Running head: INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY 05-Jun-2015 Dear Dr. Salvador: Ref: Intersections Between Music Education and Music Therapy: Education Reform, Arts Education, Exceptionality, and Policy at the Local Level Our reviewers have now considered your paper and have recommended publication in Arts Education Policy Review. Congratulations. We are pleased to accept your paper in its current form which will now be forwarded to the publisher for copy editing and typesetting. The reviewer comments are included at the bottom of this letter. You will receive proofs for checking, and instructions for transfer of copyright in due course. The publisher also requests that proofs are checked through the publisher’s tracking system and returned within 48 hours of receipt. Thank you for your contribution to Arts Education Policy Review and we look forward to receiving further submissions from you. Sincerely, Dr. Conway Editor in Chief, Arts Education Policy Review conwaycm@umich.edu Intersections Between Music Education and Music Therapy: Education Reform, Arts Education, Exceptionality, and Policy at the Local Level
Karen Salvador, Ph.D University of Michigan, Flint
Varvara Pasiali, Ph.D., MT-BC Queens University of Charlotte
1
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
Intersections Between Music Education and Music Therapy: Education Reform, Arts Education, Exceptionality, and Policy at the Local Level
2
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
3
Abstract In this paper, a music teacher educator and a music therapy clinician and educator discuss special education policy and arts instruction at the district level. To illustrate the gulf between federal and local policies with regard to exceptional learners and arts instruction, we examine the intersections of music therapy and music education with regard to self-contained classes of students with moderate to severe disabilities. Our discussion focuses on provision of services and opportunity to learn, and results in specific policy suggestions, including: (a) increasing administrators’ understanding of music therapy, adaptive music education, and music education, so that decisions regarding arts instruction can be better-informed and more child-centered, (b) treating music therapists as allied health professionals who do not need to be certified teachers to practice in schools, and (c) improving initial music teacher preparation and providing opportunities for professional development to increase awareness of necessary information and effective strategies to improve music teaching and learning for students with special needs.
Keywords: Music Education, Music Therapy, Exceptionality, Policy, Special Education
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
4
Intersections Between Music Education and Music Therapy: Education Reform, Arts Education, Exceptionality, and Policy at the Local Level
In a recent Arts Education Policy Review special issue, authors discussed arts education, school reform, and children with exceptionalities (Conway, 2014). This attention to the challenging ramifications of federal education policy for children with special needs, particularly with regard to arts instruction, was timely and important. Reading the special issue provided the impetus for us to examine local policies that have been developed in response to No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top as they pertain to teachers’ efforts to provide excellent arts instruction to all students. Further, we wanted to expand the discussion by addressing the role of arts therapies in school settings, which is relevant to discussion of arts instruction for students with exceptionalities, particularly when those students have more global or acute needs. To illustrate the gulf between federal and local policies with regard to exceptional learners and arts instruction, the purpose of this paper is to discuss special education policy and arts instruction at the district level. Specifically, we—a music teacher educator and a music therapy clinician and educator--examine the intersections of music therapy and music education with regard to self-contained classes of students with moderate to severe disabilities. Elementary general music teachers are routinely expected to teach these self-contained classes in districts across the nation. Such expectations illuminate important policy issues. Because our areas of expertise are music education and music therapy, we focus on music, but our intention is that this discussion would be informative for other arts educators and arts therapists. This paper begins with necessary background information, including a short description of self-contained educational settings and a brief analysis of music therapy and music education (including
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
5
purposes, training, certification, provision of music instruction, and eligibility for music therapy services). Then, by using short vignettes, we present a critical examination of the policy issues raised by the potential intersections of music education and music therapy in the case of selfcontained classes. This critical examination is organized into two broad areas: (a) delivery of services, which includes nondiscriminatory evaluation and individual education plans (IEPs), and (b) opportunity to learn, which includes qualifications, appropriateness of placement, and advocacy and collaboration. Within each critical examination, we also suggest district-level solutions and/or policies. We conclude the paper with suggestions for future research. Self-Contained Classes of Students with Moderate to Severe Disorders Every day, elementary general music teachers all over the United States encounter students with a variety of exceptionalities (Chen, 2007; Hahn, 2010; Hoffman, 2011). For many teachers, the encounter entails teaching both full-inclusion and mainstreamed students, as well as students with more global and severe challenges who attend music along with their categorical classroom (a self-contained class specific to a certain category of disability). Although specific categories and criteria for inclusion vary by state, examples of categorical classrooms commonly encountered in elementary schools include: Early Childhood Special Education, Intellectual Disabilities (sometimes called “Cognitive Impairments�), Autism Spectrum Disorders, Deaf/Hard of Hearing, and Emotional Impairment. Students served in these classes may have significant impairments to motor and/or perceptual skills, intellectual disabilities, difficulties with behavior, and/or communication disorders (or even be nonverbal). Some elementary music teachers do not feel well-prepared to adapt and modify music instruction for individual students who are mainstreamed with their age peers (Hourigan, 2009), let alone for entire classes of students with moderate to severe exceptionalities (Salvador, In
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
6
