Music Scope & Sequence Audit
Twenty course documents reviewed against the 2026–2027 Academic Guidebook and the Illinois Arts Learning Standards, with a development plan for the year ahead.
Executive summary
The Music Department enters its Curriculum Development year with a document set that is unusually consistent in format and genuinely strong in two of its four pathways — and materially incomplete in the two that are changing fastest.
All twenty scope and sequence documents share a single template, carry the full Illinois mandate and WIDA compliance grid, and were revised on a common date. That uniformity is a real asset: it means the department can be audited, compared, and updated as a system rather than as twenty separate negotiations. The guitar and band pathways, in particular, contain the kind of specific, measurable vertical progression that most departments only claim to have.
Three issues need decisions this year rather than next.
- Two courses the district actively advertises have no curriculum document at all. Wind Symphony and Wind Symphony Percussion carry full course descriptions, course codes, and an audition requirement in the 2026–2027 guidebook, but no scope and sequence exists for either. They sit in the middle of the band vertical, between Symphonic Band and Wind Ensemble.
- The Music Production restructure is not reflected anywhere in the curriculum documents. The guidebook already lists Music Production Studio as a year-long, 1.0-credit course. The document set still describes three semester courses, and the one it calls Music Production 3 duplicates content already taught in Music Production 1.
- Creating is nearly absent from the performance ensembles. Of the fourteen documented performance courses, exactly one cites any of the three Illinois Creating anchor standards, and none cites Anchor Standard 3. This is the department's clearest standards gap and the easiest to defend fixing.
None of this reflects weak teaching. It reflects a document set that was written once in 2022–2023, revised once in March 2024, and has not been touched since — while the course catalog moved on without it. The Curriculum Development year is exactly the right place to close that distance.
Strengths worth protecting — and copying
Two pathways in this department already do what the other two are being asked to do. The development work should propagate their patterns rather than invent new ones.
Guitar: named repertoire, unit by unit, level by level
Model practiceGuitar is the strongest documentation in the department. Guitar 1 and Guitar 2 list actual content per unit — specific strings, notes, and chords in sequence, with defined vocabulary sets. Guitar Studio and Guitar Studio Honors are differentiated by genuinely different repertoire, named piece by piece and organized by historical period.
This is what a defensible honors distinction looks like. A parent, an administrator, or a new teacher can see exactly what the weighted credit buys.
Band: differentiation expressed in numbers, not adjectives
Model practiceThe Symphonic Band → Wind Ensemble progression is differentiated by countable, verifiable criteria rather than by swapping the word "intermediate" for "advanced."
Scale counts and sight-reading grade levels are auditable and can be assessed in common across sections. This is the single most transferable pattern in the document set.
Orchestra Honors: assessment beyond the concert
Model practiceOrchestra Honors is the only ensemble document that names assessment types other than performance and discussion: written program notes, student presentations, a chamber music unit, and theory competency checks through musictheory.net. It also raises its own essential questions above the introductory course — asking how advanced harmonic structures shape a performance and how theory improves sight-reading and ear training, rather than restating what music theory is for.
A single template, applied consistently, with the compliance grid built in
Structural strengthEvery document carries the same Illinois State Board of Education mandate grid, SEL standards, Computer Literacy strands, Media Literacy strands, and WIDA / EL Development standards. Every document names authors and revisers. Every document states length, credit, grade level, sequence, graduation requirement, and prerequisites in the same place.
The department can therefore run department-wide queries — which is how this audit was possible. Preserve the template. The findings below are about what goes into the fields, not the fields themselves.
Two live college-credit connections already in place
LeverageAmerican Music carries JJC dual credit as MUS 102, AP Music Theory maps to MUS 104, and the district already publishes a full JJC Certificate: Music Technology pathway in the guidebook — including MUS 180 Intro to Music Technology, MUS 181 Intermediate Music Technology, and MUS 170 Intro to Music Business. That certificate pathway is the strongest available argument for what the restructured Music Production sequence should be aiming at.
