Music Educators’ Perceptions of Preparation and Supports Available for Inclusion

Method

Music educators teaching band, choir, general music, guitar, orchestra, and so on (N = 5,000) across the United States were selected randomly from public school websites. To achieve this random selection, all school districts within each state were collected (www.greatschools.org) and each school within the districts was assigned a number. The list of schools was randomized (www.random.org/lists/). Additionally, a list of music education specialty areas was chosen randomly, using the same method above, per each school. An e-mail address for a music educator teaching within the randomly chosen specialty area was obtained from the school website. From this master list, 100 teachers per state were randomly selected and invited to participate in a survey related to their perceptions of effectiveness of inclusion when working with students with disabilities in music.

Results

Of the 5,000 music educators who were invited to participate in this survey, 1,128 teachers representing all 50 states completed the survey, creating a 23% return rate. This response rate is consistent with existing literature on response rate of online, web-based surveys (Hamilton, 2009; Kaplowitz, Hadlock, & Levine, 2009). Demographic responses indicated that teachers represented all school sizes, community settings, student socioeconomic statuses, and years of teaching experience (see Table A1 in the appendix). Additionally, the majority of the respondents (n = 985) taught elementary general (56%), middle school/high school (MS/HS) choral (40%), and/or MS/HS instrumental (54%) music classes/ensembles; however, many also taught at least one additional class outside this area (i.e., elementary choral, elementary instrumental, guitar, music theory, music history, music appreciation, music technology, or piano; see Table A1 in the appendix).

Most respondents (98%) reported that all students with disabilities take music classes (elementary general: 98%) or can elect to take music ensembles (MS/HS choral, 100%; MS/HS instrumental, 98%) in their schools and they have taught students with disabilities in their classrooms/ensembles (elementary general, 100%; MS/HS choral, 99%; MS/HS instrumental, 99%). In addition, some respondents also reported that special music class(es) are taught by the music teacher for all students within the self-contained class(es) (13%) or for only some of the students with disabilities within self-contained class(es) (9%), or that a music therapist provides music education for some or all students with disabilities (6%).

A series of one-way analyses of variance were conducted for teacher responses based on the demographic questions of the survey by their perceptions of educational preparation or available instructional supports. Analysis indicated no significant differences for any of the demographic categories when grouped by overall educational preparation or instructional supports questions; however, analysis did indicate significant differences for several individual questions by one or more demographic categories (see Table A2 in the appendix). For teaching area, data indicated significant differences between elementary general music teachers’ responses and responses by MS/HS choral and/or instrumental teachers. Teachers who taught in small schools, those with an enrollment of less than 500 students, responded significantly differently than their counterparts in larger schools within four questions as did respondents teaching in urban settings compared with those teaching in either a rural or suburban setting. For the category of student socioeconomic status, survey items asked teachers to estimate the number of students in their schools who were receiving free or reduced lunch within five subcategories: (a) none/almost none, (b) less than half, (c) half, (d) more than half, (e) almost all/all. Music educators within the subcategory of few/no students receiving free or reduced lunch responded significantly differently compared with teachers within the other subcategories. Finally, beginning teachers (those with 1-2 years of experience) reported significantly different responses than teachers in the other years of experience groups (see Table A2 in the appendix).

The average music educator in this study reported receiving little coursework specifically designed for working with students with disabilities in music. Less than one fourth of the teachers (n = 244) had completed a music in special education course/adaptive music education coursework (23%) or a music for special populations course (8%) during their preservice training. Furthermore, for those teachers who had completed music-specific coursework, results indicated that less than half practiced in field-based teaching experiences (39%) or participated in evaluation and assessment procedures (30%) for this population (see Table A3 in the appendix). Similar results were found when separated by years of teaching experience (field-based teaching, range = 30% to 47%; evaluation/assessment, range = 27% to 33%) and primary teaching area (field-based teaching, range = 37% to 48%; evaluation/assessment, range = 27% to 36%). Teachers also agreed or strongly agreed that music-specific coursework helped prepare them to work with students with disabilities in their classrooms more so than nonmusic-specific courses: music in special education/adaptive music education (61%), music for special populations (66%), abnormal psychology (53%), exceptional children (49%), and child psychology/child development (64%; see Table A3 in the appendix).