Press). Provision of instruction for preservice music teachers with regard to exceptional learners varies by institution. If it is provided at all, it is typically through general education programs and not specific to music pedagogy (Salvador, 2010). If music teachers struggling to meet the needs of their students with special needs consult professional literature, one common suggestion is to contact a music therapist (MT-BC) for assistance (e.g., Montgomery & Martinson, 2006; Patterson, 2003). Contrasting Music Therapy and Music Education Purposes of Music Therapy and Music Education Arts education and expressive arts therapies have differences of intention and content. The focus of arts education is on artistic outcomes based on a specific curriculum of skills that students must attain. On the other hand, expressive arts therapists maintain a “clear psychological intent” and a “therapeutic agenda” (Karkou, 2009; p. 11). Moreover, “the arts teacher will instruct, while the arts therapist tends not to (unless there is a clear psychological need to do so)” (p.11). Expressive arts therapists tend to pursue artistic outcomes as a basis of psychological change whereas arts educators tend to consider artistic change as important in itself. Practical differences also exist in the use of open spaces for arts instruction versus confidential spaces for arts therapies. Therapists also tend to work one-on-one or with small groups in order to assess, evaluate and monitor therapeutic outcomes, while music educators in school settings tend to work with intact classrooms of students (Karkou & Glassman, 2004; Karkou & Sanderson, 2006; as cited in Karkou, 2009). According to the Certification Board for Music Therapists (2013) “Music therapy is the specialized use of music by a credentialed professional who develops individualized treatment and supportive interventions for people of all ages and ability levels to address their social,
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
7
communication, emotional, physical, cognitive, sensory and spiritual needs” (para. 1). Thus, in music therapy, musicking (a term inclusive not only of music-making such as singing, playing instruments, improvising, and composing, but also listening to music and movement to music) is employed as part of a clinical process designed with a therapeutic agenda. In contrast, music education is primarily focused on the development of musical skills, knowledge, and abilities. Musicking is therefore both the means and the ends in music education; making music and studying music are the primary goals in music instruction, not a method for achieving nonmusical goals. Music education and music therapy converge to address the educational needs of exceptional students. Whereas music educators focus more on musical skill development and academic achievement in music, music therapists use music to address “students’ development in cognitive, behavioral, physical, emotional, social, and communication domains” (Adamek,& Darrow, 2010; p. 105). The above description however, designates music therapy and music education in two separate semantic differential categories. Closing the gap between the two professions, Aigen (2014) conceptualizes music therapy as an autonomous discipline that can encompass an overlap between clinical and nonclinical musical experiences1. As Bunt (2003) explains: Making music itself is a multidimensional activity with the unique involvement of the whole child – physically, socially, intellectually and emotionally…. The sounds
1 Even though theorists have drawn from psychology, cognitive neuroscience, anthropology, and sociology, Aigen (2014) advocates identifying music therapy as a unique discipline that should not only be conceptualized as “an intervention to remediate deficits” but also as “a medium of engagement that mobilizes strengths and resources” of clients with disabilities (p. 19). Specifically, he proposes that music therapy should be viewed “as a specialized application of music rather than a specialized form of therapy” (p. 19).
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
8
emerging from a music therapy session and a music class may even be similar, particularly if both music teacher and therapist are making use of songs and other composed material. It suffices to say in summary that it is the underlying intention behind the activity that seems to help in differentiating the experience more clearly. (Bunt, 2003; p. 191). Training and Certification of Therapists and Educators In the United States, music therapists must complete a bachelors or Master’s degree program approved by the American Music Therapy Association (AMTA). These degree programs include coursework that emphasizes building musical skills, understanding the needs and diagnoses of exceptional populations, and developing a repertoire of music therapy clinical foundations and interventions. In addition to academic coursework, the curriculum requires 1200 hours of clinical training, including a supervised internship (AMTA 2013a, 2013b). Music therapists are eligible to sit for the certification board exam upon completion of all degree requirements and obtain the credential of Music Therapist Board Certified (MT-BC). Certification requirements for music teachers vary by state. Typically, music teachers earn a bachelor’s degree in music education, which includes coursework in music content areas such as performance, history, theory, conducting, and aural skills, as well as music pedagogy and general teacher education courses as required by the state and university/college. Most states require at least one teacher certification examination, such as the Praxis, and at least one extended internship of 7-15 weeks teaching full-time in a school prior to certification2. Provision of Music Instruction
2 The website teach.org provides information on the certification requirements in every state. See https://www.teach.org/teaching-certification
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
9
In 2012, a survey conducted by the National Center for Educational Statistics (Parsad & Spiegelman, 2012) reported that 94% of elementary schools in the United States provided some form of ongoing music instruction. Of the schools that provided music instruction, 91% indicated that they employed an arts specialist to teach music. Both special education law and civil rights law dictate that schools cannot discriminate on the basis of disability. Therefore, if music education is provided, it is available to all students in the school. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates that students with exceptionalities be taught in the least restrictive environment, so students often attend music class with their age peers, when appropriate. However, the least restrictive environment for some students is a self-contained classroom, so many students attend music class as a part of a self-contained classroom. Some students attend music both with age peers and with a self-contained class. Eligibility for Music Therapy Services The U.S. Department of Education (2011) recognizes music therapy as a related service under IDEA. The regulations indicate: If a child’s Individual Education Plan [IEP] Team determines that an artistic or cultural service such as music therapy is an appropriate related service for the child with a disability, that related service must be included in the child’s IEP under the statement of special education, related services, and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child or on behalf of the child. 34 CFR §300.320(a)(4). These services are to enable the child to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals, to be involved and make progress in the general education curriculum, and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities, and to be educated and participate with other children with and without disabilities in those activities. 34 CFR §300.320(a)(4)(i)-(iii). If the