Anchor standard coverage across the department
Every anchor standard cited in every unit of all twenty documents, mapped against the four artistic processes. The vertical gap on the left side of this table is the department's headline finding.
| Course | Creating | Performing | Responding | Connecting | Total | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ||
| Guitar | ||||||||||||
| Guitar 1 | • | • | · | • | • | • | · | · | · | • | • | 7 |
| Guitar 2 | · | · | · | • | • | · | · | · | · | • | • | 4 |
| Guitar Studio | · | · | · | • | • | • | · | • | • | · | • | 6 |
| Guitar Studio Honors | · | · | · | • | • | • | · | • | • | · | • | 6 |
| Instrumental & Percussion | ||||||||||||
| Symphonic Band | · | · | · | • | • | • | · | • | • | • | • | 7 |
| Symphonic Band Percussion | · | · | · | • | • | • | · | • | • | • | • | 7 |
| Wind Symphony | No scope & sequence document exists — course is in the 2026–2027 guidebook (QDWS) | -- | ||||||||||
| Wind Symphony Percussion | No scope & sequence document exists — course is in the 2026–2027 guidebook (QDWP) | -- | ||||||||||
| Wind Ensemble | · | · | · | • | • | • | · | • | • | • | • | 7 |
| Wind Ensemble Percussion | · | · | · | • | • | • | · | • | • | • | • | 7 |
| Orchestra | ||||||||||||
| String Orchestra | · | · | · | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | 8 |
| Orchestra Honors | · | · | · | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | 8 |
| Vocal | ||||||||||||
| Treble Choir | · | · | · | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | 8 |
| Mixed Choir | · | · | · | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | 8 |
| Concert Chorale | · | · | · | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | 8 |
| Chorale | · | · | · | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | 8 |
| Chamber Singers | No separate document — guidebook chart lists it as its own course, description merges it with Concert Chorale | -- | ||||||||||
| Production | ||||||||||||
| Piano | · | · | · | · | • | · | · | · | • | · | · | 2 |
| Music Production (1) | • | • | • | · | • | • | • | · | • | · | • | 8 |
| Music Production 2 | • | • | • | · | · | · | • | · | · | · | • | 5 |
| Music Production 3 orphaned | • | • | • | · | · | · | • | · | · | · | • | 5 |
| Music Production Studio | No scope & sequence document exists — course is in the 2026–2027 guidebook (QDP3, Year · 1.0 credit) | -- | ||||||||||
| Theory & History | ||||||||||||
| American Music | Document contains no unit tables — defers to JJC MUS 102 dual-credit standards | 0 | ||||||||||
| AP Music Theory | Document contains no unit tables — defers to the College Board Course Audit | 0 | ||||||||||
| Courses citing each standard | 4 | 4 | 3 | 14 | 16 | 14 | 9 | 12 | 14 | 12 | 17 | |
Read down the Creating columns. Fourteen of the twenty documents are performance courses; Guitar 1 is the only one of them that cites any Creating standard, and it cites two of the three. Anchor Standard 3 — revise, refine, and complete artistic work — appears only in the three Music Production documents.
The mirror image is also visible: the Music Production courses carry Creating but almost no Performing or Responding depth. Music Production 2 and 3 cite five standards each and omit Anchor Standards 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 entirely.
Piano is the thinnest document in the department at two standards across five units, which matters more than it looks: Piano is listed as the hard prerequisite gate to the entire Production pathway.
Weaknesses, in priority order
Ordered by what a reviewer or a new hire would notice first, not by how hard each is to fix.
Three advertised courses have no curriculum document
Priority 1 · ComplianceWind Symphony (QDWS), Wind Symphony Percussion (QDWP), and Music Production Studio (QDP3) all carry full course descriptions, credit values, grade ranges, and — for the two band courses — audition prerequisites in the 2026–2027 Academic Guidebook. None has a scope and sequence document.
Wind Symphony is the harder problem of the two: it sits in the middle of the band vertical that the Symphonic Band and Wind Ensemble documents both reference by name in their Course Sequence field. The department therefore documents the entry point and the destination of that pathway but not the step between them — which is also the first auditioned tier.
