feature
20 percent of U.S. children lived in pov- erty, including 15 percent of WI children (Kena et al., 2016). SES is complex and complicated, because our nation’s his- tory of segregation and racism (Orfield, Kuscera, & Siegel-Hawley, 2012) and some immigration trends (Kena et al., 2016) mean that Black and Hispanic students disproportionately come from families with low income and/or edu- cational 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. About 44 percent of WI students attend rural schools in communities that “struggle with eco- nomic, land use, and other policies that threaten their stability and their ability to educate their children” (WDPI, n.d.). Another 8.9 percent of all WI students attend Milwaukee Public Schools, where rates of poverty are disproportionately high (79.9 percent of students receive free/ reduced lunch).
(Dis)Ability. In 2014-15, 13 percent of all public school students in the U.S. (6.6 mil- lion children ages 3-21) received special education services (Kena et al., 2016). In the same year, 12.4 percent of WI students received special education services, most frequently for Speech or Language Im- pairment, Specific Learning Disability, Other Health Impairment, or Emotional Behavioral Disability (WDPI, 2014).
Gender and Sexuality. While it is dif- ficult to conjecture about trends, it is fair to say that students are increasingly 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 bullying, eating disorders, depression and suicide, particularly (although not solely) among LGBTQ youth (e.g., Griffiths, Murray, & Touyz, 2015; Good & Sanchez, 2010; Mustanski & Liu, 2013).
Wisconsin School Musician
Intersectionality. Intersectionality refers to the way that social identities (such as those listed above) are not separate, but instead coexist and even co-construct one another. That means that when we describe people in terms of membership 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 perceptions of me as female) are informed and created in part by my ethnicity and my socioeconomic status. Successful efforts to increase inclusion, equity and justice in music education must consider intersectionality in addi- tion to understanding individual aspects of social identity.
What does it mean to have “access” to music education? In a position on Inclusiveness and Diver- sity, 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 awareness 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).
This statement addresses two aspects of access: 1) the presence 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 U.S. high schools that offer music, about 21 percent 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 under- represented” (p.1)1
. Students who have
Individual Education Programs (IEPs) are also significantly underrepresented in secondary music classes (Hoffman, 2011). Considering sociological and practical ac- cess to music courses leads to questions such as: Are there additional expenses or extracurricular requirements that might be preventing lower-income students from participating? Do scheduling and com- munication 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 education? Does the music program reflect the needs, desires and cultures of the school and community? What would make a student and/or family believe “this class is for me/my child?”2
Inclusion. In special education, inclusion is when students with exceptionalities learn alongside their age peers, engaging as full participants in a range of activities with individual supports and curricular modifications when needed. In a broader sense, inclusion implies making space for the “other” within already existing structures. For example, when a student with physical impairments uses an adap- tive instrument in wind band, or a student who is blind pairs with a sighted student to facilitate participation in marching band. According to Stewart (2017), a person or system with a diversity/inclusion mindset seeks incremental growth toward representation of all populations, but with minimal or no changes to the ways things are done.
Equity. In contrast, equity in education involves changing systems and structures to create conditions in which all children can achieve their educational potential. An equity or justice mindset “celebrates reductions in harm, revisions to abusive systems and increases in supports …[in- cluding] getting rid of practices and poli- cies that were having disparate impacts on minoritized groups” (Stewart, 2017). Elpus and Abril (2011) demonstrated that
Continued on page 38 37
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 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
