Abstract
The descriptive collective case study reported in this article explored the experiences of three music educators who teach students with disabilities in self-contained elementary classroom settings. Utilizing Shaffer’s epistemic frame theory, this study sought to consider how teachers made pedagogical decisions and justified their choices in their teaching situations. Analysis of cross-case data collected through on-site multiday observations, interviews, and researcher memos identified three themes: challenges of planning and delivering instruction, teacher ideology, and developing self-efficacy. In particular, teachers discussed the lack of support for making pedagogical decisions, leaned into their own ideologies about student value and musical capability, highlighted the importance of reflexivity, and talked about ways they have developed self-efficacy in their teaching. Implications for the music education profession are shared in conclusion.
Keywords
Approximately 15% of school-aged students (ages 5–18) in the United States qualify and are served by special education (SPED) in the public school system (US Department of Education, 2020). In the United States, most elementary school children (ages 5–10) receive music instruction (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2002), and music educators likely interact with students with disabilities across most, if not all, of their classes. Many elementary schools also have self-contained special education classes, and these students may attend music in a separate group or integrate into music with their general education peers.
A self-contained classroom in the United States is a separate classroom where students with disabilities receive specialized instruction for most or all of their school day. These classrooms typically have a smaller student-to-teacher ratio, are taught by educators trained in special education, and are separate from general education classrooms. Students may join general education peers for certain activities. While considered more restrictive than inclusive settings, the use of self-contained classrooms in the United States is based on the belief that some students with disabilities require more intensive, specialized support than can be provided in a general education setting. At the elementary level, if self-contained classes join their general education peers, music educators often provide the first site of inclusion (VanWeelden & Whipple, 2014). Inservice teachers have reported trying to support students with disabilities in inclusion settings but noted they often operate with limited resources, minimal collaboration, and little to no relevant professional development (Grimsby, 2020). Furthermore, perspectives from students with disabilities to determine if they feel included are limited (e.g., Draper, 2022; Yinger et al., 2022, 2023).
Self-contained classes who attend music as a distinct group pose a unique challenge for music educators regarding what to teach and how to deliver instruction effectively. Many music teachers believe their preservice learning did not adequately prepare them for working with students with disabilities (Culp & Salvador, 2021; Grimsby, 2020; Knapp, 2022), and almost no preservice learning focuses on supporting students in self-contained music environments (e.g., Grimsby, 2020; Knapp, 2022). Teachers have expressed that they are at a loss for what to do regarding student support and pedagogical decisions (Knapp, 2022; Salvador, 2015). Knapp (2022) found that even those with relevant preservice or inservice learning experiences needed help to apply the material, as it was presented to them too superficially to be of impact. It may, therefore, be valuable to consider what experiences teachers facilitate in self-contained music classes and how they develop self-efficacy for teaching students in this setting.
Review of literature
Scholarship surrounding teaching music to students with disabilities has primarily focused on teachers’ perceptions. Researchers have explored perceptions of preparation with preservice educators (e.g., Bartolome, 2017; Hammel & Gerrity, 2012; McCord & Watts, 2010) and inservice educators (e.g., Grimsby, 2020; VanWeelden & Meehan, 2016; VanWeelden & Whipple, 2014). Others have considered preservice preparation programming (Culp & Salvador, 2021; Salvador, 2010), provided targeted preservice learning (e.g., Hourigan, 2009; VanWeelden & Whipple, 2007), and inservice professional development (Knapp, 2022, 2024). In addition, researchers regularly offer practitioner-focused articles offering suggestions to support inservice teachers on topics such as Universal Design for Learning (Armes et al., 2022), technology and composition (Clipper & Lee, 2021), or curriculum design (Draper, 2019). However, the long-term impact of these suggestions on teacher perceptions of preparedness or actual teaching practice remains unclear due to a lack of follow-up studies.