The Creating process is missing from the performance ensembles
Priority 1 · StandardsIllinois groups its music anchor standards into four artistic processes. Creating (AS 1–3) is a required part of the framework, not an elective emphasis. The choirs, orchestras, bands, and upper guitar courses cite none of it.
This is likely a documentation gap rather than an instructional one — ensembles do improvise, arrange, and compose warm-ups and cadences. But if it is not in the document, it cannot be claimed in the review.
The fix is small and does not require new units: add one Creating strand to an existing unit in each ensemble. Realistic candidates already implied by the current documents:
- Bands: student-composed warm-up or chorale exercise inside the existing Musicianship unit (AS 1, 2)
- Choirs: written and revised vocal-jazz or descant arrangement inside the Musicianship unit (AS 1, 2, 3)
- Orchestras: the chamber music unit already named in Orchestra Honors extends naturally to student arranging (AS 2, 3)
- Guitar Studio / Honors: a period-style composition or improvisation attached to the Renaissance-through-present unit (AS 1, 3)
Every document was last revised on the same day — 29 months ago
Priority 1 · ProcessAll twenty documents carry "Date Revised 3/25/2024." No document has been touched since, despite the Music Production restructure and the 2026–2027 guidebook changes. A single common revision date across an entire department also suggests the March 2024 pass was a batch formatting update rather than course-level revision — which is consistent with what the content shows.
Choral differentiation is labels, not measurable criteria
Priority 2 · Vertical alignmentThe four choir documents are otherwise nearly identical. Differentiation across the entire vertical rests on the Key Student Materials label — "Beginning Repertoire," "Repertoire," "Beginning/Intermediate Repertoire," "Advanced Repertoire" — plus one phrase swap in outcomes: "basic musical terms" versus "intermediate/advanced musical terms."
Compare that to the band vertical, which specifies scale counts and sight-reading grade levels. The choral documents need the band treatment.
Guitar 2 covers fewer standards than Guitar 1
Priority 2 · Vertical alignmentGuitar 1 cites Anchor Standards 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 11. Guitar 2 cites only 4, 5, 10, and 11 — dropping both Creating standards and Anchor Standard 6. The sequel course is narrower on paper than the introduction, and neither Guitar Studio nor Guitar Studio Honors ever restores Creating.
This is almost certainly an artifact of who wrote which unit table rather than a real curricular decision, but a reviewer reading the four documents in order will see a pathway that regresses.
Assessment language is generic and repeats verbatim within courses
Priority 2 · AssessmentPiano lists the identical assessment block in all five units: "Performance Assessments, including composing multiple simple melodies on the piano keyboard. Peer evaluations, Self-evaluations; Traditional tests and worksheet assignments." All three Music Production documents use one identical block across every unit. Most ensembles reduce to "Concert performances" plus "Class discussions."
Two consequences. First, there is no way to tell what a unit actually assesses, so common assessments cannot be built from these documents — which is a stated department chair evaluation area. Second, Piano's assessment requires students to compose in every unit while the document cites no Creating standard at all: the assessment and the standards contradict each other.
No course claims any Illinois content mandate beyond Fine Arts
Priority 2 · Compliance opportunityAcross all twenty documents, the only mandate box checked is Fine Arts. Black History, Native American History, Asian American History, Women in History, Holocaust and Genocide, Disabled Persons History, Character Education, Writing Intensive, and Computer Literacy Intensive are unchecked everywhere.
Music is one of the strongest available vehicles for several of these, and in at least two cases the courses already teach the content:
- American Music is a survey of "musical traditions experienced by the peoples of the Americas from the pre-colonial period to today." Black History, Native American History, and Women in History are defensible on the existing description alone.
- Music Production is a fully computer-based course that does not check Computer Literacy Intensive. It checks the "Basic Operations, Concepts, and Keyboarding" strand — whose boilerplate is about fine motor skills and touchscreens — while leaving "Multimedia, Software Applications, and Collaboration Tools" unchecked. That is backwards for a DAW course.