Teachers also reported attending few workshops pertinent to working with students with disabilities in music. Roughly one fourth of the teachers (n = 258) had attended more than two workshops in special education during their careers. Similar results were found when separated by years of teaching experience (range = 5% to 32%), primary teaching area (range = 17% to 30%), community setting (range = 22% to 24%), and student socioeconomic status (range = 20% to 26%). Additionally, for those teachers who had attended at least one special education workshop (n = 661), results indicated that fewer than half were about music-specific content (45%; see Table A3 in the appendix). The majority of these respondents (67%), however, agreed or strongly agreed that the workshops prepared them to work with students with disabilities in music (see Table A4 in the appendix).

Teachers also indicated that they are provided very few in-services related to working with students with disabilities (none, 46%; one to two, 30%; more than two, 23%). Similar results were found when separated by demographics categories. Of the teachers who had been provided one or more in-services (n = 606), 17% responded that these were about music-specific content and 64% reported that in-services are provided in this area less than once a year and only on their request (see Table A3 in the appendix). Finally, the majority of the respondents (59%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that the in-services prepared them to work with students with disabilities in music (see Table A4 in the appendix).

The majority of teachers reported that they had little or no involvement in the IEP process (73%), were occasionally or never consulted about student placement decisions (77%), and placement decisions were never or only occasionally based on the musical ability level of the students with disabilities (73%). However, teachers reported that they are usually or always responsible for including all students who wish to participate in their elective music classes/ensembles (74%) and teaching nonmusic goals (42%). Similar results were found when these questions were separated by demographic categories (see Table A5 in the appendix).

Teachers also reported feeling that they are provided less than adequate consultation with special education teachers (61%) and school-based therapists (80%) as well as the assistance of paraprofessionals/aides when required or requested (52%). Additionally, many teachers do not train or communicate with paraprofessionals/aides about how they can best assist students to be successful in their music classrooms/ensembles (51%). Teachers also reported that they are provided less than adequate preparation time to plan and individualize programs for students (79%); resource materials in terms of books, curricular guides, and so on to plan and work with students (88%); and materials and devices to adapt or modify the classroom, instruments, or other physical spaces/objects (84%) for students with disabilities in their classrooms/ensembles. Furthermore, most teachers (89%) must locate special education and/or adaptive materials, resources, and devices on their own without the help of special education teachers, school-based therapists, or their school system. Teachers do feel, however, that their school administrators (46%), special education teachers (64%), and paraprofessionals/aides (65%) are sensitive to the challenges they face when working with students with disabilities in music (see Table A5 in the appendix).

