Vision 2020: A Review of 20 Years of Inclusion Studies in Music Education

Abstract

Inclusion has been a prominent topic in music education since the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1974 (now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA 2004). In 2000, music educators at the Housewright Symposium presented a list of goals for music education for the year 2020 in a document called Vision 2020, and one of those goals stated that barriers would be removed for the inclusion of all students. The purpose of this literature review was to examine the past 20 years of music education research (1999–2019) to determine how well the inclusion goal of Vision 2020 has been met. Four themes emerged: Perceptions in Schools, Practices in Schools, University Coursework, and Unique Topics. A concluding section summarizes findings and presents implications for meeting the Vision 2020 inclusion goal as it pertains to students with disabilities.

Keywords

disabilities inclusion music teacher preparation strategies

On March 8, 2000, Vision 2020 was presented at the Music Educators National Conference in Washington, D.C. (Madsen, 2000). Vision 2020 was a projection of aspirations for the future of music education starting in 1999 to the year 2020. Plans for Vision 2020 began in 1999 at the Housewright Symposium of the Future of Music Education (Madsen, 2000). The Housewright Declaration resulted from meetings at the symposium, and it contained 12 insightful goal statements that were agreed on by attendees. The Housewright Declaration is an important part of Vision 2020 and includes future goals for students, professional expectations for music teachers, and curricular objectives. The 12th point of the Housewright Declaration was “Music educators must identify the barriers that impede the full actualization of any of the above [points of agreement] and work to overcome them” (Madsen, 2000, p. 220). In this literature review, I examined 20 years of music education literature—from 1999 to 2019—for meeting inclusion goals for students with disabilities as set forth in Vision 2020.

Inclusion has been a prominent topic in music education since the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1974. Now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), this law mandates special education services to any student who falls under one or more of 13 disability categories (IDEA, 2004). By law, these students are to receive a free and appropriate education (FAPE) in a least restrictive environment (LRE) using an Individualized Education Program (IEP; IDEA, 2004). Efforts have been made to meet inclusion requirements throughout all areas of education (Jung et al., 2019), and music teachers have also tried to implement best practices in their field (Darrow, 1999; Gerrity et al., 2013; McCord & Watts, 2010).

Now in the year 2021, it is time to reflect on the field’s status in meeting Vision 2020 objectives. The purpose of this literature review was to examine the past 20 years of music education research (1999–2019) to determine how well the inclusion goal of Vision 2020 has been met. In this review, I examined articles published between 1999 and 2019, particularly those geared toward music teacher preparation and inclusion in the schools.

Method

Using targeted database searches, I used several combinations of keywords when searching for articles in this review. Keywords included “special needs,” “disability,” “inclusion,” “music teacher preparation,” “preservice music teachers,” and “strategies.” Additional sources were identified from reference lists of articles found through database searches. To be included in this review, an article had to have a clear focus on inclusion for children with disabilities in the schools, take place in the United States, and pertain to music education in general music and/or traditional large ensembles. Articles also had to examine at least one of the following: (a) music teacher preparation for teaching students with special needs, (b) music teacher perceptions on inclusive music education, (c) university curricula for teaching music to special learners, or (d) inclusion strategies for teaching special learners. I limited the review to include only articles about music education in the United States to align with the focus of Vision 2020. Twenty-eight sources came from the following peer-reviewed journals: Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, Contributions to Music Education, International Journal of Music Education, Journal of Music Teacher Education, Journal of Research in Music Education, Music Education Research, Research Studies in Music Education, and Update: Applications of Research in Music Education. Five studies that met the criteria were from the Journal of Music Therapy. A total of 11 published doctoral dissertations were also included. Literature reviews, book chapters, master’s theses, and unpublished doctoral dissertations were not included. In the end, 44 sources were selected for this review.

Four themes emerged from the literature examination, and results were organized according to these themes using the following framework: (a) Perceptions in Schools, (b) Practices in Schools, (c) University Coursework, and (d) Unique Topics. For each of these themes, literature was assessed and synthesized within associated sections. At the end of this review is a concluding section with implications and suggestions for future research.

Results

Perceptions in Schools

This first theme on perceptions in schools included the most articles, and as a result, was further divided into three subthemes: (a) Music Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Preparation, (b) Music Teachers’ Perceptions of Inclusion, and (c) School Children’s Perceptions of Inclusion. Most of these studies examined music teachers’ perspectives.