- Music Production Unit 3 covers how music "is used to advertise and entice the consumer" and "the art of the jingle." That is media message analysis, but "Analyzing and evaluating media messages" and "Reflecting on media consumption" are both unchecked.
Every document also checks "Basic Operations, Concepts, and Keyboarding" and the "Accessing information" media literacy strand, identically, including Wind Ensemble and Chorale. Uniform checkboxes across twenty different courses read as copy-paste to a reviewer, which undercuts the credibility of the boxes that are genuinely earned.
Essential questions are procedural rather than essential
Priority 3 · QualityPiano asks "How do you read music?" and "How do you play piano?" in every unit. All three Music Production courses ask one question — "How is music produced?" — in every unit of every course. These are closed and answerable, and they do not escalate across a three-course sequence.
Orchestra Honors and Guitar Studio show what the alternative looks like within this same template: "How can our understanding of advanced chord progressions or harmonic structures create a more interesting or emotional performance?" and "How has classical music evolved over time and what factors have contributed to its development?"
Copy-paste errors and field mix-ups across the set
Priority 3 · Accuracy- Guitar Studio and Guitar Studio Honors have the Grade Level and Course Sequence values swapped — Grade Level reads "Guitar 1, Guitar 2, Guitar Studio, Guitar Studio Honors" and Course Sequence reads "9, 10, 11, 12."
- Chorale's Course Sequence names "Mixed Chorus," a course that does not exist in the guidebook.
- Piano Unit 5 is titled "Advanced Playing Techniques" and teaches Circle of Fifths, blues progression, and minor keys — but its Purpose/Rationale says "performing in the Key of C," copied from Unit 2. Unit 4 and Unit 5 outcomes are otherwise near-identical.
- Wind Ensemble's Sight Reading and Performance Practice units are timed at "30 days" while all other units in all four band documents read "Throughout the Entire Year."
- Music Production 2 and 3 Unit 1 reproduce Music Production 1's Purpose/Rationale verbatim — text about performing in an ensemble, in a technology course.
- Wind Ensemble's reviser field misspells "Stacy Wiliams-Jackson."
- The department introduction, identical in all twenty documents and in the guidebook, names the choral ensembles as "Chorale, Chamber Singers, and Mixed Choir" — omitting Treble Choir and Concert Chorale, both of which have their own documents.
Music Production 1, 2, and Studio
This is the one pathway where the curriculum documents do not describe the courses the district is actually offering — and it is also the pathway with the clearest external opportunity attached to it.
The 2026–2027 guidebook already lists Music Production Studio (QDP3) as a year-long, 1.0-credit course for grades 10–12, with "an emphasis on independent projects," sound sampling, cross-disciplinary work with Art, Business, and Dance, and "a professional portfolio." The scope and sequence set still contains three semester documents: Music Production, Music Production 2, and Music Production 3.
So the current state is:
- Music Production 1 — document exists but is titled "Music Production," while its own Course Sequence field says "Music Production 1." The guidebook uses "Music Production" everywhere.
- Music Production 2 — document exists and matches the course name, but is substantively incomplete (below).
- Music Production Studio — no document. The Music Production 3 document is orphaned and cannot simply be renamed, because it was written for a semester and Studio is a full year.
Music Production 2 and 3 are not scope and sequence documents in the sense the other eighteen are. Each contains one named unit ("Review of Music Production," 2–3 weeks) plus a single column headed "Subsequent Units" at "2–3 weeks each," with no count. Roughly fifteen of eighteen weeks per course are undefined.
Worse, the content that is named overlaps backwards. Music Production 3's subsequent units are "Movies and Music Theory" — movie construction, soundtrack, credits. Music Production 1's Unit 3 already spends nine weeks on "Soundtrack/Movie: Impact of music on setting the scene for stories, sound effects, and character motives." A student completing the sequence would meet film scoring twice and advanced production technique never.
What the restructure should resolve
Four decisions are worth making deliberately rather than inheriting.