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
10
child’s IEP specifies that an artistic or cultural service such as music therapy is a related service for the child, that related service must be provided at public expense and at no cost to the parents. 34 CFR §§300.101 and 300.17 (p. 22). Following a specific request by a parent or a school representative, a board-certified music therapist must administer a comprehensive clinical assessment. The clinical assessment is criterion-referenced, and involves gathering information from multiple sources and assessing responses during music therapy. A student will qualify for music therapy if the assessment indicates that he or she needs the service in order to make considerable improvement in his or her skill level. If the assessment results do not indicate that music therapy as a related service will have an impact on progress towards IEP goals and objectives, the service will be denied (Adamek & Darrow, 2010; Coleman & Brunk, 2003). Only a board-certified music therapist (MT-BC) can provide music therapy assessment and clinical services in public schools (US Department of Education, 2011, p. 23). When a student qualifies for music therapy, the service might be “direct,” meaning that a music therapist pulls the student out of the classroom to provide an individualized one-on-one therapy session focusing on the child’s IEP goals and objectives. Music therapy can also be “consult-to-student,” meaning that the therapist structures music therapy interventions to assist a student in the regular classroom. Moreover, the therapist may also collaborate with other professionals to co-treat the student and provide consultations and suggestions to other members of the IEP team such as the music educator allowing ongoing use of music-based strategies in a classroom (Adamek & Darrow, 2010; Coleman & Brunk, 2003). As of October 1, 2014 there are 3,839 members of the AMTA. The association conducts an annual workforce analysis survey distributed via online social media, newsletters and e-mail announcements inviting responses
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
11
from AMTA members as well as non-member music therapists. Based on the results of the 2014 AMTA survey (AMTA, 2014), music therapists provided services in an estimated 29,338 facilities serving approximately 1.2 million individuals. Regarding populations served, 14.7% of the respondents indicated they served individuals with developmental delays and 14% of music therapists worked in children’s facilities and schools. Forty percent of respondents indicated that they serve infants, pre-teens, and adolescents. Only 7% of the respondents indicated they received funding for music therapy services from special education (IDEA, etc.). Extrapolating these results indicates that about 268 music therapists nationwide provided services in school settings, and they were not necessarily full-time. Approximately 6.5 million American children and youth ages 3-21 received special education services in 2011-12 (Institute on Disability, 2013). Critical Analysis of Local Policy Issues Considering the intersections of music therapy and music education specifically with regard to students with moderate to severe disabilities who attend music instruction in selfcontained settings brings local policy issues to the forefront. In this critical analysis, we will begin with concerns related to delivery of services, which include nondiscriminatory evaluation (NDE) and individualized education plans (IEPs) (see Hammel & Hourigan, 2011). Then, we will examine opportunity to learn, which includes qualifications, appropriateness of placement, and advocacy and collaboration. In each section, we will begin with miniature case descriptions of prototypical situations. These stories were selected because they illustrate common situations that each of the authors have witnessed or been told about--with slight variations--in multiple contexts and settings. We will attempt to clarify the complicated interrelationships among these topics, and to offer useful solutions and suggestions for superintendents, principals, and directors
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
12
of special education to illuminate possible ways that the system could be more responsive and equitable for arts educators, arts therapists, and—most importantly--exceptional students. Delivery of Services Nondiscriminatory Evaluation. A parent of a child with Williams Syndrome who attends a school in a large metropolitan area requested that her daughter be evaluated for eligibility for music therapy services. The parent read published research about music therapy with children and adults who have that diagnosis. Mrs. Smith, a music therapist in private practice, received a phone call from a school administrator requesting an evaluation. Mrs. Smith explained the process of administering a music therapy assessment and the requirement that a qualified professional must conduct the assessment. The music therapy assessment was initiated as a result of strong advocacy by the parent. Often, evaluation, diagnosis, and planning for provision of special education services take place outside of music settings and without the participation of a music educator or a music therapist. However, some children are particularly responsive to or motivated by music listening and/or other musical activities (see Robb, 2003). Particularly for children whose behavior (engagement, attention, achievement, etc.) is different in music or other arts education settings, the Nondiscriminatory Evaluation (NDE) should accurately reflect the child’s achievement and behavior in multiple educational settings and domains of development. Therefore, the music educator should complete any behavioral or other descriptive studies that the evaluation team is requiring “regular” classroom teachers to complete. Behavior analysis or similar observations [if used] should take place in the music setting as well as classroom setting to document differences in functioning and behavior. The music educator should also comment on the child’s achievement of musical skills in relation to the child’s age peers and/or established criteria for music learning as defined in the school’s music curriculum. If the music educator is not a participant in the NDE, it may result in an inappropriate music placement [see below], and could also result in ignorance of important information. If a child is particularly engaged, responsive,
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
13