Music Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Preparation

Researchers have used surveys to investigate inservice music teachers’ perceptions of their preparation for inclusion (Cooper, 1999; VanWeelden & Whipple, 2014). Cooper (1999), for example, administered a survey to practicing music teachers to assess their training for inclusion. Approximately one third (33%) of participants received no training at all. Of those who did receive training, inservice or conference workshops were the most frequently reported training experiences (73%), followed by undergraduate coursework (22%). Hammel (2001) found that music teachers felt underprepared to teach in inclusive settings and considered IEP evaluation an essential teacher competency. None of Lisenmeier’s (2004) music teacher participants had taken a college-level course in special education that was music-content specific, though respondents claimed they had learned about inclusion in their methods courses. Very few of the methods courses involved any field experience, and most inclusion training was obtained through workshops (Lisenmeier, 2004). McCord and Watts (2010) conducted a survey study and found that music teachers had limited knowledge on using assistive technology. The result of these survey studies might indicate that inclusion preparation has not improved significantly in over a decade.

One survey study from Gfeller et al. (1990) was replicated by VanWeelden and Whipple (2014) in the years following the publication of Vision 2020. Results from the Gfeller et al. (1990) study revealed music teachers’ low levels of preparation for inclusion in their classrooms. In the 2014 follow-up study by VanWeelden and Whipple, results indicated that certain disabilities were perceived as more difficult to teach than they were in the Gfeller et al. (1990) study 24 years earlier. Additionally, many of the teacher participants (N = 1,194) in the VanWeelden and Whipple (2014) study had not attended workshops or inservices related to teaching music to students with disabilities, and most teachers reported little to no involvement in IEP processes. Findings from this nationwide replication study might indicate that little progress had been made on inclusion preparation in over two decades.

Researchers have examined music teachers’ perceptions of their preparation qualitatively using interviews, observations, and case studies (Darrow, 1999; Grimsby, 2019). Using an interviewing process, Darrow (1999) found that music educators were not prepared to understand diverse student needs and use inclusive strategies. Similarly, participants in Grimsby’s (2019) case study lacked preparation to teach students with disabilities. These teachers wanted more time to collaborate with special education professionals, help with comprehending their special students’ learning needs, and preparation understanding assistive technologies. Davila (2013) found that elementary general music teachers gained knowledge and preparation from graduate-level disability coursework. Teacher attitudes toward inclusion improved as did their feelings of comfort, willingness, and capabilities following the coursework. Taken together, these qualitative studies might also indicate little progress on inclusion preparation from 1999 to 2019.

Music Teachers’ Perceptions of Inclusion

Secondary ensemble directors have expressed their perceptions of inclusion (Chang, 2017; Nabb & Balcetis, 2010). Nabb and Balcetis (2010) examined band directors’ concerns with the integration of students with disabilities in their band programs. They found three major obstacles for including students with special needs in bands: (a) the availability of music instruments (especially modified ones), (b) teachers’ lack of knowledge for how to incorporate these students in band, and (c) the cost of acquiring instruments. On inclusion in orchestras, Chang (2017) assessed string teachers’ perceptions of including students with autism in string classes. Through a mixed-method analysis, she discovered that 63.7% of her participants were teaching at least one student on the autism spectrum, and one teacher had 10 students with autism in her ensemble. Many of these string teachers reported positive feelings toward inclusion and claimed they learned most of their strategies through collaboration with special education teachers (Chang, 2017). In a study that compared the perceptions of chorus directors and special education teachers, Sharrock (2007) found that there were significant differences in the opinions of the two types of teachers on inclusion in their classes. However, both types of teachers strongly advocated for communication and collaboration between special education teachers and chorus teachers (Sharrock, 2007). Perceptions of ensemble directors have been like those of general music teachers (Darrow, 1999; Sharrock, 2007).