1 · Whether Piano stays the gate
EnrollmentThe Music Production 1 scope and sequence lists "Prerequisites: Piano." The guidebook lists no prerequisite for Music Production at all. These have to be reconciled, and the reconciliation is a real policy choice, not a typo fix.
Keeping the gate means a student interested in production commits four semesters — Piano, MP1, MP2, then a year of Studio — and cannot start the pathway until a keyboard course fits their schedule. Piano's own document is also the thinnest in the department (two anchor standards, five units, no named materials), and its content is acoustic keyboard technique rather than the MIDI, chord function, and DAW literacy MP1 opens with.
If the gate stays, Piano needs revision to serve as a genuine foundation. If it goes, the guidebook is already consistent with removing it.
2 · Whether Studio is weighted
CreditThe department's own precedent points one way. Guitar Studio is a year-long 1.0-credit course at standard weight; Guitar Studio Honors is the weighted capstone above it. Wind Ensemble, Chorale, AP Music Theory, and Orchestra Honors are all weighted. Music Production Studio is currently unweighted.
Given that Studio's guidebook description already promises independent projects, cross-disciplinary commissions, and a professional portfolio, it is worth deciding now whether Studio is the standard-weight year-long course with an honors tier to follow, or whether Studio itself should be weighted. The guitar model — which the new naming deliberately mirrors — suggests the former.
3 · Naming the software, and choosing it
MaterialsAll three Music Production documents list Key Student Materials as "Performance-based project rubric; Online resources; Music Production Software." No DAW is named, no notation software, no hardware, no version. In the one course in the department where the tool is the curriculum, the tool is unspecified.
This also carries an external dependency. The only software named anywhere in the district's own materials is in the JJC Music Technology certificate blurb, which says students will study Finale and Pro Tools. MakeMusic discontinued Finale in August 2024 and now partners with Steinberg to sell Dorico instead. If the district is pointing students toward that certificate, that reference needs checking with JJC.
4 · Pursuing dual credit for the pathway
OpportunityThe district already publishes a JJC Certificate: Music Technology pathway with an example program of study, and American Music already runs as dual credit through MUS 102. The JJC catalog courses in that certificate include MUS 180 Intro to Music Technology and MUS 181 Intermediate Music Technology — a two-step technology sequence that maps naturally onto a restructured MP2 and Studio.
A year-long Studio course is also a much better fit for a single college course articulation than a semester elective was. If the restructure is going to require writing a full year-long scope and sequence from scratch anyway, aligning that writing to MUS 180/181 outcomes costs little extra and converts a curriculum obligation into a student benefit that appears in the guidebook.
Guidebook language that needs updating alongside the documents
- The Fine Arts summary list still reads Music Production (1,2,3).
- The JJC Music Technology example program of study still lists Music Production 2 and Music Production 3 in the junior and senior years.
- Course Sequence lines on Piano, Music Production, and Music Production 2 read "Piano, Music Production, Music Production 2, Music Production Studio" — correct on Studio, but the guidebook never uses "Music Production 1" anywhere.
- The Music Production Studio description says students "create a professional portfolio during the semester" — in a course listed as Year · 1.0 Credit.
Where the guidebook and the curriculum documents disagree
The guidebook is the document families read and counselors schedule from. Where the two disagree, the guidebook wins in practice — so these are the discrepancies most likely to surface as a parent question or a scheduling error.
