6. RELACIONES INTERPERSONALES
6.1. El hombre: imagen, percepción y representación
Moving away from unhappy self-perceptions of musical ability, the place of music in the education of children and young people with stated special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) is now considered. Although professionals have stated that music has an important part to play in the lives of this group (Welch et al., 2001), it is still a largely invisible area in terms of relevant research and literature, especially where children with SLD and PMLD are concerned (Ockelford, 2008). Many existing texts specifically concerned with the music education of children and young people with SEN, for example, either make limited reference to children with SLD and PMLD (Jaquiss and Patterson, 2005) or are written from a music therapeutic perspective (Ott, 2011). The music education of children in these two groups features so little in the general music education discourse that it approaches imperceptibility.
The PROMISE report
In 2001, Welch, Hargreaves and Zimmerman undertook a large study specifically examining the provision of music in special education (PROMISE) for children with SLD and PMLD,
identifying areas of concern and gaining insight into levels of teacher expertise. At that time, 397 schools in England were designated to cater for children with SLD, PMLD, or multi- sensory impairment, a category including pupils with SLD and PMLD. A further 200 schools also made provision for pupils with SLD and PMLD, a total of over 30,000 children. Although this significant report was, at the time of writing, published over fourteen years ago, the figures detailed within it have changed little in the intervening years, according to one of its authors (S. Zimmerman, personal communication, February 2014).
Of the 53 sample special schools in Welch et al.’s study, 49 (94%) had a designated music co-ordinator, over half of whom had no background or qualification in music or music education (Welch et al., 2001). Most pupils received music from their class teacher, a ‘non- specialist’ in music. However, many primary school generalist14 teachers lack confidence in their own musicianship, and feel that music teaching is outside their area of expertise (Holden and Button, 2006; Bremner, 2013; Welch and Henley, 2014). It is reasonable to suggest that this may also apply to special school generalist teachers. A programme attempting to address this lack of confidence is currently being developed for generalist primary school teachers (Biasutti et al., 2015). For those wishing to train as music teacher- educators of children with SLD and PMLD, few opportunities are available (Welch et al., 2001). In 2015 this situation stands, although isolated training days and workshops for practitioners are available and the first cohort of 13 commenced a Postgraduate Certificate in Music and Special Educational Needs in September 2013.15
14The term ‘generalist’ denotes someone who is expected to teach all subjects, including music, to their class
within a primary or special school curriculum, but who does not usually have a specialist music background.
15 Roehampton University and Soundabout, an independent charity aiming to give children and young people a
Welch et al. (2001) reported that most special school teachers based whole-class music lessons (each class typically consisting of ten or fewer pupils) on the National Curriculum, supplemented by schemes of work produced in the school and with additional support from teaching assistants (TAs). Although nearly two-thirds of 21 special schools responding to a questionnaire found the National Curriculum for Music useful, one in five of this number commented that it was insufficiently detailed (ibid.). While almost all the participating special schools fostered community links by participating in ‘one-off’ or short-term projects with outside music organisations, musicians (usually not specialists in working with pupils with SEN) visited the schools, rather than pupils going outside their own schools (ibid.). This limited pupils’ general social interaction.
Many pupils with SLD cannot communicate verbally, but their understanding of verbal and gestural language varies considerably. Some in this group are fully mobile while others have limited mobility. There is general acceptance of the idea that music has a specific role in these settings of promoting relaxation or action, encouraging turn-taking, and increasing body awareness through activities such as dance, drama and role play (ibid.). In the general curriculum, all schools in the PROMISE survey used songs as a form of greeting, to cue activities or lessons, and to promote movement. Music therapy provision varied across the 53 sample schools, often being undertaken on an individual basis with the aim of contributing to pupils’ sense of wellbeing. 36% of the sample schools provided music therapy on site, an additional 19% of schools being aware of some pupils receiving it outside school (ibid: 23).
Music: education or therapy?
Because of the diversity of provision outlined above, what constitutes music therapy as opposed to music education is, unsurprisingly, unclear (Ockelford, 2000). It is important to remember though, that music therapy works upon the fundamental principles of universal musicality and responsiveness. In some descriptions of music therapy sessions, Ockelford (2008: 37) suggests that, ‘in reality music education is taking place.’ Two older definitions of music therapy refer to the developing or evolving relationships between therapist and client during music therapy sessions (Bruscia, 1987; Bunt, 1994), while the general view of music therapy being an ‘appropriate term to use for structured musical activities’ undertaken with children and young people with SLD and PMLD (Ockelford, 2000: 199) blurs the distinction between music education and music therapy further.
Initially appearing to highlight the differences between them, Darrow (2013) asserts that the goals of music therapy, as opposed to those of music education, are non-musical, addressing the physical, social or cognitive needs of this group of children, thus promoting their wellbeing. However, as many music therapists are also concerned with the development of musical skills in children with SLD or PMLD, Darrow expresses the hope for a growing interdisciplinarity between music therapy and music education (ibid.). The ‘fuzziness’ of the dividing line between music therapy and music education appears at least partly to depend on the personal values and beliefs of the therapists or teachers concerned. One music therapist’s description of integrative music therapeutic work between children with and without SEN in an Israeli community setting has clear resonances with my study, with its aim of reducing prejudice towards a marginalised group and of fostering awareness and
appreciation of diversity in primary school age children. Music activities were found to help foster friendships between families of non-disabled and disabled children, creating a pathway for shared parties and recreation (Elefant, 2010).
The musical development of children with SLD and PMLD has been conceptualised in the
Sounds of Intent project (Welch et al., 2009), where children’s progress is assessed through
the dimensions of ‘reactivity’ (listening and responding), ‘proactivity’ (causing, creating and controlling sound) and ‘interactivity’. The last dimension takes account of contexts where listening and creating sound involves musical participation with others. The notion of participation (linked with the research question concerning mainstream-special school pupil interaction) is more pertinent to my study than any form of musical assessment, not least because of the strong link between participation and inclusion, now outlined.