A few researchers have examined general music teachers’ perceptions of inclusion, sometimes making comparisons with secondary directors perspectives (Darrow, 1999; Scott et al., 2007; Stafford, 2019). Darrow (1999) compared inclusion perceptions of instrumental, vocal, and general music teachers. All these participants thought that inclusion had a positive impact on students with and without disabilities. General music teachers, however, felt a greater need for more consultation with special education professionals and found it more challenging to teach students of varied abilities. Similarly, participants in a study by Scott et al. (2007) had positive attitudes toward inclusion, and elementary music teachers expressed more access to support (87%) than orchestra (63%) and band (66%) directors. Of the few teachers who had IEP knowledge and experience, several claimed that they would not know what to do at an IEP meeting (Scott et al., 2007). Stafford (2019) found that overall, her general music teacher participants received information about IEP meetings and that they participated in varying degrees. Nevertheless, many of these music teachers expressed difficulty when adapting lesson plans for students—a reoccurring concern from prior studies on music teacher preparation. The need to better understand IEPs and consultation time with special education teachers seem to be concerns at both the primary and secondary levels (Darrow, 1999; Scott et al., 2007; Stafford, 2019).

School Children’s Perceptions of Inclusion

Researchers involved with three studies have assessed opinions of school children at the secondary level (Haywood, 2006; Moss, 2009; VanWeelden et al., 2017). Moss (2009) reported the inclusion experiences of secondary instrumental students who were blind or visually impaired. Through semistructured interviews, the participants in Moss’ (2009) study shared motivations for participating in music ensembles; positive and negative effects of self-developed learning strategies; positive and negative effects of other people’s involvement in their music learning (i.e., parents, ensemble directors, and peers); and social connections through ensemble playing. These participants’ voices were shared along with implications and suggestions for teaching students with visual impairments. A phenomenological case study by Haywood (2006) shared the unique perspective of a high school choir member with special needs. This singer experienced a positive change through an inclusive and collaborative music-making experience, which helped her gain the identity of “musician” within her identity of “choir member” (Haywood, 2006, p. 414). In another choral study, VanWeelden et al. (2017) investigated singers’ perceptions of success following a peer mentorship program. In this pretest-posttest study, singers with disabilities were paired with those who had no impairments, and partners without disabilities seemed to benefit most from this experience. Researchers have also shared the voices of younger students on inclusion practices in music classes (Colwell et al., 2001; Jellison & Flowers, 1999).

Elementary students’ perceptions of inclusion have been evaluated (Colwell et al., 2001; Jellison & Flowers, 1999). Colwell et al. (2001), for example, tested the effects of disability simulations in elementary students. In these simulations, participants adapted their senses and abilities to simulate disabilities (e.g., wearing blindfolds or a sling on their arm). Of all the disabilities portrayed in the study, students had the most positive attitudes toward learning disabilities and the most negative attitudes toward visual disabilities. Students’ reactions were strongest during the visual disability simulations. In Jellison and Flowers’ (1999) study, structured interviews were used to gather data on the music preferences, experiences, and skills of elementary students with and without disabilities. These researchers revealed that both groups of students had similar preferences and skills. In terms of experiences, students without disabilities had more practice with band and orchestral instruments, whereas students with disabilities had a better familiarity with classroom instruments. These distinctions in students’ musical experiences may have been the result of different teaching practices, which is the next theme in this literature review.

Practices in Schools

This second theme involves inclusion practices, which can include issues with school music curricula. Chen (2007) focused on elementary music teacher curricula in the states of Idaho and Washington. As with prior studies (e.g., Hammel, 2001; Scott et al., 2007; Stafford, 2019), findings revealed that music teachers needed additional training to teach students with disabilities and there was uncertainty on the use of IEPs in music classrooms (Chen, 2007). Participants requested that their districts provide more training opportunities through workshops so that they may have confidence when developing their curricula. Chen (2007) revealed that music teachers had trouble teaching students with behavior problems, and they claimed to have more positive outcomes when curricula were planned while considering students’ behavioral characteristics. On instruction components, 90% of music teachers made use of task analyses to break down activities into smaller sequenced tasks, and a negative relationship was found between communication with administrators and teacher perceptions of student outcomes (Chen, 2007).

Researchers have examined several teaching strategies based on music teacher opinion (Gerrity et al., 2013; Salvador, 2015). Darrow (1999) assessed practicing music teachers’ perceptions of inclusive practices. Instrumental, vocal, and general music teachers shared adaptations that they considered important for an inclusive music setting (Darrow, 1999). The use of paraprofessionals was at the top of the list, followed by peer partners, individualized instruction, and modified materials (Darrow, 1999). Gerrity et al. (2013) revealed essential strategies, which included the use of repetition, student choice, and increased response time. Essential conditions for learning included providing clear directions and expectations, implementing a behavior plan, and fostering a positive learning environment (Gerrity et al., 2013). When working with elementary-aged students with moderate to severe impairments, effective strategies have included adapted music instruments, color-coding, and peer assistance (Salvador, 2015).

