al 7.7% of MI residents are native-born US citizens with at least one immigrant parent (American Immigration Council, 2017). Te most common countries of origin for MI immi- grants are Mexico (11.5% of immigrants), India (10.1%), Iraq (8.1%), China (5.9%) and Canada (5.4%). In 2016-17, 6.2% of students in MI were ELLs (MDE, n.d.). Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Location. SES indica-
tors include factors such as family income, family structure, and parental educational attainment. According to federal criteria, in 2015, 20% of US children lived in poverty, includ- ing 22% of MI children (Kena et al., 2016). In 2016, 45.9% of students met MI criteria for “economic disadvantage” (MDE, n.d.). SES is complex and complicated, because our nation’s history of segregation and racism (Orfield, Kuscera, & Sie- gel-Hawley, 2012) and some immigration trends (Kena et al., 2016) mean that Black and Hispanic students disproportion- ately come from families with low income and/or educational attainment. Moreover, location is important, as poverty is concentrated both among inner city and rural schools, and both concentrated and generational poverty are particularly challenging for students, families, and schools. In MI, 48.7% of Black students attend schools in which 90-100% of stu- dent enrollment is non-White (Orfield, Ee, Frankenberg, & Siegel-Hawley, 2016). Such highly racially segregated schools have disproportionately high rates of student poverty, leading to “double segregation.” Tis matters …because of massive and growing research evidence that (1) segregation creates unequal opportunities and helps perpetuate stratification in the society and (2) diverse schools have significant advantages, not only for learning and attainment but for the creation of better preparation for all groups to live and work successfully in a complex society which will have no racial majority (p. 1) …[and] When students are socialized in schools in which few students have benefited from the advan- tages and power that middle class families possess and exercise on behalf of their children, they are poorly pre- pared for a society where colleges/universities and good jobs are strongly white and middle class institutions (Orfield, Ee, Frankenberg, & Siegel-Hawley, 2016, p. 6).
Michigan’s 20.8% of students who are served in rural districts are also disproportionately low SES (Kena et al., 2016). (Dis)Ability. In 2014-15, 13% of all public school stu-
dents in the US (6.6 million children ages 3-21) received spe- cial education services (Kena et al., 2016). In the same year, 12.9% of MI students received special education services, most frequently for Specific Learning Disability (30.8%), Speech or Language Impairment (25%), Other Health Im- pairment (12%), Cognitive Impairment (9.6%), or Austism Spectrum Disorder (8.7%) (MDE, n.d.). Gender and Sexuality. While it is difficult to conjec-
ture about trends, it is fair to say that students are increasing- ly open about their gender expression and sexuality diversity. In addition, girls and boys are treated differently in schools and have different outcomes as a result (e.g., Freudenthaler, Spinath,& Neubauer, 2008; Myhill & Jones, 2006; Sadker &
Sadker, 2010). Moreover, pressure to conform to gendered ideals for appearance and behavior is associated with bully- ing, eating disorders, depression, and suicide, particularly (although not solely) among LGBTQ youth (e.g., Griffiths, Murray, & Touyz, 2015; Good & Sanchez, 2010; Mustanski & Liu, 2013). Intersectionality. Intersectionality refers to the way
that social identities (such as those listed above) are not sep- arate, but instead coexist and even co-construct one another. Tat means that when we describe people in terms of mem- bership in social groups (whether or not these are things they can change), the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. For example, my notions about being female (and your per- ceptions of me as female) are informed and created in part by my ethnicity and my socioeconomic status. Moreover, as I navigate the systems and structures of our world, some parts of my intersectional identity are associated with dominant culture and some parts are not. Successful efforts to increase inclusion, equity, and justice in music education must consid- er intersectionality in addition to understanding individual aspects of social identity.
What does it mean to have “access” to music education? In their position on Inclusiveness and Diversity, NAfME wrote,
A well-rounded and comprehensive music education program should exist in every American school; should be built on a curricular framework that promotes aware- ness of, respect for, and responsiveness to the variety and diversity of cultures; and should be delivered by teachers whose culturally responsive pedagogy enable[s] them to successfully design and implement such an inclusive curricular framework (2017b).
Tis statement addresses two aspects of access (1) the pres- ence of a program in every school and (2) the sociocultural and practical accessibility of that program. Although we must continue to fight for the presence of music education in every school, this article is primarily written for practicing teachers, so I will focus on the second type of access.
In US high schools that offer music, about 21% of students participate in ensembles (Elpus & Abril, 2011). Within these programs, “male[s], English language learners, Hispanic[s], children of parents holding a high school diploma or less, and [students] in the lowest SES quartile were significantly underrepresented” (p. 1)1
. Students who have Individual Edu-
cation Programs (IEPs) are also significantly underrepresent- ed in secondary music classes (Hoffman, 2011). Considering sociological and practical access to music courses leads to questions such as: Are there additional expenses or extracur- ricular requirements that might be preventing lower-income students from participating? Do scheduling and communi- cation with other educators facilitate participation for ELLs and students with IEPs? Are there options for students at all levels of ability to join in music education at any time in their
8
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