attentive and/or high achieving in a music setting, these differences could indicate strengths that a child or treatment team member could build on. In addition, the NDE should include evaluation to determine if music therapy is an appropriate related service for that child (Ritter-Cantesanu, 2014). For example, as in the vignette above, children who have Williams Syndrome often have markedly higher achievement in music than in any other subject. Based on her responses and on clinical evidence of the success of music therapy for this population, the parents insisted that a music therapy evaluation be a part of the NDE for their child. As stated in AMTA’s standards of clinical practice (AMTA, 2013c) a child “may be a candidate for music therapy when a cognitive, communication, psychological, educational, social, or physiological need might be ameliorated or prevented by such services” (Educational Settings section). In public schools a referral for music therapy evaluation may be initiated by parents/guardians or members of other disciplines such as a music educator. The ultimate goal of music therapy as a clinical service in school settings is as a medium for assisting students in meeting educational outcomes. If a child demonstrates higher functioning during music classes than during other times of the day, this is an indication that the child should be referred for a music therapy evaluation as a part of the NDE. Whereas music educators can participate in clinical assessments by providing pertinent information to the evaluation team, a music therapist is an allied health professional who can administer clinical assessments (see Ritter-Cantesanu, 2014). The music therapy assessment entails a careful documentation and evaluation of a child’s responses using methods such as “observation during music or other situations, interview, verbal and nonverbal interventions, and testing. Information may also be obtained from different disciplines or sources such as the past and present medical and social history in accordance with HIPAA permission regulation”
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
14
(AMTA, 2013c; Educational Settings section). Following the implementation of a clinical assessment, the music therapist will develop an individualized treatment program based on a child’s areas of strength and need. The treatment plan will contain specific goals and objectives and specify the type and frequency of music therapy involvement (AMTA, 2013dc, Educational Settings; Baxter, Berghofer, MacEwan, Nelson, Peters, & Roberts, 2007). Based on this critical analysis, administrators--including principals and special education administrators--and other local policy makers need better understanding of music therapy evaluations and the role that a music therapist could serve as a member of the NDE team. Furthermore, NDEs should include data from music teachers and observations in music settings to determine if there are differences in functioning and behavior in these settings. Such evaluations should not only be a retroactive result of advocacy by a parent, but could also take the form of a proactive recommendation from educators involved with the child. Individual Education Plans. Mrs. Gonzales teaches in a k-6 building that houses her district’s self-contained classrooms for students with Intellectual Disability (in her state, it is called “Cognitive Impairment [CI]”) and Emotional Impairment (EI, sometimes called “Emotional Difference”). Recently, during upper elementary EI music time, a student reacted unexpectedly and injured another student. Although Mrs. Gonzales has heard something about a behavior plan, when she asked to see the student’s IEP, she was told that because of FERPA she is not allowed to see it. After the incident, Mrs. Gonzales learned that the paraprofessional assigned to the child who acted out was scheduled for a lunch break during music times. Mr. Rothfeld teaches choir and general music at a k-8 school that houses a crosscategorical classroom for adolescent students with behavioral and academic problems. There is a specific student in one of the choirs whom Mr.Rothfeld does not require to participate, because that student is “special education.” When I asked about the student’s IEP, Mr. Rothfeld replied that he didn’t know if there was one. When I told him that all students who are in special education have to have IEPs, he replied, “Oh… well… maybe he isn’t really in special education, but he just can’t do it, and he freaks out if I tell him to, so I just modify for him.”
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
15
Following completion of the NDE, the treatment team sets measurable educational goals, decides which services and supports will be provided and writes these into an Individual Education Plan (IEP). The IEP is a legal document that defines a school’s strategy for appropriate education of each exceptional child (US Department of Education, 2011). However, “[m]any music teachers are not aware of the existence of the IEP or do not know how to access this document” (Hammel and Hourigan, 2011, p. 175). Lack of awareness or access is problematic, because all teachers are legally and ethically obligated not only to know what is in an IEP, but also to carry out portions such as behavior plans. If Mrs. Gonzales had been given access to the IEPs of the students in the EI class, she may have learned about a behavior plan that could have help her prevent the altercation that resulted in a child being injured. Mrs. Gonzales also would have discovered that a student in this class normally has a paraprofessional, and could have asked why that paraprofessional was not attending music with the children. In contrast, Mr. Rothfeld incorrectly assumed that a child who was noncompliant in his class was a part of a particular special education program. Since this was not the case, Mr. Rothfeld should have taken a “responsiveness to intervention”-type approach (Hammel & Hourigan, 2011) and should have applied research-based practices to help this student learn to read music and to encourage him to participate in choir. Even if this child was a part of the special education program and had an IEP, it would be problematic that Mr. Rothfeld did not require him to participate and learn in choir. Perhaps Mr. Rothfeld was unsure how to help this student. If there was an IEP, this document would suggest strategies that Mr. Rothfeld could use. Both Mrs. Gonzales and Mr. Rothfeld felt isolated, and as though they needed to invent ways to teach these students without assistance from other teachers or resources. This feeling may be common among music teachers who feel unprepared to teach students with exceptionalities
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
16
(Salvador, In Press). Adding a music therapist to the district’s special education team to consult with music teachers on instructional and management strategies could ameliorate the feelings of isolation and inadequacy that some music teachers feel when confronted with exceptional students whom they are not sure how to teach. A music therapist providing consultation, enrichment or programmatic services to a school system may not necessarily be listed on the IEP (see Ritter-Cantesanu, 2014). This critical analysis reveals that school districts and administrators need to attend more carefully to the needs of arts teachers with regard to IEPs. Districts should provide professional development to ensure these teachers know what IEPs contain, how to read them, and how to implement relevant elements such as behavior plans. If the district employs a music therapist, she or he may be the optimal person to provide this professional development, because music therapists are specifically trained in clinical assessment and delivery of services and they have expertise in music. Supports that are available in other classrooms must also be available in music settings (e.g., in Mrs. Gonzales’s case, the paraprofessional). Districts must also have a way to communicate with “specials” teachers regarding which students have IEPs, and what those IEPs contain. Even a music teacher who knows that she should access IEPs might not be able to dig through student files for all 600 students she sees every week to figure out who has an IEP and what it says. This information must be communicated in a timely manner; finding out that a child has a behavior plan after an altercation has already taken place is too late. Some districts house IEPs electronically so that teachers can access them from any computer. Other districts provide IEP at-a-glance forms to the arts teachers immediately after each IEP is written or revised. All districts need to have some system in place to ensure that the IEP is