A few researchers have examined specific tools and aids for inclusive music classrooms (Culton, 1999; McCord, 2004). Culton (1999) inspected music education textbooks to see if they contained topics that music teachers found important for teaching students with disabilities. Of the 17 most important topics, 14 of them had, on average, less than 1% coverage in the three most recently published music education textbooks (e.g., methods to assess present levels of functioning, adapting songs and instruments, and steps in behavior management). The other three topics (i.e., evaluating nonmusic correlates such as behavior and socialization, containing a system to collect and record student progress, and identifying optimum levels of achievement of various disabling conditions) received no textual coverage at all (Culton, 1999). In another study, McCord (2004) presented the multisensory benefits of technology for creative music making with special learners. She reported the progress of a student with a disability who performed creative music tasks using a software program called Music Mania connected to a Soundbeam—“an ultrasonic beam that responds to movement by producing MIDI sounds” (McCord, 2004, p. 28). Another type of assistive music technology, a tactile indicator (with adapted Braille for solfege), had a significant effect on pitch accuracy for visually impaired elementary and secondary students (Yune, 2007). Many music teachers have been unaware of the adaptive technologies that exist for their use (McCord & Watts, 2010), and this lack of knowledge might stem from their training at the university level.

University Coursework

The third theme, University Coursework, concerns different aspects of preservice teacher training, including university curricula (Hammel, 1999; Salvador, 2010). Hammel (1999) designed a unit to teach inclusion to undergraduate music education majors. She first looked at how college and university music education faculty used undergraduate coursework and experiences to prepare preservice music teachers for inclusion. Less than one third of her responding faculty members reported that their institutions prepared preservice teachers to identify and record data for student referrals. Results confirmed 14 necessary competencies for elementary music teachers, which she incorporated into her unit objectives. Hammel (1999) provided a semester-long course outline and suggestions for textbooks, other class readings, field experiences, and assignments. Other researchers have examined university curricula for coursework in special education (Colwell & Thompson, 2000; Salvador, 2010). Colwell and Thompson (2000) inspected 171 music education programs and found that 74% of the schools had a course available, and of the 140 available special education courses, only 30 were music-content specific. Of those 30 music-content specific courses, 43% of them were required. Ten years later, Salvador (2010) assessed the special education coursework offered in NASM-accredited universities across the country. Of the 109 responding institutions, 29.6% required a course in teaching music to special learners, 38.9% indicated that a special education course was available, and 59.8% claimed to incorporate special education lessons in other courses. Taken together, findings on inclusion coursework might indicate that there has been little to no improvement from 1999 to 2010.

Reported fieldwork experiences at the university level have resulted in improved music teacher preparation (Hourigan, 2007; VanWeelden & Whipple, 2005). Smith and Wilson (1999) found statistically significant improvements in graduate students’ attitudes toward inclusion following hands-on experiences in a special education course. In later studies, VanWeelden and Whipple (2005, 2007) discovered that preservice music teachers had improved confidence and attitudes toward inclusive teaching after fieldwork experiences with special learners. Hourigan (2007, 2009) confirmed previous findings through a phenomenological examination that reaffirmed the value and benefits of hands-on preservice teachers’ fieldwork experiences. Using a different type of hands-on experience, Kaiser and Johnson (2000) tested the effects of an interactive concert experience with deaf elementary students on preservice teachers perceptions on music for deaf children. Participants found this to be a positive experience, and claimed it helped them increase their knowledge and sense of relatedness to the Deaf community. Whipple and VanWeelden (2012) examined undergraduates’ perceptions of inclusive educational supports. After reporting their statistical results, Whipple and VanWeelden (2012) wrote that “the most important finding in this study is that preservice teachers are capable of determining which educational supports are most effective when implementing various teaching elements in general music and in a variety of ensembles” (p. 44). Indeed, if presented with the proper training and opportunities for practice, music teachers might be better prepared to face inclusion in the schools (Darrow, 1999; Salvador, 2010; VanWeelden & Whipple, 2007).

