ERIKA J. KNAPP
Texas Woman’s University
December 2025
Published in Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 24 (7): 111–38 [pdf]. https://doi.org/10.22176/act24.7.111
Abstract: In this critique, I examine the complex dynamics of inclusion-related terminology in music education, analyzing how terms like “inclusion” and “inclusive” function within institutional power structures. Through a systematic literature review and critical theoretical analysis drawing on Foucault’s conceptualization of power/knowledge, my analysis revealed tensions between these terms’ emancipatory potential and their role in maintaining existing power relations. I first document the historical trajectory of the words, then interrogate how traditional music education practices—including repertoire selection, gender and leadership structures, assessment methods, and institutional barriers—systematically exclude students through seemingly neutral mechanisms that normalize certain bodies and behaviors while marginalizing others. Student voices, especially those from marginalized communities, further revealed gaps between institutional rhetoric and lived experiences in music education spaces. Additionally, I examine how even progressive pedagogical approaches, such as Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and Universal Design for Learning, can be constrained by unchanged institutional structures that limit their transformative potential. Finally, I propose new directions for research and teacher preparation that embrace these terminological tensions as productive spaces for transformation rather than attempting to resolve them through technical solutions.
Keywords: Inclusion, critical theory, music education, student voice, Foucault
In music education discourse, the terms “inclusion” and “inclusive” have become ubiquitous buzzwords, appearing across research agendas, pedagogical frameworks, and institutional missions. However, beneath this seemingly straightforward terminology lies a complex web of meanings, interpretations, and sometimes contradictory applications. Furthermore, the interchangeable use of these terms can create a blurred understanding that masks important distinctions in their implications and execution. Additionally, these terms’ deployment in pedagogical frameworks, research agendas, and institutional missions reveals complex tensions between their emancipatory potential and their role in maintaining existing power structures.
Foucault’s (1980) analysis of discourse and power provides a framework for understanding how these seemingly neutral terms function as mechanisms of both liberation and control within music education. For Foucault, power operates not simply as repression but as a productive force that shapes knowledge, subjectivity, and institutional practices. Within music education, the deployment of inclusive terminology illustrates what Foucault (1980) identified as the productive nature of power/knowledge. These terms simultaneously create possibilities for more equitable practices while establishing new forms of surveillance and normalization. While ostensibly promoting equity and access, their implementation often reinforces what Freire (1970) identified as the banking model of education, where institutional authority determines what constitutes legitimate musical knowledge and practice.
Conceptual Framework and Scope of Analysis
This critical review examines how “inclusion” and “inclusive” function within music education discourse and practice. I systematically analyze how these terms operate within music education’s institutional power dynamics, specifically, interrogating how inclusive terminology can reproduce systemic inequities even as it purports to address them. The selection of literature for this review followed a systematic process that prioritized peer-reviewed scholarship in music education published within the past fifteen years (2009–2024). I gave particular attention to empirical studies documenting student experiences, teacher practices, and institutional implementation. The review encompasses five key dimensions of inclusion discourse: (1) disability and accommodation, (2) cultural responsiveness and representation, (3) intersectional identities in music education spaces, (4) power dynamics in pedagogical implementation, and (5) systemic and institutional barriers.
I include intersectionality as a crucial element of this analysis because, as Bernard and Talbot (2023) demonstrate, educators cannot understand the effectiveness of inclusive practices without examining how multiple identity categories interact within music education contexts. Likewise, my review reveals how inclusive terminology often fails to account for the complex ways students navigate multiple marginalized identities simultaneously. This review does not claim to be exhaustive but instead aims to identify specific dimensions in which tensions between rhetoric and implementation are most evident, thereby providing a more nuanced understanding of how these terms operate in contemporary music education discourse and practice. By examining these tensions rather than attempting to resolve them, my analysis aims to provide music educators with more nuanced frameworks for understanding and implementing inclusive practices.