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
17
communicated in a timely and clear manner, so that music educators can fulfill their legal and ethical responsibility to know and incorporate the information contained therein. Opportunity to Learn Qualifications. Sunshine Academy is a public school that serves students aged 3-22 who have severe or profound cognitive disabilities, medical and physical needs. The majority of the students require total physical assistance and often have other multiple disabilities such as visual impairments, hearing impairments, and autism. The school district employs physical, occupational and speech therapists to provide clinical services at the school. Several instructors offer adaptive physical education. Recently the music educator working at the school retired. The school principal reached out to the state music therapy association to inquire if there is a qualified music therapist who also holds a teaching license. Even though several music therapists applied for the position, the school district administrators hired a music educator with less than one year teaching experience and no background in special education. Mrs. Thomas is asked to teach music in a newly formed classroom for students who use alternative and augmentative communication. The teacher took only one course about working with students with exceptionalities while completing her undergraduate degree. She currently does not have any adaptive equipment (the students in the classroom cannot hold instruments independently). Her principal expressed interest in ordering adaptive equipment but she is unsure what to order. Mrs. Thomas is a dedicated teacher who wants to provide the best music class experience for her students. She reaches out to a local university offering a music therapy degree asking if professional development in the subject of working with children who have exceptionalities is offered. No such training is currently offered at the university. Mrs. Brown’s district closed down the school for students with moderate to profound disabilities, and spread the classrooms that used to be housed in that school around the district. In the process, the district fired the music therapist who used to teach adaptive music education. Mrs. Brown’s building absorbed the classroom for students who are Deaf and Severely Hard of Hearing, and the classroom for students who have severe and multiple impairments (SXI). Mrs. Brown knows that IDEA mandates educational techniques must be systematically validated for specific uses, but has no idea where to start with either group. When Mrs. Brown asks the special educators and paraprofessionals for ideas, they describe what the music therapist used to do, but Mrs. Brown knows that she is not a music therapist and is worried about doing what the therapist did because she does not have the same qualifications.
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
18
The U.S. Department of Education (2011) delineates that State Educational Agencies (SEAs) are responsible for ensuring that professionals providing related services have the necessary qualifications. Those qualifications must be “consistent with any State-approved or Staterecognized certification, licensing, registration, or other comparable requirements that apply to the professional discipline in which those personnel are providing special education or related services” (p. 23). SEAs are also responsible for ensuring that teachers are “highly qualified” to teach a specific subject and/or age group. As recently as 2010, many music education degree programs did not offer or require a course that addressed exceptionality (Salvador, 2010), and if a course was offered or required, it was usually through a college or department of education, not a music-specific course. In an increasingly inclusive school environment, music teachers now routinely encounter students with severe manifestations of a variety of specific disabilities (ASD, EI, ECSD, ID/CI, Deaf/HOH). Further, many music teachers have been in the field since prior to 2004 when IDEA was last updated--or even prior to IDEA being written in 1990. Significant changes in special education policy have created a tremendous need for extensive professional development regarding appropriate instruction of the increasingly diverse student populations in music classes. Nevertheless, certified music teachers are typically considered “highly qualified” to teach students with exceptionalities, including those whose disabilities are severe enough to warrant instruction in a self-contained setting. Even though the profession of music therapy has experienced a steady growth, employment of music therapists in public schools is more limited in comparison to other settings. Underemployment of music therapists in public schools may be the result of a lack of understanding about the music therapist’s education and certification, leading to incongruous
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
19
hiring processes. Music therapists take coursework specific to the etiology and treatment of specific disabilities (e.g., in psychology) as well as methods classes and clinical practica specific to working with children who have disabilities. Over 5,600 music therapists currently hold the credential of Music Therapist Board Certified (MT-BC). Despite the rigor of the certification examination (CBMT, 2014) and the fact that music therapists are required to renew their credential through continuing education, school administrators may not recognize a music therapist’s qualifications. Whereas school districts hire other allied health professionals such as physical therapists, speech therapists, or occupational therapists as specialists, music therapists may be offered positions as paraprofessionals or teacher assistants. Even though in most states there is no law that requires a music therapist to hold a dual certification (e.g., teaching) many school administrators will not hire a music therapist to work in their district without it. This critical analysis reveals that all educators need to develop skills to work in inclusive classrooms. In 2011, 8.4% of students in the United States received special education services under IDEA, and still more obtained services through a 504 plan (Institute on Disability, 2013). Music teacher education programs must begin offering a music-specific course regarding inclusive instruction. Comprehensive professional development regarding students with exceptionalities must be provided for teachers who are already teaching. Defining entry-level qualifications for music educators specifically related to teaching students with exceptionalities could greatly assist in the design and effectiveness of initial teacher preparation and professional development efforts. Hammel (2001) defined essential competencies for music teachers who work with exceptional students that may present a helpful beginning to such definition. In the meantime, administrators must make better-informed decisions about who provides instruction for students with special needs in adaptive music classes or self-contained classrooms based on