Benefits of service-learning experiences are like those of course fieldwork experiences (Bartolome, 2013; Reynolds et al., 2005). Reynolds (2003b) defined service-learning as a teaching and learning paradigm where “students apply knowledge and skills they have been learning in the classroom in real-world settings as a service to members of a community” (p. 9). Throughout the service-learning process, preservice teachers are engaged in structured reflection on their experiences, and all participants (i.e., students, teachers, and community members) benefit from the partnership (Reynolds, 2003b). Several studies have reported benefits of service-learning experiences for preservice music teachers working with students with disabilities (Bartolome, 2013; Reynolds, 2003a; Reynolds et al., 2005). For instance, Bartolome (2013) provided data to support how, because of their hands-on involvement, preservice teachers improved their teaching skills, sense of preparation, creativity, teacher identity, maturity, career awareness, self-reflective practices, sense of empathy, and levels of comfort and efficacy. All these improved teacher qualities might have had an impact on student behavior as well.

Unique Topics

The fourth theme includes studies with unique topics that include few examinations, such as behaviors of students with disabilities in a music setting (Draper, 2017; Jellison, 2002). In 2002, Jellison assessed proximity issues in an inclusive music classroom. She found that typical students were more on-task when located far away from students with disabilities, though student attention was not the same across all typical students (Jellison, 2002). For an improved inclusive learning environment, Jellison (2002) offered suggestions for seating arrangements and peer interactions. Draper et al. (2019) reported the benefits of peer-interactions in music classes. The social aspect of peer-interactions was beneficial to students with and without disabilities on both academic and social levels. Another study focused on behaviors of students with disabilities in music settings (Draper, 2017). Through systematic observations, Draper (2017) noted the behaviors of students with disabilities in terms of music participation, on-task conduct, and meeting IEP goals. In her conclusion, Draper (2017) stressed the need for more studies of this nature. With music teachers expressing the need for behavior management techniques for their students with disabilities (Chen, 2007; Culton, 1999; Lisenmeier, 2004), more studies of this kind might be beneficial to the field.

Results from more unique topics have provided the field with new insights (Hoffman, 2011; VanWeelden & Meehan, 2016). Hoffman (2011) examined the involvement of students with disabilities in secondary ensembles. Through this survey study across five states, he discovered that, while 13.6% of students received special education services nationwide, students with disabilities only accounted for 6.8% of the overall ensemble population. Additionally, results from a multiple regression analysis revealed that student population (i.e., 1–500 students, 501–1,000 students, 1,001–1,500 students, 1,501–2,000 students, or 2,001 or more students) was a significant predictor of inclusion in secondary ensembles. As overall school populations increased, the rate of inclusion among students with disabilities decreased in instrumental ensembles (Hoffman, 2011). Simulation activities at the preservice level have had positive results, as discovered by Colwell (2012) when she performed simulation activities with undergraduate music majors. Results of her pretest-posttest study showed that participants had more positive attitudes toward inclusion following the simulation experience. Workshops have been a primary source of inclusion training for music teachers (Hammel, 2001; Lisenmeier, 2004). In one such example, VanWeelden and Meehan (2016) examined the types and frequency of special music education workshops at music educator association conferences from 2004 to 2013. Of the 38 states that provided conference programs for this study, 10 did not mention any music and special education workshops at all. Overall, music teachers were not receiving adequate inclusion training at either the preservice or inservice level (VanWeelden & Meehan, 2016).

Discussion

Summary

The purpose of this literature review was to examine the past 20 years of music education research (1999–2019) to determine how well the inclusion goal of Vision 2020 has been met. Studies on music teacher and school-aged student perceptions have revealed a need for improved inclusion preparation for music teachers (Darrow, 1999; Nabb & Balcetis, 2010; VanWeelden et al., 2017). Examinations of school curricula, teaching strategies, and tools and aids have revealed benefits of and needs for inclusion practices in the schools (Gerrity et al., 2013; Salvador, 2010, 2015). Although positive effects have resulted from fieldwork and service-learning experiences in university courses (Smith & Wilson, 1999; Reynolds et al., 2005), music teachers are still in need of music content-specific special education training at the preservice level (Colwell & Thompson, 2000; Salvador, 2010). Unique study topics such as behavior management (Draper, 2017), status of students with disabilities in secondary ensembles (Hoffman, 2011), and disability workshops at music teacher conferences (VanWeelden & Meehan, 2016) could provide updated information if studies are replicated.

Vision 2020 ended with the Housewright Declaration, and the 12th and final point connected to inclusion in music education. This 12th point was written to break barriers that may impede meeting any of the goals in the declaration (Madsen, 2000). Indeed, there are obstacles in music education that may have hindered meeting Vision 2020 goals, and inclusion issues have been at the forefront (Draper, 2017; Hourigan, 2007; Salvador, 2010).