A smaller body of scholarship has explored teacher experiences of educating students with disabilities in music. Researchers have explored settings where students with disabilities participated in music alongside their general education peers (e.g., Brown & Jellison, 2012; Draper, 2022; Jellison & Draper, 2015) or engaged in an integrated arts experience (Gerrity et al., 2013). One known researcher explored music educators’ experiences working with students in inclusion and self-contained musical settings (Salvador, 2015). They noted the ideological murkiness of the primary goal of music instruction in a self-contained setting. In addition, Salvador (2015) commented on the lack of understanding from administrators and highlighted that structural support was lacking. Although Salvador (2015) documented instructional practices and gave a rationale for some of the teachers’ choices, it was unclear from the study how the teachers came to and justified their pedagogical decisions or developed self-efficacy working with self-contained classrooms.
Using Shaffer’s (2006) epistemic frame theory as a lens, the purpose of this study was to investigate teachers working with students with disabilities in self-contained music classrooms, to understand how they made pedagogical decisions and justified their choices. Research questions were:
Research Question 1 (RQ1). What strategies and pedagogical choices do music teachers use when teaching students with disabilities in a self-contained music setting?
Research Question 2 (RQ2). How did teachers develop their knowledge and self-efficacy about teaching students with disabilities in this setting?
Research Question 3 (RQ3). How do teachers measure the effectiveness of their pedagogical choices?
Theoretical lens
Shaffer’s (2006) epistemic frame theory invites scholars to consider how people learn to think and to understand the patterns and relationships among skills, knowledge, and other characteristics shared within a particular group. It has been used in both quantitative and qualitative work (e.g., Nash & Shaffer, 2011; Phillips et al., 2021). Drawn from Goffman’s (1974) frame analysis that considers how people know something—and expanded by Phillips et al. (2021) to explore the decision-making experiences of teachers—epistemic frame theory “considers how certain groups of people think [. . .] and suggests that in specific communities, there is a systematic pattern of relationships among skills, knowledge, identity, values and epistemology that for the epistemic frame for that community” (p. 269). Phillips et al. (2021) utilized this frame to investigate how mathematics teachers understood the content they presented, how they engaged in metacognitive processes about student learning, and how they justified their choices. Within this study, I used epistemic frame theory as a lens to consider participants’ experiences and to center their thinking, decisions, and justifications of pedagogical choices when working with students with disabilities in self-contained music classrooms. I employed this lens throughout the study’s design and interpretation of findings.
Research design
This study was a collective descriptive case study (Merriam, 2009) of three US public school elementary music educators who taught music to self-contained special education classes separate from their general education peers. I bounded this case by the experiences of each teacher in their specific locale and within their teaching practice. Similar to other researchers (e.g., Conway & Holcomb, 2008; Pellegrino, 2010; Regus et al., 2024), I borrowed from a phenomenological approach to focus on participants’ experiences and descriptions of their lived reality and to decenter researcher perspectives (van Manen, 2014). This approach aligns with epistemic frame theory (Shaffer, 2006) to center participants’ lived realities, thinking, and decisions from their point of view rather than an objective reality from outside perspectives.
After receiving ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board at the University of North Texas, I used snowball sampling and social media communication to recruit and select three music educators who represented different regions of the United States and taught students with disabilities in self-contained settings. After several months of snowball and direct recruitment (from an original pool of more than 25 teachers), three teachers gained permission from their schools to take part. After receiving information about the study and providing their informed consent to participate, each teacher facilitated a 2-day site visit in their classroom for the purposes of data collection. I observed them teaching music to students with disabilities in self-contained music classroom settings and observed their other classes. During my site visit, I took extensive handwritten notes on teacher instruction, teacher–student interaction, and teachers’ and students’ verbal and nonverbal communication and behaviors. The Institutional Review Board and the school districts did not permit me to use video recordings; however, I used audio recordings as support when I completed further research notes after the classes. Before and after observations, I completed researcher memoing, attempting to bracket my own thinking using a phenomenological approach (van Manen, 2014). While it is not completely possible to set aside the researcher’s thinking, van Manen (2014) maintained the importance of the attempt.
I conducted a series of three semi-structured interviews (one before the site visit, one during the site visit, and one after) with each participant. Each interview lasted approximately an hour. While I had a predetermined set of questions to ask in each interview, I prioritized being flexible, asking follow-up questions, and letting the conversation flow naturally to deeply explore participants’ perspectives and subjective experiences (van Manen, 2014). In the first interview, I sought to develop rapport with the teacher and learn about their school, classroom, and students. I asked about their experience working with students with disabilities and the lessons I would see during the site visit. The second interview (during the site visit) involved debriefing on the lessons I observed. I asked questions about specific students, the teacher’s actions, and their thoughts when specific moments occurred. The final interview included follow-up questions based on my researcher notes and observations. Throughout data collection and analysis, I emailed the teachers as follow-up questions arose.