| Course | Field | Guidebook (2026–2027) | Scope & sequence | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Orchestra Honors | Credit weight | Year · 1 Credit (Weighted) | Year · 1 Credit | Correct the S&S |
| Guitar Studio Honors | Grade level | 11, 12 | 10, 11, 12 | Confirm intent, then align |
| Music Production | Prerequisite | None listed | Piano | Policy decision — see §05 |
| Music Production 2 | Prerequisite | None listed | Piano, Music Production | Policy decision — see §05 |
| Wind Ensemble & Percussion | Prerequisite | Audition; previous experience | No prerequisite field | Add to the S&S |
| Treble Choir | Course sequence | Treble or Mixed Choir, Concert Chorale, Chorale | Treble Choir (dead end) | Correct the S&S |
| Concert Chorale | Course sequence | Mixed Choir, Concert Chorale/Chamber Singers, Chorale | Mixed Choir | Correct the S&S |
| Chorale | Course sequence | Mixed Choir, Concert Chorale/Chamber Singers, Chorale | Mixed Chorus (no such course) | Correct the S&S |
| AP Music Theory | Prerequisite | Application, teacher recommendation | Must qualify for or be invited | Use one phrasing |
| American Music | Course sequence | Charted as feeding AP Music Theory | None | Correct the S&S |
| AP Music Theory | Course sequence | Charted after American Music | None | Correct the S&S |
| Band pathway | Course sequence | Concert Band/Symphonic Band, Wind Symphony, Wind Ensemble | Symphonic Band, Wind Symphony, Wind Ensemble | Retire "Concert Band" or define it |
| Wind Symphony | Sequence chart | Omitted from the chart, but named in its own sequence line | No document | Write the S&S; fix the chart |
| Piano | Course sequence | Piano, Music Production, Music Production 2, Music Production Studio | Piano, Music Production 1, Music Production 2, Music Production 3 | Adopt one naming convention |
Document audit
Unit counts, timing treatment, and the single most consequential issue in each document. Sorted by pathway.
| Course | Length | Units | AS | Timing treatment | Priority issue | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guitar 1 | Semester | 4 | 7 | Untimed — "throughout course" | No unit timing; drops Creating after this course | Strong |
| Guitar 2 | Semester | 5 | 4 | Untimed — "throughout course" | Narrowest standards coverage of the guitar four | Revise |
| Guitar Studio | Year | 5 | 6 | Untimed — "throughout course" | Grade Level / Course Sequence fields swapped | Strong |
| Guitar Studio Honors | Year (W) | 5 | 6 | Untimed — "throughout course" | Fields swapped; grade level conflicts with guidebook | Strong |
| Symphonic Band | Year | 6 | 7 | Year-long strands + 4 concert cycles | No Creating standards | Strong |
| Symphonic Band Percussion | Year | 6 | 7 | Year-long strands + 4 concert cycles | No Creating standards | Strong |
| Wind Symphony | Year | -- | -- | No document — advertised as QDWS, audition required | Write | |
| Wind Symphony Percussion | Year | -- | -- | No document — advertised as QDWP, audition required | Write | |
| Wind Ensemble | Year (W) | 6 | 7 | Year-long strands, but Sight Reading = "30 days" | Timing inconsistency; no Creating standards | Strong |
| Wind Ensemble Percussion | Year (W) | 6 | 7 | Year-long strands + 4 concert cycles | No Creating standards | Strong |
| String Orchestra | Year | 5 | 8 | Year-long strands + 4 concert cycles | Generic rationale text; no Creating standards | Revise |
| Orchestra Honors | Year | 5 | 8 | Year-long strands + 4 concert cycles | Weight conflicts with guidebook; grades 11–12 only | Strong |
| Treble Choir | Year | 5 | 8 | Year-long strands + 4 concert cycles | Sequence shown as a dead end; label-only differentiation | Revise |
| Mixed Choir | Year | 5 | 8 | Year-long strands + 4 concert cycles | Label-only differentiation; no prerequisite field | Revise |
| Concert Chorale | Year | 5 | 8 | Year-long strands + 4 concert cycles | Repertoire label below Chorale despite audition entry | Revise |
| Chorale | Year (W) | 5 | 8 | Year-long strands + 4 concert cycles | Sequence names a nonexistent course | Revise |
| Chamber Singers | -- | -- | -- | Charted as a course; merged into Concert Chorale's description | Define | |
| Piano | Semester | 5 | 2 | Fully timed — 2+4+4+4+4 = 18 weeks | Thinnest standards coverage; gates the whole pathway | Rewrite |
| Music Production 1 | Semester | 3 | 8 | Fully timed — 4+5+9 = 18 weeks | Title/naming drift; Unit 3 overlaps MP3 | Revise |
| Music Production 2 | Semester | 1 + “subsequent” | 5 | ~15 of 18 weeks undefined | Not a usable scope & sequence as written | Rewrite |