Implications and Conclusions

Our field has made steps toward meeting Vision 2020 goals, and researchers and practitioners have worked to meet mandates with students’ best interests in mind. Researchers have reported several obstacles that music teachers face with inclusion in their classrooms. These include a lack of special education training at the preservice level (Colwell & Thompson, 2000; Darrow, 1999; Salvador, 2010), a lack of inclusion teaching experiences at the preservice level (Hourigan, 2007; Smith & Wilson, 1999), poor attitudes toward inclusion (Nabb & Balcetis, 2010; Sharrock, 2007), a lack of awareness of available aids (McCord & Watts, 2010), little involvement in IEP processes (Hammel, 2001; Stafford, 2019), and uncertainty when dealing with behavior issues (Draper, 2017). Though researchers have worked to identify these major issues, it seems that less action has been taken to change the field’s stagnant state (Colwell & Thompson, 2000; Gfeller et al., 1990; Salvador, 2010; VanWeelden & Whipple, 2014). With the help of findings from inclusion research, both researchers and practitioners can continue their efforts to make a change.

Many inclusion studies have focused on music teacher perceptions, both at the preservice and inservice levels (Davila, 2013; Hammel, 2001; Hourigan, 2007; Nabb & Balcetis, 2010; VanWeelden & Whipple, 2005). Studies on other topics and even replication of unique topics may be helpful in identifying different areas that need improvement. These might include examinations of school music curricula (Chen, 2007), assistive technologies (McCord & Watts, 2010), assessment and recording of data (Hammel, 1999), IEP trainings (Stafford, 2019), university curricula (Salvador, 2010), and behavior issues (Draper, 2017). By providing novel information to the field, music teachers and music teacher educators might be able to start an action plan.

As improvements are made with research and university curricula, practicing teachers can use empirically-tested strategies and take advantage of inclusion training opportunities. Through research, our field has learned of effective music teaching strategies and materials for students with disabilities (Darrow, 1999; Gerrity et al., 2013; Salvador, 2015). Until further research is published, music teachers can begin to implement these practices. Researchers have also shown that music teachers receive most of their inclusion training through staff development sessions, conference clinics, and workshops (Cooper, 1999; Hammel, 2001; Lisenmeier, 2004; VanWeelden & Meehan, 2016). So, continued attendance at these sessions might be beneficial. Resources are also available to help music teachers with inclusion practices (Adamek & Darrow, 2018; Jellison, 2015).

Experts in special music education have published books with lessons and strategies for inclusion in music settings (Adamek & Darrow, 2018; Blair & McCord, 2016; Hammel, 2017; Hammel & Hourigan, 2017; Jellison, 2015). Adamek and Darrow’s (2018) Music in Special Education touches on critical topics in special music education from the past into the future. In Teaching Music to Students with Special Needs: A Practical Resource, Hammel (2017) gives descriptions of students with specific disabilities and strategies to accommodate them. Hammel and Hourigan (2017) coauthored Teaching Music to Students with Special Needs: A Label-Free Approach (2nd ed.), which shares legislative issues, preparation strategies, and adaptation and curriculum ideas for all music areas—elementary, band, orchestra, and choir. Exceptional Music Pedagogy for Children with Exceptionalities: International Perspectives contains suggestions and inclusion practices from around the world to provide a broader perspective on inclusive music education (Blair & McCord, 2016). In one chapter of that text, titled Understanding the Individualized Education Program Model within the United States, VanWeelden supplies guidance on how to interpret IEPs and prepare music accommodations based on IEP goals. Jellison’s (2015) Including Everyone: Creating Music Classrooms Where All Children Can Learn presents a new and unique approach to inclusive music teaching. She expands on the idea of a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to apply to music settings. UDL “is designed to be accessible, equitable, and flexible; instructional practices are effective; individual adaptations are used only as needed; and students’ progress is assessed frequently” (p. 96). All these books help illuminate the fact that there are always ways to improve strategies and practices.