I employed Merriam’s (2009) procedure for case study analysis by completing individual analyses of each teacher’s interviews and observations. I utilized an emergent coding scheme for each teacher, assigning descriptive codes and allowing in vivo codes (Saldaña, 2016), something common to phenomenological approaches (e.g., Conway & Holcomb, 2008; Regus et al., 2024). While I did not use epistemic frame theory (Shaffer, 2006) to create an explicit coding framework, I noted where teachers described their skills and knowledge, shared elements of their identity and values that influenced their choices, and justified pedagogical decisions based on their epistemology. I re-coded previous interviews as codes emerged within the data, collapsing codes as necessary. Then, I completed a rigorous analysis of common themes found across the three teachers. This process involved comparing and contrasting emergent codes and themes from each case, looking for patterns across the data set. This iterative analysis process—revisiting each case and synthesizing them into a collective—identified three overarching themes and corresponding subthemes (see Table 1). I ensured the trustworthiness by triangulating my findings using several data points, including interview transcripts, audio from classroom observations, follow-up communication with each participant, and researcher memos that included thick descriptions of classrooms, students observed, and teacher behavior (Patton, 2015). I conducted member checks with each participant via email. I completed an inquiry audit with a fellow music education researcher specializing in research on students with disabilities to ensure the face validity of interpretations.
Themes (Aligned With Epistemic Frame Theory) and Corresponding Subthemes.
Researcher positionality
The author identifies as a White, cisgender female with a disability. Like the participants, the author taught elementary music to students in self-contained settings when teaching in public schools in the United States. Currently, the author teaches music education at a university and focuses on research on inclusive practice in music education. To acknowledge how my own teaching experiences intersected with those of the participants, I engaged in extensive researcher bracketing (van Manen, 2014) to ensure I was not embedding my experiences or understandings into those of the participants.
Participant introductions
James (pseudonym) (White, cisgender, male without a disability) was in his ninth year of teaching but his first year teaching elementary music. He was in a new (to him) district in a small city in North Dakota, having previously taught middle and high school choir in another state. While he had experience working with individual students with disabilities who integrated into his choirs in the past, this was his first year with a self-contained classroom of students with special needs. The students in this group represented a similar age range but had varied disability diagnoses.
Brian (pseudonym) (White, cisgender, male with a disability) was in his 12th year of teaching elementary music, and it was his eighth year at a suburban school in Indiana. At his current school, he had had a self-contained classroom of students with special needs every year. In previous years, the students were grouped by a specific disability category (e.g., autism, cognitive impairment), but this year, the self-contained classroom had students with various disabilities and ages.
Margot (pseudonym) (White, cisgender, female without a disability) was in her 25th year of teaching, and this was her 17th year at a rural school in Alabama, where she taught elementary music. Every year, she had had some form of a self-contained classroom of students and students who integrated within general education music classes. In this particular year, the self-contained classroom had multiple ages and disability diagnoses (e.g., autism, physical impairment, vision impairment).
Cross-case themes
The case study analysis process identified three themes related to teachers’ experiences of teaching students with disabilities: “challenges of planning and delivering musical instruction,” “teacher ideology,” and “developing self-efficacy.” Table 1 shows how these themes map onto epistemic frame theory and corresponding subthemes.
Challenges of planning and delivering instruction
The teachers discussed multiple facets of planning and implementing instruction for self-contained classrooms. These aspects included making musical decisions about what to teach and how to measure musical growth. Primarily, teachers discussed extramusical concerns and the struggle to manage the varied needs of a heterogeneous grouping of special education labels.