| Music Production 3 | Semester | 1 + “subsequent” | 5 | ~15 of 18 weeks undefined | Orphaned by the restructure; duplicates MP1 Unit 3 | Retire |
| Music Production Studio | Year | -- | -- | No document — advertised as QDP3, Year · 1.0 credit | Write | |
| American Music | Semester | 0 | 0 | No unit tables | Defers to JJC MUS 102; no district-side units | Supplement |
| AP Music Theory | Year (W) | 0 | 0 | No unit tables | Defers to College Board audit; no district-side units | Supplement |
A note on the two zero-unit documents. Deferring to the College Board Course Audit and to JJC's MUS 102 outcomes is legitimate practice, and both documents say so explicitly with links. But a district scope and sequence that contains no units cannot be used for the things the district uses these documents for — common assessment design, substitute or new-teacher onboarding, or demonstrating mandate coverage. A one-page district-side unit map that sits alongside the external standards would close that without duplicating the College Board's or JJC's work.
How to move forward
Sequenced so that the decisions that unblock writing happen before the writing, and the two courses with no document at all are finished before scheduling for 2027–2028 begins.
Decide
Settle the four open questions before anyone writes
Each of these changes what gets written, so none should be resolved by whoever happens to draft first.
- Is Piano a prerequisite for Music Production? The guidebook and the curriculum document currently disagree, and the answer determines whether Piano needs a rewrite as a foundation course or a repositioning as a standalone elective.
- Is Music Production Studio weighted, and is there an honors tier above it? Resolve against the Guitar Studio / Guitar Studio Honors precedent the new naming mirrors.
- Is Chamber Singers a course, a section, or an alias? Then make the guidebook chart, the course description, and the scope and sequence agree.
- Does "Concert Band" still exist? It appears only in guidebook Course Sequence lines with no description and no document. Retire the name or define the course.
Owner: department chair, with the band, choral, and production leads
Standardize
Agree on what "differentiated" and "assessed" mean, in writing
Before twenty documents get revised by five sets of hands, adopt the two patterns the department has already proven work — so revision converges instead of diverging.
- Vertical differentiation must be countable. Adopt the band model as the department standard: scale counts, sight-reading grade levels, named repertoire or named literature difficulty. "Advanced" and "intermediate" are not differentiation.
- Assessment must name the instrument. "Concert performances" and "traditional tests" do not describe an assessment. The choirs' Breezin' Thru Theory cadence, the orchestras' musictheory.net checks, and Orchestra Honors' written program notes are the in-house models.
- Every unit cites at least one anchor standard, and every course covers all four artistic processes. This is the single rule that closes the Creating gap without a document-by-document argument.
- Every course claims the mandates it actually teaches. Do a deliberate pass on the ISBE grid rather than inheriting the checked boxes. Uniform checkmarks across twenty courses read as unexamined.
Write this down as a one-page departmental revision guide. It also gives the department chair something concrete to point to under Curriculum Leadership and Common Assessments in the evaluation framework.
Owner: department chair · Output: departmental revision guide
Write the missing
Three new documents, in this order
- Music Production Studio — a full year, written from scratch. Do not rename Music Production 3; it was scoped for a semester and its content duplicates MP1's film scoring unit. Build it from the guidebook description that already exists: independent projects, sound sampling, cross-disciplinary commissions with Art, Business, and Dance, and a portfolio. Name the DAW. Cite all four artistic processes. If dual credit is being pursued, align outcomes to JJC MUS 180/181 while writing rather than retrofitting later.
- Wind Symphony and Wind Symphony Percussion — these are the fastest wins in the plan, because Symphonic Band and Wind Ensemble already establish the two endpoints on countable criteria. The middle tier interpolates: five major scales and one to two minor scales, Grade 3–4 sight reading, the same six unit strands. Add the audition prerequisite the guidebook already states.