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
20
the music professional’s certification, licensure, training, and experience (Adamek & Darrow, 2010). Even with additional preservice education and professional development, many music teachers may not be best qualified to work with groups of students who have severe and profound disabilities. Adamek and Darrow (2010) state that when school districts use music therapists to provide adapted instruction, the therapist’s extensive education and experience of working with exceptional populations will allow them to facilitate the process of learning music skills at a developmentally appropriate level. In physical education, many teacher preparation programs offer a concentration or certificate in adaptive physical education that focuses on meeting the needs of exceptional students. Recently, Florida State University added a similar “special music education” concentration. Music teacher education programs, particularly those at institutions that also house music therapy programs and thus have faculty with relevant expertise, might consider adding such programs. Finally, contractual policies applied to other allied health professionals should also apply for music therapists, and they therefore should not be required to be certified as teachers to work in schools. Appropriate Placement. Mr. Smith, a first year teacher, works in a k-2 building, which also houses self-contained classrooms of children with moderate to severe autism spectrum disorders, as well as early childhood special education. Mr. Smith was surprised when the kindergarten selfcontained ASD classroom (six students) arrived for music with a “regular” second grade class. Mr. Smith was concerned because he suspected this is not an appropriate placement. I suggested he speak with the director of special education for his district, and ask if the students could attend music as a self-contained group, or--if the appropriate least restrictive environment is mainstreaming for music--could they at least attend with their kindergarten age peers? The special education director responded that, due to scheduling issues, the children must attend music during the second grade time. IDEA mandates that all children receive a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. This requirement is partially addressed above, because one facet of
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
21
an appropriate placement is that the teacher must be qualified to provide instruction that meets the student’s needs. In addition, to the maximum extent possible, students must be taught with their non-disabled age peers (Adamek & Darrow, 2010). Thus, the least restrictive environment is the one in which the student will receive sufficient supports to learn, and also be as involved as possible in the activities of his same-age classmates. In inclusion models, students are expected to learn the same material but with adaptations and additional supports. Sometimes, students are mainstreamed with age peers for social reasons. In such cases, curriculum is modified and the student is not expected to meet the same educational goals as his peers. Therefore, the characteristics of an appropriate placement are (a) the teacher is well qualified to meet the needs of the student, (b) the student is with his age peers to the maximum extent possible, and (c) the student has access to necessary learning supports and accommodations. It is clear in the vignette above that sending a self-contained class of kindergarten students with ASD to attend music with a second grade class taught by a first year teacher who has no additional supports violates all three of these standards. Mr. Smith has done what he can in requesting a change, and must now do the best he can. Unfortunately, both authors of this paper hear similar stories routinely. These difficulties are often compounded by students having different levels of support in music than in other settings, as described in the vignette about Mrs. Gonzales above (i.e., a paraprofessional who has a lunch break during music). Despite a clear federal mandate, local policies seem based more on scheduling and staffing than appropriate placement. The solution is easier to state than to put into practice, but districts must do better in considering the needs of the child first and foremost. This means placing a child in the music setting where he can learn most effectively and providing the necessary supports to facilitate that learning, including a qualified instructor. It may be appropriate for a music therapist or qualified
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
22
music educator to teach adaptive music education for students with moderate to severe disabilities in a self-contained setting. Perhaps each individual child could also attend a regular music class with his age peers, receiving appropriate supports and modified curriculum. Such an approach would allow both socialization with age peers and also focus on music learning, which is the goal of music education (Salvador, In Press). Effectively managing appropriate placement would require that special education directors, superintendents and principals understand the differences and similarities among music therapy, music education, and adapted music instruction. It would also require a commitment to support students in all educational settings, as required by IDEA. Advocacy and Collaboration. Ms. Peters is in her second year teaching music at a k-5 school that also houses selfcontained classrooms for early childhood special education (ECSE) and children who have moderate to severe intellectual disabilities (ID). Her school also has an excellent responsiveness to intervention (RTI) system in place for early detection and resolution of learning difficulties indicated by low standardized test scores. However, if a student is in need of tier II or III RTI services, these occur during music time. Similarly, students in the ECSE and ID classes are often pulled out of music for physical therapy or other related services. Ms. Peters struggles with this situation from a logistical perspective: she never knows who will be in class on a given day. This situation creates challenges in tracking and supporting student growth, and Ms. Peters was rated minimally effective on her last performance evaluation. More importantly, Ms. Peters believes that these students are being discriminated against on the basis of their disability: they are being denied participation in music class. Mr. Jones is a music therapist working in public schools. For two years he has worked with a student who had a traumatic brain injury. Specific therapy goals included working on vocal intonation and strengthening of the oral muscles involved in speech production. After seeing the student for some time, the music therapist determined the student has made adequate progress no longer warranting music therapy as a related service. The student was transitioning to middle school and she enrolled in chorus. The therapist reached out to the music educator teaching chorus to provide a summary of the student needs and techniques that had been effective in addressing them.