Making musical decisions
None of the teachers had a clear picture of the musical progression (i.e., skills, knowledge, understandings) they were working through for the children or what it should specifically be for these students. Instead, they primarily focused on creating a varied musical environment. James’ only musical goal was “to immerse them in music in different ways and to help them figure out how music interacts with their bodies” (Interview 1). Similarly, Brian talked about “wanting to give them the best musical experience possible. To make it exciting and to vary the music the best I can” (Interview 1). Each of them discussed when and how they decided to integrate general education or life skills curricula into the musical space, putting different levels of importance on supporting nonmusical curricular goals alongside musical learning.
These teachers each expressed trepidation about their musical decisions for the students. “I’m not sure if what I am doing is what is best for them” (Brian, Interview 1). Margot, who had significantly more teaching experience than the others, felt as if she had found a way she could make it work, and “there isn’t something I haven’t seen by this point in my career, but I’ve just had to figure it out as I went along” (Interview 1). However, she acknowledged that what worked for her may not be the best thing; she was just doing what she could: “there is no manual for this” (Interview 3). James, who was only mid-way through his second semester with this class, shared, “I have no idea if what I am doing is working, but I’m at least trying to make it a good time” (Interview 2).
When asked what materials they chose, all three used some reduced or adapted form of a lower-elementary musical plan, with some even drawing from what they had seen other music educators do in early childhood and preschool environments. Margot shared she had determined what to teach “through trial and error and what seems to be working for the students” (Interview 1). Brian talked about “creating it from scratch” and “pulling ideas from other teachers who work in similar settings” (Interview 2). All three talked about the importance of multiple repetitions of material from class to class and keeping “fan favorites” (James, Interview 2) in the rotation of activities.
Extramusical considerations
The most significant component of preparing and delivering instruction was not musical skills or understanding; it was extramusical factors. Teachers talked about taking into account children’s attention spans and having backup plans ready in case an activity did not “click with students,” with Brian stating, “you have to over plan and be ready to shift at any moment” (Interview 2, emphasis original). James mentioned being thoughtful about things that might upset or disrupt a specific child. He discussed a “particularly emotional child” who had a favorite instrument and said, “I always have to make sure I have the right instrument out, or he gets very upset” (Interview 2). Other extramusical considerations included accounting for extra space for the children to move in the room, adjusting when the children seemed to be getting overstimulated, and making sure they were using materials that engaged the particular children in the room. For example, Brian said he did not scan books to project on his screen because his students were mesmerized by the material in his hand. Conversely, Margot believed they listened more intently when the book was projected on the screen.
Teachers commented that structural factors regularly caused challenges. For example, they each discussed how the musical schedule at their school did not allow them to see the children often enough to develop relationships with students or aides. Other challenges included an ever-changing group of children. Some programs had significant turnover throughout the year, with students regularly joining or leaving the group. More common, however, was that the teacher never knew who would be in music on a given day. Sometimes, the special education teacher kept a child back from music, either because of a behavior issue or because they were having what the teacher called a “rough day.” On other days, children were simply absent. All three commented that absenteeism seemed higher for these students than in general education classes. Margot attributed most absenteeism to students’ continued physical health needs or doctor’s appointments. Lack of consistency made it difficult to preplan and, in their opinion, contributed to limited skill carryover from class to class.
Teachers navigated multiple instructional spaces with the children. Sometimes, the teacher traveled to the special education classroom, while other times, the children came to the music room. Less commonly, the class blended in with a general education class. When traveling to their self-contained classroom, Margot needed a rolling cart to bring down all the things she might use with the students, influencing her decisions on what she could or would be able to teach them. She commented, “I’m not about to haul six barred instruments across the school” (Interview 1). Her decisions based on the structural elements of where she taught these students limited her options for music-making with the children.
Balancing varied needs and diagnoses
When implementing instruction, teachers discussed the difficulty of accommodating varied needs within the same classroom. Each had between four and eight students in their self-contained classrooms. Children in these settings could range from Kindergarten to fifth grade and also have a variety of needs or disability diagnoses, making it difficult to support one child while considering another. For example, during the site visit, Brian had an active Kindergartener who was fascinated with words throughout the room, including words on the board and instrument labels. Brian spent a great deal of time staying in proximity to this child for safety as he moved throughout the room. However, an older child in the same class was in a wheelchair and nonverbal. As a result of having to monitor the active child, the child who was in a wheelchair and saying nothing got very little of the teacher’s focus. As such, it was unclear whether the child in the wheelchair received the attention or instruction that might have served them best. In a similar situation, Margot said, “what works for one kid might be a difficulty for another. So it’s hard to balance” (Interview 3). While heterogeneous settings of varied needs were not new to these teachers, as this was also present in general education settings, they seemed to struggle more with what to do when varied student needs included non-normative bodies, ways of musicking, or behavior.