Progress has been made on inclusion in music education. As the number of students with social emotional needs increases, the topic of social emotional learning has become a focus in K–12 schools and has begun to merge with the issue of inclusion. Social emotional learning is now seen at workshops and can be an area for future research. With the help of past and upcoming empirical findings, both researchers and practitioners can do their part to improve learning conditions for all students. By working together, different members in the field of music education can contribute to improved conditions in society. Although Vision 2020 goals may not have been fully met for inclusion by the end of 2020, there is hope that barriers will be broken for clearer visions in the future.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

Amalia A. Allan, College of Music, Florida State University.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Amalia A. Allan

References

Adamek

M. S.

Darrow

A.-A.

(2018). Music in special education (3rd ed.). American Music Therapy Association.

Bartolome

S. J.

(2013). Growing through service: Exploring the impact of a service-learning experience on preservice educators. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 23(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083712471951

Blair

D. V.

McCord

K. A.

(Eds.). (2016). Exceptional music pedagogy for children with exceptionalities: International perspectives. Oxford University Press.

Chang

A. C.

(2017). String teachers’ perceptions of inclusion of students with autism in classroom settings (Publication No. 10266847) [Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Chen

(2007). A research procedure and study of elementary music for children with special needs in inclusive music programs (Publication No. 3293808) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Idaho]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Colwell

C. M.

(2012). Simulation disabilities as a tool for altering individual perceptions of working with children with special needs. International Journal of Music Education, 31(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761411433725

Colwell

C. M.

Thompson

L. K.

(2000). “Inclusion” of information on mainstreaming in undergraduate music education curricula. Journal of Music Therapy, 37(3), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/37.3.205

Colwell

C. M.

Thompson

L. K.

Berke

M. K.

(2001). Disability simulations and information: Techniques for modifying the attitudes of elementary school music students. Journal of Music Therapy, 38(4), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/38.4.321

Cooper

N. A.

(1999). A survey of current music inclusion practices and issues in New Jersey. Contributions to Music Education, 26(2), 9–37. http://jstor.com/stable/24127083

10.

Culton

C. L.

(1999). The extent to which elementary music education textbooks reflect teachers’ needs regarding instruction of students with special needs: A content analysis (Publication No. 9957258) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

11.

Darrow

A.-A.

(1999). Music educators’ perceptions regarding the inclusion of students with severe disabilities in music classrooms. Journal of Music Therapy, 36(4), 254–273. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/36.4.254

12.

Davila

G. A.

(2013). A graduate course on inclusion: Four elementary/general music educators’ perceived attitudes and applications in the classroom (Publication No. 3608227) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

13.

Draper

E. A.

(2017). Observations of children with disabilities in four elementary music classrooms. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 36(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123316660594

14.

Draper

E. A.

Brown

L. S.

Jellison

J. A.

(2019). Peer-interaction strategies: Fostering positive experiences for students with severe disabilities in inclusive music classes. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 37(3), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123318820401

15.

Gerrity

K. W.

Hourigan

R. M.

Horton

P. W.

(2013). Conditions that facilitate music learning among students with special needs: A mixed-methods inquiry. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(2), 144–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429413485428

16.

Gfeller

Darrow

A.-A.

Hedden

S. K.

(1990). Perceived effectiveness of Iowa and Kansas schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38(2), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3344929

17.

Grimsby

(2019). “Anything is better than nothing!” Inservice teacher preparation for teaching students with disabilities. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 29(3), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083719893116

18.

Hammel

A. M.

(1999). A study of teacher competencies necessary when including special learners in elementary music classrooms: The development of a unit of study for use with undergraduate music education students (Publication No 9926079) [Doctoral dissertation, Shenandoah Conservatory]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

19.

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), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/875512330102000103

20.

Hammel

A. M.

(2017). Teaching music to students with special needs: A practical resource. Oxford University Press.

21.

Hammel

A. M.

Hourigan

R. M.

(2017). Teaching music to students with special needs: A label-free approach (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

22.

Haywood

(2006). You can’t be in my choir if you can’t stand up: One journey toward inclusion. Music Education Research, 8(3), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800600957511

23.

Hoffman

E. C.

(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 (Publication No. 3465567) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

24.

Hourigan

R. M.

(2007). A special needs field experience for preservice instrumental music educators. Contributions to Music Education, 34, 19–33. https://jstor.org/stable/24127256

25.

Hourigan

R. M.

(2009). Preservice music teachers’ perceptions of fieldwork experiences in a special needs classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57(2), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429409335880

26.

IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647. https://govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-108publ446/pdf/PLAW-108publ446.pdf

27.