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
23
Music educators often find themselves in precarious conditions, fighting for tenable working conditions. Many elementary music teachers work in more than one school building, teach more than 500 students each week, and take on additional responsibilities such as directing school choirs. Nevertheless, these teachers sometimes face yearly pink slips and/or changes to job assignments as districts struggle to maintain fiscal solvency (Sawchuk, 2011). New teacher evaluation schemes that result in ratings of effectiveness for teachers have also increased pressures on arts educators (Hourigan, 2014). Arts educators, especially those with fewer than five years experience, may lack the political and social capital among their peers to advocate and make recommendations for appropriate placement of students with disabilities in music classes. Academicians often encourage music educators to collaborate with other professionals (including music therapists) to provide fitting educational experiences for children with disabilities (e.g., Montgomery & Martinson, 2006; Patterson, 2003). Moreover, in the literature we often encounter the statement that music educators should advocate for the needs of children with exceptionalities. Collaboration is a form of advocacy for requesting help and consulting with other professionals including music therapists. At the building and district level, however, such collaboration may not be possible amidst nationwide cuts in funding for public education and services for children with special needs. Lack of funding forces school districts to increase the number of students per classroom allowing less one-one-one attention for each student and less time for educators to collaborate with others. Time and availability for consultations may be constrained despite the willingness of arts educators to seek collaboration. Adding in the responsibility to collaborate and advocate for students with exceptionalities may seem like an impossible situation. Increasing funding, time and availability of specialists to collaborate with arts educators requires advocacy at the district and state levels. Such advocacy
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
24
should not necessarily be the sole responsibility of arts educators but a joint effort with academicians who have the power and clout to pursue policy change. A perception of competition for scarce resources might hamper collaboration between music educators and music therapists. Music therapists and music educators are most importantly musicians. The two professions, however, have distinct differences. Advocating for school district administrators to hire a music therapist should not be misconstrued as taking away the job of a music educator. Optimally, school administrators would hire a music therapist to conduct assessments, provide clinical services for students who qualify for music therapy services, and consult with music educators to improve provision of music instruction. The therapist would have neither the time nor the qualifications to teach music in the traditional sense. School districts should adopt hiring practices for music therapists that are similar to those for hiring allied health professionals such as occupational, physical, and speech therapists. Conclusion In this paper, we have sought to use the intersections of music therapy and music education as an entry point into a discussion of education reform, arts education, exceptionality, and local policy. These intersections are particularly apparent when examining instruction for students with moderate to severe disabilities who are taught in self-contained settings. Our critical analysis focused on issues related to provision of services and opportunity to learn, and resulted in suggestions for local policy. In this conclusion, we will summarize these suggestions, broaden the discussion to include other arts education and arts therapies, and make suggestions for additional research. Summary of Suggestions
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
25
Administrators, including principals, special education administrators, and other local policy makers such as superintendents and state education agencies, should carefully consider ways to better support music education for students with exceptionalities. Our analysis suggests that administrators would benefit from a better understanding of the comparisons among music therapy, adaptive music instruction, and music education. Administrative policies must acknowledge music therapists as allied health professionals who do not need to be certified teachers to practice music therapy in schools. Moreover, administrators should understand the qualifications of music therapists and the roles that a music therapist could fill as a member of a district’s special education team, including as a part of NDEs, as providers of clinical services defined in the IEP, and as consultants who assist music educators in implementing IEPs and adapting and modifying music instruction. Furthermore, administrators should create policies to ensure that arts educators have meaningful, timely, and practical access to IEPs and that the supports defined in the IEP are also provided in arts classes. Districts should offer comprehensive professional development to ensure that “specials” teachers understand these policies and to support teachers’ implementation of behavior plans and other relevant IEP contents. Finally, administrators must acknowledge that many music teachers were not adequately prepared to teach students with exceptionalities and support music-specific professional development for these teachers. Music teachers should understand the process of referral for music therapy and NDE, read and understand IEPs, participate in NDE by providing data, and ensure that observations and behavior analysis occur in music as well as other classroom settings. The music educator should function as a significant informant in the NDE process, who contributes an important piece of the puzzle that describes a child’s abilities. The music therapist and others on the
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
26
treatment team can then help fit the musical piece of the child’s puzzle into the “whole” of the child’s IEP. Music teachers should seek out and attend professional development specific to working with students with exceptionalities. In addition to advocating for services and supports that would help meet the needs of individual students, music educators might also consider advocating at the state level or with their professional organization for relevant professional development and comprehensive policy dialogue regarding meeting the needs of exceptional students in school music settings. Music teacher educators should work to define and teach entry-level competencies for working with students who have special needs and integrate the necessary instruction throughout music education coursework and/or in a specific class. Educators in these institutions may also consider adding concentration, certificate, or master’s degree programs in inclusive music education, special music education, or adaptive music education/instruction. Music therapy teaching faculty could be an invaluable resource in this process, as administrators of music education programs have previously cited a lack of faculty expertise in this area (Salvador, 2010). At the very least, a course regarding inclusive instruction that is specific to music settings should be a curriculum requirement for teacher education programs. Educators in music teacher and music therapy programs should design and provide professional development regarding students with exceptionalities for practicing teachers. Suggestions for Future Research Researchers should continue to systematically validate strategies to support music learning for students with exceptionalities. Such research will allow music educators (and music therapists) to avoid relying on observational reports and anecdotal information when adopting strategies, adaptations and modifications to increase music learning in school music settings.
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
27
IDEA requires that such strategies, adaptations, and modifications be research-based. In addition, there must be a pathway between research findings and the busy, dedicated teachers and therapists who are working every day in schools around the country. The efficiency of interpreting research data and translating findings into techniques that improve the provision of services to exceptional populations, and the effectiveness with which this information is disseminated, must be examined and improved. Similarly, further study of the content and effects of music teacher education and professional development with regard to improving music teaching and learning for students with exceptionalities is needed. Most importantly, researchers should focus on gathering information about music therapists who are currently working in school settings and how they are able to partner with music educators to facilitate music teaching and learning throughout the district in addition to addressing therapeutic goals. Coda The current situation with regard to national education reform has created an atmosphere of instability in schools, in which teachers have less security, standardized testing is becoming dominant, and funding is increasingly scarce (Hourigan, 2014). Providing free and appropriate public education for students with exceptionalities is expensive of both resources and instructional time. Our examination of the intersections of music therapy and music education with regard to students who are taught in self-contained classrooms highlighted some of the many compromises that are made each day as schools attempt to comply with IDEA and simultaneously raise test scores as required by No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top—while also remaining fiscally solvent. In such times, it is hard to ask teachers to stick their neck out to advocate for services that a child needs. It is harder still to suggest that they advocate for hiring another music specialist
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
28
into the district. Fear of competition between music therapists and music educators for scarce resources in struggling schools is not a reason to exclude therapists, who have much to give. What is best for our students is also best for us in the end. Imagine a music therapist and/or a special music educator in every district—consulting on inclusive practices in secondary ensembles, working with small groups and individuals, and teaching or facilitating adaptive music instruction for the students who are served in self-contained settings. In this district the music educator is well-supported with information, strategies, in-class assistance, and practical demonstrations—and is freed to do what she knows best: effectively facilitate music learning and music making with children.