Teacher ideology
Teacher ideology intersected with these educators’ justifications for pedagogical decisions. Teachers expressed ideologies about students’ capabilities, questioned what “best practices” meant for this group, and primarily discussed the importance of flexibility.
Students’ value and musical capability
There was a tension between teachers’ stated perspectives and enacted practice. Each of these teachers discussed how they loved working with their students in the self-contained classrooms and discussed their belief that the children were more than their disability label. Brian commented, “they are more than just an IEP [Individualized Education Program]; they are a person, with feelings and a personality” (Interview 2). Similarly, Margot talked about how she loved “seeing them light up” when they enjoyed something they were doing together (Interview 1). During observations, each teacher used proximity and a welcoming tone to greet the children as they entered the room, called them by name, and made eye contact. The teachers did not speak down to the students or talk around them to the paraprofessionals; instead, they spoke to them as if they would respond, even for those students who did not communicate verbally. However, for the children who did not communicate verbally, the teachers shared that they were sometimes at a loss for keeping their engagement throughout the lesson.
Despite the evident care for the students I witnessed in each site visit and each teacher’s efforts to create positive musical experiences, the teachers did not seem to believe much musical growth was possible. While no one said as much outright, there seemed to remain a conflict between their teaching philosophy and their underlying ideology about the capabilities of their students with disabilities. Brian admitted he “might be a bit of a pushover” because of his beliefs about their musical and cognitive abilities, and that maybe he was not expecting enough of them (Interview 3). Margot was transparent, saying, I’m not sure that’s why they are here [coming to class separately]. It’s more about the schedule and the special ed[ucation] teacher’s planning time. I want them [the students] to love music and have a good time [. . .] beyond that, I don’t worry too much about progress. Also, this group has too much turnover for me to be able to focus on that. (Interview 3)
Statements like this elucidated a tension between teachers’ caring attitudes toward these students and an unconscious, deficit-informed conception of teaching them.
When asked how they measured musical growth, the teachers felt it was virtually impossible. In contrast, they indicated feeling successful in assessing their general education students. James shared that assessment was a challenge because growth did not seem consistent or linear, commenting: Some days I try to track it because it feels like they understand and are following the song. But other days, there is no engagement. If I plot it on a graph, it would be up, down, up, down, and nothing consistent regarding growth. So to do a formal assessment seems useless. (Interview 3)
Margot and Brian shared similar sentiments, indicating they did not even attempt to measure musical progress for these students. However, none of the teachers seemed to acknowledge that they equated all growth with linear growth. Instead, it appeared they assumed no growth due to the absence of direct and consistent growth.
Flexibility is paramount
The most essential element teachers referenced when discussing instructional choices was how critical it was to be responsive and flexible. Each discussed having backup plans and “backups to the backup plans” (Brian, Interview 1) and being ready to pivot their instruction. James talked about having a “buffet” of materials ready, and then he focused on reading the students’ energy and engagement in the room to decide what would come next in the lesson. Similarly, I noticed how Margot watched for cues about their attention span and tried to balance high-energy activities with calmer ones. She mentioned, “it’s just a part of the unpredictability of this group [. . .] I don’t know what I am going to get when I go in there on a particular day. But I’m OK with that” (Interview 2). During observations, Brian cut off a song mid-verse and pivoted to another activity. When I asked him about it later, he commented, “I could just tell they weren’t engaged. So I went to one of their favorites to get them back” (Interview 2). When asked how this level of flexibility and responsiveness compared to their general education classes, James shared, “it’s so much more. I am trying to anticipate and pivot left and right” (Interview 3). Each felt flexibility was their most valuable skill.
Developing self-efficacy
The final theme was what did or did not contribute to music teachers’ sense of self-efficacy.