The researchers fashioned the current study after a similar study by Gfeller et al. (1990) as closely as possible, though exact replication was not feasible because of national, state, and local modifications to terminology, legislation, and educational philosophies over the past two decades. However, the basic foundation for all questions pertaining to educational preparation and instructional supports used within the Gfeller et al. (1990) study were also used within the current study. Thus, several similarities as well as differences were found between the two in relation to music educators’ perceptions over the past 20 years (see Table A6 in the appendix). Specifically, a very similar percentage of teachers felt that they participated in the placement process (2011, 23%; 1990, 21%) and were provided adequate time to individualize (2011, 21%; 1990, 18%). Conversely, teachers had different perceptions of educational preparation concerning attendance at workshops or in-services (2011, 54%; 1990, 15%) and college courses (2011, 76%; 1990, 25%). Additionally, music educators’ perceptions on inclusion in IEP meetings (2011, 27%; 1990, 13%), placement of students based on musical ability (2011, 27%; 1990, 16%), expectations of including all students with disabilities (2011:, 74%; 1990, 65%), responsibilities for teaching nonmusic goals (2011, 42%; 1990, 67%), consultation with special education teachers (2011, 39%; 1990: 27%), provision of aides/paraprofessionals (2011, 49%; 1990, 27%), time to plan (2011, 21%; 1990, 1%), provision of resource materials (2011, 12%; 1990, 31%), and school administrator sensitivity (2011, 50%; 1990, 36%), were different between the respondents of the two studies (see Table A6 in the appendix).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate music educators’ perceptions of their educational preparation and the availability of instructional supports to work with students with disabilities in their classrooms/ensembles. In general, teachers who taught in small, urban, or high socioeconomic status schools, were beginning teachers, or who taught elementary general music classes responded significantly differently than their peers. For teachers at small or urban schools, respondents felt that they are provided fewer resources, materials, and/or devices to use when working with students as well as less consultation with special education experts. Conversely, teachers from high socioeconomic schools (few/no students receiving free lunch) were provided more resources and consultation. Beginning teachers, those with 1 to 5 years of experience, reported receiving less educational preparation than more experienced teachers whereas elementary general music teachers reported significantly more involvement in educational preparation opportunities, the IEP process, and placement decisions than secondary choral and/or instrumental teachers. These results are not surprising and seem to indicate that (a) schools with more money tend to have more resources available for their teachers and students; (b) the more time spent in the profession, the more opportunities teachers have to attend workshops and in-services; and (c) the elementary model, because it is most often for all students rather than offered as an elective, is more inclusive of music teachers than those who teach secondary music ensembles.

In regard to educational preparation, the majority of teachers indicated that they had completed child psychology/child development during their preservice training; however, less than one fourth had completed coursework specific to working with students with disabilities in music. Similar results were found when separated by years of teaching experience (range = 4% to 31%). These results mirror those found by Gfellar et al. (1990) and raise the same concern—child psychology does not typically focus on working with this population, therefore, teachers who complete only nonmusic-specific coursework are not receiving training in an area that has been highly recommended by in-service music educators for the past 20 years.

For the educators who reported having taken music-specific coursework within the current study, less than half had actual contact with this population in teaching and assessment situations. These results are alarming when almost all teachers responded to currently working with students with disabilities in their classrooms/ensembles. Field experiences and assessment procedures are standard activities presently found within most method courses so as to best prepare preservice teachers for the profession. The results of this study seem to indicate that despite strides to increase preparation over the past 20 years, additional method course activities and/or music education curricular course offerings in this area are needed to better prepare future music educators.

This need becomes apparent when the majority of teachers who had completed music-specific coursework in this study responded that they felt more prepared to work with this population than teachers who had completed nonmusic-specific coursework. These results mirror previous research in which preservice music educators also felt more prepared to work with students with disabilities when they enter the profession after completing music-specific field experiences and adaptive assessment procedures (Kaiser & Johnson, 2000; VanWeelden & Whipple, 2005a, 2005b, 2007a, 2007b). Therefore, the results from both the pre- and in-service teachers seem to indicate that they need more music-specific instruction for working with students with disabilities during their preservice training in order to feel adequately prepared to successfully teach students with disabilities.

Almost half the music educators had not attended any workshops or in-services for working with students with disabilities. For teachers who had attended, less than half the workshops and very few in-services were music specific. Teachers also reported that in-services happened less than once per year and only at their request. These results mirror those found by Gfeller et al. (1990). Since workshops and in-services are usually held in different venues, these results raise two distinct questions: (a) Are there enough workshops offered at music education conferences that will give teachers music-specific information to work with students with disabilities in their teaching situations? (b) Are there enough knowledgeable clinicians available to conduct in-services for school districts who can give teachers music-specific information to work with this population in their teaching situations? These questions have yet to be answered; therefore, researchers may want to investigate the number and type of music and special education workshops offered as well as the clinicians providing this information at music conferences to help determine the availability to teachers and/or school districts.

