 1425. Pearson, B. (ed.) (n.d.). Why music is basic: The value of music education. San Diego, CA: Neil A. Kjos. Pruitt, J. (1969). [Review of the dissertation: Effect on academic achievement of excusing elementary school pupils from classes to study instrumental music]. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 15, 57-59. Robitaille, J. P., & O Neal, S. (1981, November). Why instrumental music in elementary schools?. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 21. Sanders, A. E. (2001). Alternatives to elementary instrumental pull-out programs: A description of three programs. Unpublished master s thesis, University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

Pullout Lessons 18 Taylor, B. (1985). Let s pull out of the pullout programs. Principal, 65(1), 52-54. Wallick, M. D. (1998). A comparison study of the Ohio Proficiency Test results between fourthgrade string pullout students and those of matched ability. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 239-247. doi: 10.2307/3345626 Williams, J. (2009, December 14). Who would have guesses that the race would look like this?. Retrieved from http://www.dfer.org/2009/12/who_would_have.php

Pullout Lessons 19 Tables Table 1 Analysis One: Band Students vs. All Non-Band Students. Non Band Students Band Students ANOVA Comparison Test Year n M SD n M SD (F, p) English 2007 94 14.43 3.55 23 18.04 3.48 19.34 (.000)*** 2008 100 14.68 3.68 23 18.65 3.23 22.75 (.000)*** 2009 98 14.22 3.99 15 19.60 4.12 23.43 (.000)*** Combined 292 14.45 3.74 61 18.66 3.55 65.15 (.000)*** Math 2007 94 16.69 3.50 23 19.61 2.95 13.62 (.000)*** 2008 100 16.64 2.95 23 19.48 2.89 17.48 (.000)*** 2009 98 16.79 3.60 15 20.40 3.60 13.10 (.000)*** Combined 292 16.71 3.34 61 19.75 3.07 43.09 (.000)*** Reading 2007 94 14.91 3.24 23 16.78 3.61 05.89 (.017)* 2008 100 15.35 3.33 23 17.91 3.75 10.58 (.001) b 2009 98 15.09 3.48 15 18.13 4.03 09.54 (.003)** Combined 292 15.12 3.34 61 17.54 3.75 25.28 (.000)*** Science 2007 94 16.81 2.57 23 19.17 2.50 15.86 (.000)*** 2008 100 17.10 2.70 23 18.65 1.72 06.93 (.010) a 2009 98 17.04 3.04 15 20.80 3.26 19.58 (.000)*** Combined 292 16.99 2.77 61 19.38 2.56 38.55 (.000)*** Composite Score 2007 94 15.85 2.74 23 18.49 2.54 17.47 (.000)*** 2008 100 16.06 2.79 23 18.78 2.41 18.69 (.000)*** 2009 98 15.88 3.11 15 19.93 3.33 21.76 (.000)*** Combined 292 15.93 2.88 61 18.95 2.72 56.62 (.000)*** * p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001 a p =.01. b p =.001.

Pullout Lessons 20 Table 2 Analysis Three: Band Students vs. Non-Band Students above Composite Mean. Non Band Students Band Students ANOVA Comparison Test Year n M SD n M SD (F, p) English 2007 35 17.66 2.79 23 18.04 3.48 0.22 (.642) 2008 43 17.70 2.90 23 18.65 3.23 1.50 (.225) 2009 32 18.21 3.33 15 19.60 4.12 1.51 (.226) Combined 110 17.84 2.98 61 18.66 3.55 2.58 (.110) Math 2007 35 19.54 2.34 23 19.61 2.95 0.01 (.925) 2008 43 19.12 1.82 23 19.48 2.89 0.39 (.534) 2009 32 20.31 3.00 15 20.40 3.60 0.09 (.931) Combined 110 19.60 2.40 61 19.75 3.07 0.13 (.717) Reading 2007 35 17.78 2.86 23 16.78 3.61 1.35 (.251) 2008 43 17.98 3.25 23 17.91 3.75 0.01 (.943) 2009 32 18.78 3.00 15 18.13 4.03 0.38 (.540) Combined 110 18.14 3.06 61 17.54 3.75 1.30 (.256) Science 2007 35 19.06 2.04 23 19.17 2.50 0.04 (.846) 2008 43 19.23 1.85 23 18.65 1.72 1.55 (.218) 2009 32 20.19 2.44 15 20.80 3.26 0.52 (.476) Combined 110 18.92 1.83 61 19.38 2.56 0.05 (.833) Composite Score 2007 35 18.66 1.61 23 18.49 2.54 0.11 (.743) 2008 43 18.70 1.71 23 18.78 2.41 0.03 (.869) 2009 32 19.50 2.11 15 19.93 3.33 0.30 (.590) Combined 110 18.92 1.83 61 18.95 2.72 0.01 (.926)