Preservice and inservice preparation
Teachers discussed their preservice preparation and each believed that their formal education did not adequately prepare them. James recalled one course he felt was “surface-level at best” (Interview 1), while Margot said she could not recall any preservice coursework. Each discussed they had gleaned a few “tips and tricks” (Brian) from professional development sessions but nothing comprehensive. As such, these educators highlighted that their sense of self-efficacy primarily came from on-the-job experience and communication with special education teachers.
On-the-job experience
Teachers cited “on-the-job” experience as the most significant factor in their self-efficacy. Margot believed that preparation required “long-term, hands-on, intense experience working with students with disabilities.” She did not even believe it needed to be a musical experience.
Have them spend a semester working in a special education classroom. They don’t need to worry about making music; they are going to get that in their music classes. They need to learn about children and behavior and communication. They need to learn how to respond. They need to learn how to manage them. (Interview 2)
James, in his first year working with a self-contained class, spoke of being able to draw on experiences of students who had been mainstreamed into his choirs in the past, but indicated, “this is a whole new level that I am figuring out as I go” (Interview 1). He remarked, What’s working for me so far is having a lot of backup plans and not getting too stuck in my head about how I think it should go because it will never go that way. This will hopefully become easier the more I know the kids and the longer I am at this school. (Interview 2).
Brian said the longer he was in his building (8 years at the time of the interview), the easier it had become. “I have more tools in my toolbelt. Plus, I trust myself more to make the right call. When I get stuck, I have others to lean on around me” (Interview 3).
Communication with stakeholders
Communication with special educators. Each teacher regularly communicated with the special education teacher in their building. Often, these conversations were about extramusical things such as materials, sensory needs, or pacing. Brian and James discussed spending time with their special education teacher to learn how to communicate more effectively with the students. Brian utilized some of those strategies during observations, such as short, repeated phrases and first–then sentence structures. When asked how he developed these skills, he remarked, “someone in your building is a child whisperer; learn from them” (Interview 2). James prioritized talking to the special education teacher about the academic or life skill learning units the children were working on and tried incorporating relevant material into his songs, such as number counting or days of the week.
None, however, had discussed musical goals with the special education teacher or discussed the children’s Individualized Education Programs in relation to music. Only Margot had looked at the students’ Individualized Education Programs (though not recently), while Brian and James mentioned they knew they could do it if needed but had not. Brian shared, “there’s nothing musical there for me” (Interview 1). Given that the teachers framed the Individualized Education Program document as unhelpful and did not discuss musical content or instruction with the special education teacher, it seemed that the music teachers operated in isolation when making pedagogical decisions.
The role of the paraprofessional
All three teachers had clear perspectives on what they believed was the paraprofessional’s role. Margot reported, “I just let them do their thing because they are with [the child(ren)] way more than me. I want them to interact with the kids the same way they do everywhere else” (Interview 2). Similarly, Brian said he relied on the paraprofessionals for all behavioral issues unless there was a serious safety concern. James mentioned he was not entirely sure what he wanted the paraprofessionals to do, but since he was new, he was “letting them take the lead on everything but the music” (Interview 2). During observations, some paraprofessionals engaged in the musical experiences, including singing, moving with the students, and helping manipulate the children’s bodies. When asked whether they wanted the paraprofessionals to move the children’s bodies for them, all three teachers deferred to what they believed was the paraprofessionals’ expertise about what was needed for individual children and instead spent their energy on the music. James commented, “they are with them all day, so they have more experience on what to do” (Interview 2). When asked whether they had ever asked a paraprofessional to do something different, none had, and none had initiated a collaborative conversation outside of class time with paraprofessionals. Margot mentioned one reason for that: paraprofessional turnover in her school was as high as that of the student body. Another possible reason might have been their perception of hierarchy between teachers and paraprofessionals, although none stated this directly.
Discussion
I utilized epistemic frame theory (Shaffer, 2006) to understand the skills, values, and epistemology of the teachers working with students in self-contained music settings. The findings suggest these teachers had to lean into pedagogical creatively (Abramo & Reynolds, 2014) when planning and delivering instruction for self-contained music classrooms, more so than in their general education classrooms. Each prioritized a high level of teacher reflexivity.