Jellison

J. A.

(2002). On-task participation of typical students close to and away from classmates with disabilities in an elementary music classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(4), 343–355. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345360

28.

Jellison

J. A.

(2015). Including everyone: Creating music classrooms where all children learn. Oxford University Press.

29.

Jellison

J. A.

Flowers

P. J.

(1999). Talking about music: Interviews with disabled and nondisabled children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39(4), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3345751

30.

Jung

L. A.

Frey

Fisher

Kroener

(2019). Your students, my students, our students: Rethinking equitable and inclusive classrooms. ASCD.

31.

Kaiser

K. A.

Johnson

K. E.

(2000). The effect of an interactive experience on music majors’ perceptions of music for deaf students. Journal of Music Therapy, 37(3), 222–234. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/37.3.222

32.

Lisenmeier

C. V.

(2004). The impact of music teacher training on the rate and level of involvement of special education students in high school band and choir (Publication No. 3159804) [Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

33.

Madsen

C. K.

(Ed.). (2000). Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on the future of music education. MENC.

34.

McCord

(2004). Moving beyond “That’s all I can do:” Encouraging musical creativity in children with learning disabilities. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 159, 23–32. https://jstor.org/stable/40319205

35.

McCord

K. A.

Watts

E. H.

(2010). Music educators’ involvement in the Individual Education Program process and their knowledge of assistive technology. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 28(2), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123310361683

36.

Moss

F. W.

Jr. (2009). Quality of experience in mainstreaming and full inclusion of blind and visually impaired high school instrumental music students (Publication No. 3354033) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

37.

Nabb

Balcetis

(2010). Access to music education: Nebraska band directors’ experiences and attitudes regarding students with physical disabilities. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57(4), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429409353142

38.

Reynolds

A. M.

(2003a). Participants in a service-learning partnership: Agents of change. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 157, 71–81. https://jstor.org/stable/40319188

39.

Reynolds

A. M.

(2003b). Service-learning in music teacher education: An overview. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 13(2), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F10570837040130020103

40.

Reynolds

A. M.

Jerome

Preston

A. L.

Haynes

(2005). Service-learning in music education: Participants’ reflections. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 165, 79–91. https://jstor.org/stable/40319272

41.

Salvador

(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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083710362462

42.

Salvador

(2015). Music instruction for elementary students with moderate to severe cognitive impairments: A case study. Research Studies in Music Education, 37(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X15613645

43.

Scott

L. P.

Jellison

J. A.

Chappell

E. W.

Standridge

A. A.

(2007). Talking with music teachers about inclusion: Perceptions, opinions and experiences. Journal of Music Therapy, 44(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/44.1.38

44.

Sharrock

B. R.

(2007). A comparison of the attitudes of South Carolina special education and chorus teachers toward mainstreaming students with mild and moderate mental disabilities (Publication No. 3296686) [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

45.

Smith

D. S.

Wilson

B. L.

(1999). Effects of field experience on graduate music educators’ attitude toward teaching students with disabilities. Contributions to Music Education, 26(1), 33–49. http://jstor.com/stable/24127007

46.

Stafford

K. S.

(2019). Music teachers’ perceptions of their involvement in the implementation processes of Individualized Education Programs (Publication No. 13885951) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

47.

VanWeelden

Heath-Reynolds

Leaman

(2017). The effect of a peer mentorship program on perceptions of success in choral ensembles: Pairing students with and without disabilities. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 36(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123316675480

48.

VanWeelden

Meehan

(2016). Teaching children with disabilities: Preparation through state music educators association conferences. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 35(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123315582069

49.

VanWeelden

Whipple

(2005). The effects of field experience on music education majors’ perceptions of music instruction for secondary students with special needs. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 14(2), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837050140020109

50.

VanWeelden

Whipple

(2007). An exploratory study of the impact of field experiences on music education majors’ attitudes and perceptions of music for secondary students with special needs. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 16(2), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837070160020105

51.

VanWeelden

Whipple

(2014). Music educators’ perceived effectiveness of inclusion. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(2), 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429414530563

52.

Whipple

VanWeelden

(2012). Educational supports for students with special needs: Preservice music educators’ perceptions. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 30(2), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123312436987

53.

Yune

J. T.-J.

(2007). The effect of a solfège-related tactile indicator on pitch accuracy in the retention of a vocal song in visually impaired elementary and secondary students (Publication No. 3311040) (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.