The availability of workshops and in-service clinicians may be an important component to teachers’ perceptions of preparation. Results of this study indicated that teachers who had attended workshops and/or in-services related to working with students with disabilities in music felt more prepared to work with this population in their classrooms/ensembles. Additionally, teachers attended more special education workshops and in-services when they had completed music-specific coursework in this area. Therefore, the results of this study may indicate that early teacher training (preservice coursework) promotes continued training (workshop attendance and/or in-service requests) to increase and update their knowledge of working with students with disabilities in their music classes/ensembles. Further investigation is warranted to determine if these possible correlations exist.

The majority of teachers reported little or no involvement in the IEP process of the students with disabilities in their music classrooms/ensembles; however, many are often responsible for teaching nonmusical goals to these students. These results also mirror the Gfeller et al. (1990) study. Due to the specific goals each student may have, this lack of involvement could prove problematic to the successful inclusion and attainment of these goals. Questions of whether the teachers were informed of the meetings and/or had access to the IEPs, however, were not included in the survey. Therefore, researchers may want to investigate possible reasons teachers are not more involved in the IEP process.

Results also indicated that the majority of teachers are neither involved in the placement of students with disabilities in their classrooms/ensembles nor are they consulted on placement decisions based on students’ musical ability. However, most teachers are responsible for including all students with disabilities in their classrooms/ensembles. These results mirror the Gfeller et al. (1990) study. Making appropriate placement decisions for students in music classes are an important component to student and teacher success. The NAfME also advocates that music educators be involved in the placement decisions when students with disabilities are included in regular music classes (MENC, 1994). In the future, researchers may need to address how and why current placement decisions are made to compare differences in perceptions when input from students, music educators, and school administrators is sought.

Teachers reported that they are provided less than adequate consultation with special education teachers and school-based therapists (i.e., physical, occupational, and/or music therapists; speech-language pathologists; counselors; and social workers). Teachers also perceived that they are provided less than adequate assistance of paraprofessionals/aides when required or requested and did not have the opportunity to train or communicate with these professionals about how to best assist student(s) while in their classes. Again, these results mirror those found within the Gfeller et al. (1990) study. If teachers are responsible for incorporating nonmusic goals within the music classrooms/ensembles and are not receiving the necessary educational preparation in the forms of coursework, workshops, and/or in-services, then consultation and collaboration with experts so as to create a successful learning environment for students with disabilities during music could be particularly helpful. Additionally, these experts are usually an excellent source to provide suggestions that transfer to the attainment of music goals. Researchers may want to investigate reasons why music educators are not seeking more consultation and collaboration with the experts in their schools.

Teachers also perceived that they are given less than adequate preparation time, resource materials (books, curricular guides, etc.), and materials and devices to adapt or modify the classroom, instruments, or other physical spaces and/or objects for students in their classrooms/ensembles. Furthermore, the vast majority of teachers must locate materials, resources, and devices on their own without the help of special education teachers, school-based therapists, or their school system. Although these results show a tremendous lack of support, surprisingly teachers felt that their school administrators, special education teachers, and paraprofessionals/aides are sensitive to the challenges they face when working with students with disabilities in music. Thus, the question of whether emotional support is enough to supplement physical support should be investigated.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to investigate music educators’ perceptions of their educational preparation and the availability of instructional supports to work with students with disabilities in their classrooms/ensembles. Additionally, this study sought to examine whether these perceptions had altered from previous research findings 20 years ago. Results indicated increases from the Gfeller et al. (1990) study in regard to a number of questions. However, data within the current study indicate that more can be done within our profession to help music educators prepare to work with students with disabilities in their classes/ensembles. And, although the sample did not encompass large numbers of teachers within each state, results found no significant differences between responses when split by geographical location (e.g., state or NAfME regional divisions). Therefore, it seems the issues revealed are pervasive for all music educators. Next steps for researchers should therefore include exploration of the most effective ways to prepare teachers to work with students with disabilities as past and present teachers have suggested.