Collaboration and communication are essential when supporting students with diverse needs. However, these educators may not have utilized all available resources, including Individualized Education Programs, caregivers, and students’ own capabilities. The findings also point to the need for these educators to unpack their ideologies of ability more deeply and consider their underlying belief systems concerning their pedagogical practices (Churchill & Bernard, 2020).
These teachers struggled with determining “best practices” for self-contained classes, which was compounded by the myriad of extramusical factors they navigated, echoing findings from past research (Salvador, 2015). While practitioner articles regularly offer suggestions for teachers working with students with disabilities (e.g., Armes et al., 2022; Clipper & Lee, 2021; Darrow & Adamek, 2018), for these teachers, the “tips and tricks” did little to translate into their teaching setting or with the specific students in their self-contained classrooms, precisely due to the particular needs of the children in the group. Although collaboration with special educators in their buildings helped mitigate some of the challenges related to student behavior, they felt the collaborations offered little to inform musical pedagogical choices. Conversely, Chen (2007) found that collaborating with special educators did affect teachers’ curriculum design and delivery. However, the extent to which it may help teachers make musical decisions versus mitigate extramusical concerns is unclear.
There did not seem to be a rationale behind the teachers’ decisions to use a curriculum for early childhood and preschool (regardless of the students’ biological age). When asked why, they justified their choice because it seemed to work for their students or because it was what someone else suggested they try. Similarly, Salvador’s (2015) participant took an early-childhood approach and discovered it worked for their students through trial and error.
Neither the participants in this study nor in Salvador’s (2015) research received instruction that supported their pedagogy or sense of self-efficacy for working with self-contained classrooms during their preservice education, which is consistent with an overall lack of preservice preparation for teaching students with disabilities (Culp & Salvador, 2021; Grimsby, 2020; Knapp, 2022). Without preservice preparation, teachers are left to develop music curricula and pedagogy in a potentially haphazard manner. Another consideration might be that many preservice teachers attend college wanting to be ensemble directors rather than elementary teachers. Since most students with disabilities are already excluded from ensemble spaces (Hoffman, 2011), preservice teachers may not find what preparation they do get on disabilities to be relevant to their future career goals.
These teachers expressed doubts that the children in their classes could or would make musical progress, indicating they may have possessed an underlying deficit-oriented ideology of ability (Churchill & Bernard, 2020). Furthermore, developing or monitoring musical progress was not a primary part of their instructional goals. This further confirms a deficit mind-set, since they prioritized musical progress for their nondisabled students. Instead, these teachers prioritized fun, socialization, and even elements of what might appear to be musical therapy, mirroring prior research (Salvador, 2015). While socialization is sometimes considered a side-by-side goal for students integrated into general education classes (Adamek & Darrow, 2005; Salvador, 2015), this seems less relevant for students in self-contained settings.
This presents a question about how the teachers justified their decisions to prioritize socialization and minimize emphasis on musical growth. Aligned with epistemic frame theory (Shaffer, 2006), these teachers had developed a set of beliefs about the children—specifically about their musical capability—and, while well-intended, often framed their ideology through deficit rather than ability. They justified their decisions according to their experiences, absent outside support, and through the lens of societal norms of disabilities and the biases of an ableist educational system. While each participant’s situation varied (e.g., locale, school size, community support, types of disabilities), this was a point of similarity across their experiences.
It is worth questioning teachers’ assumptions over the nature of ability as it relates to non-normative bodies or those who may demonstrate skills or communicate in atypical ways. Such assumptions have been shown to affect student achievement in other areas of education (Klehm, 2014). Furthermore, teachers of students with disabilities who require extensive support are more likely to make presumptive mistakes concerning student ability (Ruppar et al., 2022). Therefore, music educators might be making flawed assumptions of ability without understanding how to teach this population, especially if teachers do not interact with Individualized Education Program documents or participate in relevant planning meetings.
Teachers placed high value on communicating with special education teachers to improve their self-efficacy. Collaboration with special educators can prove fruitful in changing teacher attitudes, classroom practices, and overall school culture (Paulsrud & Nilholm, 2023). However, more stakeholders (particularly paraprofessionals) were at their disposal than these teachers were utilizing. While these teachers believed the paraprofessionals had experience with individual children and were supportive in the classroom, successful collaboration and communication did not exist. This is consistent with prior research (Grimsby, 2023), which also indicates that a lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities can create tension between teachers and paraprofessionals, and establishing expectations and methods of communication is important for successful collaborations (Urbani et al., 2024).
