The enormity of the problem is also one of numbers as the increased demand for educational provision for maladjusted children reflects that it is one of the two fastest growth areas in special education. In 1945, there was only one tutorial class in London for disturbed children but by 1983 there were 226 units in the ILEA offering places for disruptive children.
Disturbed and disruptive are obviously not tautological terms, but there has since 1945 been a great deal of confusion regarding precisely what sort of child the label ‘maladjusted’ refers to. In 1955, the Underwood Committee highlighted the symptoms which were indicative of maladjustment, they being—nervous behaviour, habit, psychotic and organic disorders, and educational and vocational difficulties. It is obviously a very mixed bag and though the emphasis is on disturbed behaviour, there is sufficient leeway amongst the categories to allow for disruptive behaviour to be included within the term maladjustment. As disruption and violence have been on the increase in schools, certainly since the raising of the school leaving age if not before, EBD schools now find themselves very often catering not only for genuinely disturbed children but also for those without emotional disorders but whose disruptive and deviant behaviour has made them difficult to contain in mainstream schools.
In their survey of the Education of Disturbed Pupils (1980), Wilson and Evans indicate that there are particular problems relating to the musical education of these children. Their difficulties concerning self-discipline, cooperation and concentration make composition, audition and performance extremely difficult to achieve and though Wilson and Evans record that teachers value the importance of creative work, music teaching was only infrequently observed by them. Apart from the nature of the children, one of the principle reasons for this was seen to be the scarcity of suitable teachers ‘who are skilled in the use of the medium— and who are skilled in the management of disturbed pupils. Such people are naturally extremely rare’.
Because of the nature of the work it would be rare to find a music specialist working full-time in an EBD school but the lack of music in such schools is surely more of a reflection on the non-specialist teachers working in the field than the music specialists working elsewhere. Since most maladjusted schools conform to the primary model in the sense that class teachers are responsible for most of the subject teaching of their own children, one is led to ask why it is that teachers ‘who happily tackle the teaching of mathematics, science, reading and other aspects of the school curriculum, shrink from organizing meaningful musical activities in their classrooms?’ (Adams and Syers, 1983). It is a question which I put to seventy-seven teachers in special schools. All those questioned were currently offering a range of subjects to their pupils and in many cases the teachers were each responsible for the complete classroom education of their group of children. The teachers were asked: ‘did your own higher education (teacher training/university course, etc.) equip you to offer some kind of music education to the children you are currently working with?’ and despite the fact that they were all teaching a wide cross-section of subjects—academic, recreational and practical—only five of the seventyseven teachers replied ‘yes’ to the question and only three of the five were involved in music teaching at the time of answering.
Reporting on the Music Consultancy in Berkshire Primary Schools, Smith (1987) speaks of the ‘deep-seated insecurity and lack of confidence’
nonspecialists feel about embarking on musical activities with their children. One may imagine how greatly intensified these feelings become when the children involved are disturbed, for Wilson and Evans observed how vulnerable music-making was in respect of its ‘disruptability’: which brings us back to the element of risk involved in such an undertaking. An integral part of the childrens’ disruptive behaviour (whether intentional or not) is a consistent and systematic attempt to de-skill the teacher and this obviously is particularly pertinent to the non-specialist teacher attempting to introduce music into the curriculum. It means that, as well as coping with the childrens’ problems of poor self-control, lack of concentrations, low motivation, retardation, etc. the teacher has to anticipate possible damage to him/herself both professionally and personally.
This issue was brought home to me during the course of an interview with a music therapist who had for many years been the headteacher of an EBD school. Though teacher-trained in the creative arts he had chosen not to teach music in his school because in his opinion:
to teach music in this context one needs a cast-iron technique, clearly defined boundaries and sufficient maturity (or self-assurance) to cope with the children who seek to destroy it for you. You can’t risk teaching something which is precious to you when you know that it will be ridiculed and denigrated.
He also felt that his pupils were very resistant to music education because of its ‘exploratory nature which tends to frighten this type of child’.
This teacher believed that music education was threatening for the administrator principally because music appeals to a subliminal level which other subjects do not: but in fact it would appear that many teachers share the feeling that they are similarly threatened whatever subject they teach. Rather than being a music related issue it would seem that it is more to do with the children’s efforts to de-skill and demoralize the teacher. The fact that music has the capacity to appeal to the subliminal nature of the child does, however, suggest that it has the capacity to cause damage if handled badly. Nordoff and Robbins acknowledge that certain aspects of their music-making with children were ‘powerfully intrusive. If these facts were disregarded there could be the danger of placing insupportable stresses on a child and hence engendering confusion and instability’ (1971).
Bearing in mind these points it perhaps becomes clear why there is so little music education happening in EBD schools, though in cases where teachers have observed it taking place their negative comments tend to centre on such issues as the noise factor and the problems arising from end of term concerts, etc. rather than psychological damage sustained by staff and pupils. One should not however underestimate music’s potential and it would obviously be wrong for the layperson to attempt amateur music therapy, but it would seem from my
experience in EBD schools that there is a place for music education and that it can successfully be promoted by the non-specialist teacher. The musical activities I have seen used successfully with maladjusted children have largely been restricted to the type practised in junior or lower secondary classes which would in itself seem to be desirable at a time when we are urged to bear in mind the integration (or very often in this case the re-integration) of special needs children. Since there is a marked relationship between maladjustment and academic failure we need to ensure that EBD children are not further disadvantaged by our failure as teachers in providing them with such a restricted curriculum that they are unable to rejoin their mainstream classes largely because they have not followed the same course of work as their peers.
HOW MAY MUSIC BE SUSTAINED IN EBD