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
29
References Adamek, M. S., & Darrow, A. A. (2010). Music in special education, (2nd Ed). Silver Spring, MD: The American Music Therapy Association. Aigen, K. (2014). Music-centered dimensions of Nordoff-Robbins music therapy. Music Therapy Perspectives, 32, 18-29. doi:10.1093/mtp/miu006 American Music Therapy Association. (2013a). What is music therapy? Retrieved from http://www.musictherapy.org/ on June 4, 2013. American Music Therapy Association. (2013b). Professional requirements for music therapists. Retrieved from http://www.musictherapy.org/about/requirements/ on June 4, 2013. American Music Therapy Association. (2013c). Professional standards of practice. Educational setting. Retrieved from http://www.musictherapy.org/about/standards/#EDUCATIONAL_SETTINGS on Oct. 15, 2014. American Music Therapy Association. (2014). AMTA member survey and workforce analysis. Retrieved from http://www.musictherapy.org/documents/ on Nov. 6, 2014. Baxter, H. T., Berghofer, J. A., MacEwan, L., Nelson, J., Peters, K. & Roberts, P., (2007). The individualized music therapy assessment profile. London: Jessica Kingsley. Bunt, L. (2003). Music therapy with children: A complementary service to music education? British Journal of Music Education, 20, 179-195. doi: 10.1017/S0265051703005370 Certification Board for Music Therapists. (2013). CBMT. Retrieved from http://www.cbmt.org/ on June 4, 2013. Certification Board for Music Therapists. (2014). Accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.cbmt.org/about-cbmt/accreditation/ on Oct. 15, 2014.
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
30
Chen, Y. (2007). A research procedure and study of elementary music curriculum for children with special needs in inclusive music programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: University of Idaho. Coleman, K. A., & Brunk, B. K. (2003). SEMTAP: Special Education Music Therapy Assessment Process (2nd Ed.). Grapevine, TX: Prelude Music Therapy. Conway, C. (Ed.) (2014). Arts education, school reform, and children with exceptionalities [Special Issue]. Arts Education Policy Review. 115(2). Hahn, K. R. (2010). Inclusion of students with disabilities: Preparation and practices of music educators. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation: Pennsylvania State University. Hoffman, E. C. III (2011). The status of students with special needs in the instrumental musical ensemble and the effect of selected educator and institutional variables on rates of inclusion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Hammel, A. M. (2001). Special learners in elementary music classrooms: A study of essential teacher competencies. UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education, 20 (1), 914. Hammel, A. M & Hourigan, R. M. (2011). Fundamentals of special education policy: Applications for music teachers and music teacher education. Arts Education Policy Review 112(4), 174-179. Hourigan, R. M. (2009). Preservice music teachers’ perceptions of fieldwork experiences in a special needs classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education 57, 152-168. doi: 10.1177/0022429409335880 Hourigan, R. M. (2014). Intersections between school reform, the arts, and special education: The children left behind. Arts Education Policy Review 115(2), 35-38.
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
31
Institute on Disability. (2013). Annual Disability Statistics Compendium. University of New Hampshire. Retrieved 6/6/2014 from http://disabilitycompendium.org/compendiumstatistics/special-education Karkou, V. (Ed.). (2009). Arts therapists in schools. London: Jessica Kingsley publishers Karkou, V. & Glassman, J. (2004). Arts education and society: The role of the arts in promoting the emotional well-being and social inclusion of young people. Support for Learning, 19, 2, 56-64. Karkou, V. & Sanderson, P. (2006). Arts therapies: A research-based map of the field. Edinburgh: Elsevier. Montgomery, J., & Martinson, A. (2006). Partnering with music therapists: A model for addressing students' musical and extramusical goals. Music Educators Journal, 92(4), 34-39. doi: 10.2307/3401110 Parsad, B., & Spiegelman, M. (2012). Arts education in public elementary and secondary schools: 1999-2000 and 2009-2010 (NCES 2012–014). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Dept. of Education. Washington, DC. Paterson, A. (2003). Music teachers and music therapists: Helping children together. Music Educators Journal, 89(4), 35-38. doi: 10.2307/3399902 Ritter-Cantesanu, G. (2014). Music therapy and the IEP process. Music Therapy Perspectives, 32, 142-152. doi: 10.1093/mtp/miu018 Robb, S. (2003). Music interventions and group participation skills of preschoolers with visual impairments: Raising questions about music, arousal, and attention. Journal of Music Therapy, 40, 266-282. doi:10.1093/jmt/40.4.266
INTERSECTIONS MUSIC EDUCATION MUSIC THERAPY
32
Salvador, K. (In Press). Music instruction for elementary students with moderate to severe intellectual disability: A case study. Research Studies in Music Education. Salvador, K. (2010). Who isn’t a special learner? A survey of how music teacher education programs prepare future educators to work with exceptional populations. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 20(1), 27-38. doi: 10.1177/1057083710362462 Sawchuk, S. (2011). National Slide into Pink Slip Purgatory has Consequences. Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/31/27slip.h30.html U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Questions and answers on Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), evaluations and reevaluations. Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,dynamic,QaCorner,3, on June 6, 2013.