Owner: production lead; band leads · Output: 3 new scope & sequence documents
Parallel track
Rewrite the four weakest existing documents
Runs alongside the new writing, since it needs different people.
- Music Production 1 and 2 — replace "Subsequent Units / 2–3 weeks each" with named, timed units totaling eighteen weeks. Remove the film scoring content from MP1 Unit 3 if it now belongs in Studio, or keep it and remove it from Studio — but not both. Escalate the essential question across the three courses instead of repeating "How is music produced?" nine times. Check Computer Literacy Intensive and the multimedia and media-analysis strands the courses genuinely teach.
- Piano — the outcome depends on the prerequisite decision. Either way: fix the Unit 5 rationale that says "Key of C," differentiate the Unit 4 and Unit 5 outcomes, give each unit its own assessment, name a method book and the keyboards, and add Creating standards to match the composing the assessments already require.
- Guitar 2 — restore Anchor Standards 1, 2, and 6 so the pathway stops narrowing after Guitar 1.
Owner: production and guitar leads · Output: 4 revised documents
Align
The choral vertical, and Creating across every ensemble
- Fix the choral ladder, then put criteria on it. Establish the intended order across Treble Choir, Mixed Choir, Concert Chorale, and Chorale — including whether Treble Choir is an entry point into the vertical or a parallel track — then differentiate with countable criteria rather than repertoire labels. Correct Chorale's "Mixed Chorus" and Treble Choir's dead-end sequence.
- Add one Creating strand to every ensemble document. Bands and choirs already have a Musicianship unit that will hold it; Orchestra Honors already has a chamber music unit; Guitar Studio has a historical-period unit. This is an addition to existing units, not new units, and it is the department's most visible standards gap.
- Add district-side unit maps to American Music and AP Music Theory without duplicating the College Board or JJC frameworks they properly defer to.
Owner: choral leads; all ensemble leads · Output: 8 revised documents
Reconcile
Clean the field-level errors and sync the guidebook
Mechanical, fast, and best done in one pass across all documents at once rather than course by course.
- Un-swap Grade Level and Course Sequence on both Guitar Studio documents.
- Mark Orchestra Honors as weighted; reconcile Guitar Studio Honors' grade range.
- Add the missing Prerequisites field to the seven documents that omit it entirely.
- Standardize every Course Sequence line against a single agreed pathway map, and adopt one name per course — "Music Production 1" or "Music Production," not both.
- Fix Wind Ensemble's "30 days" timing and its misspelled reviser name; update the shared department introduction so it names all five choral ensembles.
- Submit the guidebook corrections for 2027–2028: the Music Production (1,2,3) summary list, the JJC pathway table, the Music Production Studio "during the semester" phrasing, and Wind Symphony's absence from the sequence chart.
- Confirm with the JJC Office of Dual Credit whether the Music Technology certificate still teaches Finale, which MakeMusic discontinued in 2024.
Owner: department chair · Output: all 22 documents field-consistent with the guidebook
Verify
Audit the revised set before implementation
Re-run this audit against the revised documents and check three things specifically, because they are the ones that will be asked about in Implementation Year 1:
- Every course has a document, and every document matches a real course in the 2027–2028 guidebook.
- Every course cites at least one anchor standard from each of the four artistic processes.
- Every pathway's differentiation is stated in criteria a second teacher could apply without asking the author.
Then stagger the revision dates. A department where all twenty-three documents share one revision date cannot show a reviewer which courses are actively maintained.
Owner: department chair · Output: implementation-ready set for 2027–2028
Three documents written from scratch, four substantially rewritten, eight revised for standards and differentiation, and a mechanical field pass across the whole set — which lands at twenty-two live documents once Music Production 3 is retired and the three missing courses are written. The two Wind Symphony documents and the field pass are the least expensive items on this list and close the most visible gaps — if the year gets compressed, protect those and the Music Production Studio document, in that order.