These educators also did not communicate with the parents or caregivers of these students. When asked why, Margot mentioned she had previously tried, to no avail, citing it was “just how parents are here” (Interview 1). Similarly, Brian cited their community culture and lack of parent involvement across the school as a reason for not reaching out, while James shared he had not yet “considered it necessary” (Interview 1). However, parents and caregivers may provide educators with valuable insights, and teacher self-efficacy has been found to be positively associated with increased parental communication (Azad et al., 2021). A parent or caregiver may also assist in advocating for their child’s musical experiences, needs, or goals in the Individualized Education Program process, especially as music educators are often not included in Individualized Education Program meetings (Knapp, 2022).
Students’ perspectives were notably absent, revealing teachers’ unconscious bias (Keller & Galgay, 2010). When asked why they did not seek student perspectives, the teachers explained that it was because most students in these settings were nonverbal. However, nonverbal behavior is a form of communication and may include eye gaze, facial expressions, vocalizations, gestures, body posture, and body movements (Halberstadt et al., 2013). I observed instances in each classroom of children demonstrating these types of communication. However, the teachers did not always notice or respond when children behaved in these ways, perhaps because they did not consider these gestures, /sounds, or /movements as forms of communication. They may have developed such opinions out of an unconscious reduction of the child’s full humanness to consider only a single point of identity or difference—in this case, verbal communication (Keller & Galgay, 2010). It is possible that reframing a teacher’s understanding of how communication might manifest for students who do not use verbal communication would be a valuable resource and support a greater sense of agency for teachers and students. Furthermore, many students want to be actively included in decisions about their educational experiences whenever possible (Holland et al., 2023). While the students were not participants in this study (due to Institutional Review Board restrictions), future researchers might seek to engage teachers in conversations about the students’ communication, verbal or otherwise.
Implications for the profession
While this project was concerned only with what these specific elementary music educators experienced working in self-contained music classrooms, it offers several implications for the profession. First, the teachers’ self-described lack of education about students with disabilities, coupled with their on-the-job learning, begs the question, “is there truly a way to be prepared?” These educators highlighted each specific classroom’s individual and uniquely personal needs; thus, the idea of being “prepared enough” may be unachievable as a broad educational goal. However, preservice education could offer more to future educators working with students with disabilities, explicitly offering more musically connected strategies (Culp & Salvador, 2021). At present, most coursework does not have direct contact with students with disabilities. Field placements that intentionally involve working with students with disabilities might be a better solution than a surface-level course without real-world application (Hourigan, 2009).
Embedded mentorship may better assist with ongoing support than what is available in preservice learning. It may be helpful for scholars to study the impact of mentorship that fosters collaboration among stakeholders and creates pathways for teachers to build relationships with students, parents and caregivers, and SPED teachers. Finally, scholars might emphasize research on highlighting the voices of other stakeholders, specifically students with disabilities and their caregivers, and placing those voices in conversation with the teachers who are making pedagogical decisions. While this can be challenging, especially with children whose communication skills are atypical, scholars must continue to highlight that communication is not the same as intelligence and seek ways to conduct research outside normative conversation structures. Strategies could include long-term embedded observation using ethnographic techniques, shortened interviews that span multiple days, triangulation with parents and caregivers, drawings, movement, and assistive technology.
It is worth questioning the potential ramifications of these types of music classes continuing to exist in US public schools. The least restrictive environment is a legal right for each student with a disability in the United States. It is unclear whether this is being accounted for when administrators decide to schedule music classes or whether it is sacrificed for the sake of the master schedule or educator instructional release time. As a result, music educators are placed in murky political and legal positions of teaching students that may or may not be in such a least restrictive environment. They are forced to make and justify their pedagogical decisions without curricular or administrative guidance or support, leaving them and the students with potentially mediocre musical experiences.
Footnotes
Author contribution(s)
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The University of North Texas College of Music.