The Evolution of Terminology
The distinction between “inclusion” and “inclusive” reflects deeper power relations within music education that operate through what Foucault (1980) described as the mechanisms of power/knowledge. This distinction is more than semantic—it reflects different approaches to addressing diversity in music education that reveal how institutional power shapes the very categories through which we understand educational practice. While inclusion often appears in policy discussions as a quantifiable goal achieved through specific pedagogical practices (Arnesen et al. 2007; Fettes and Karamouzian 2018) and has primarily been used in the context of disability, its deployment typically maintains existing power structures while creating what Ahmed (2012) termed “non-performative” declarations of institutional commitment to change (17). For example, when music departments issue statements welcoming diverse musical traditions but continue to prioritize Western classical repertoire in their curricula and performance requirements, these declarations become problematic. They function as what Foucault (1980) would recognize as discursive practices that appear to challenge power while reinforcing it through their very articulation. Similarly, when universities create diversity and inclusion committees that meet regularly but lack decision-making authority over curriculum, hiring, or resource allocation, these institutional structures serve to contain rather than transform existing inequities.
The evolution from inclusion to inclusive reflects a shift from primarily disability-specific contexts to broader applications addressing multiple forms of diversity. This linguistic evolution also reflects a more profound transformation in how the field conceptualizes difference and diversity, demonstrating what Foucault (1980) identified as the productive capacity of power to generate new categories of knowledge and practice. Specifically, this evolution has manifested in teacher preparation programs, where coursework increasingly emphasizes both specific accommodations and broader inclusive mindsets (Culp and Salvador 2021). However, this shift has created tensions and contradictions in practice, particularly in how educators and scholars operationalize these terms across educational contexts. Declarations of inclusivity, while well-intentioned, often fail to create meaningful structural changes in how music programs operate (Knapp 2024), instead functioning as what Foucault (1980) would classify as regulatory mechanisms that normalize specific approaches to diversity while marginalizing others.
Historical Context and Contemporary Tensions
Research on inclusion in music education has historically centered heavily on disability and accommodation, revealing how power/knowledge operates to privilege certain forms of difference while marginalizing others. This emphasis is evident in the substantial body of research focusing on teacher preparation and competence in working with students with disabilities (e.g., Bartolome 2017; Hammel and Gerrity 2012; McCord and Watts 2010). Recent scholarship on both preservice and in-service educators (e.g., Grimsby 2023; VanWeelden and Meehan 2016) continues to center disability in inclusion discussions, underscoring its persistent prominence as a primary aspect of inclusive practice.
Scholars also demonstrated how this disability-centered foundation has shaped teacher preparation programs, with many focusing primarily on accommodations and modifications rather than broader systemic change. For example, Brown and Jellison (2012) examined inclusive music classes and revealed that teachers often struggled to reconceptualize their fundamental teaching approaches while implementing specific accommodations. Similarly, Draper (2022) highlighted that focusing on individual accommodations sometimes overshadowed opportunities for broader pedagogical transformation. This pattern reflects what Foucault (1980) described as the tendency of institutional power to fragment complex social issues into manageable technical problems, thereby maintaining existing structures while appearing to address systemic concerns.
The expansion of inclusive terminology from disability-specific contexts reveals how power/knowledge operates to redefine and control emerging discourses of equity. This expansion is evident in how scholars have recently treated “inclusive practice” as a broader concept encompassing various identity points (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, intersectionality) and pedagogical approaches, including asset-based pedagogies that seek to build on students’ existing cultural and musical knowledge rather than viewing difference as deficit (e.g., Armes et al. 2023; Culp and Clauhs 2020; Salvador et al. 2020). Asset-based pedagogies (e.g., Culturally Responsive Pedagogy, Universal Design for Learning) represent a significant shift from deficit-based models that pathologize student differences, instead positioning diverse backgrounds and experiences as resources for learning. However, even these progressive approaches can operate within existing power structures when teachers retain authority to determine what constitutes an “asset” according to institutional definitions of valuable knowledge. Researchers have also investigated inclusive practice in relation to structural barriers such as scheduling conflicts that prevent student participation, inadequate funding for adaptive instruments, and physical spaces that are inaccessible to students with mobility differences (Culp and Clauhs 2020). Additionally, scholars have explored teacher bias, including unconscious preferences for certain student behaviors and cultural expressions that align with dominant norms (Salvador et al. 2020), expanding beyond the original disability-related focus to examine how power operates across multiple dimensions of educational practice.
Scholars have documented both the potential and limitations of this expanded understanding of inclusion and inclusive practices. For example, Guan et al. (2023) found that when teachers incorporated culturally responsive teaching, students’ sense of identity was positively affected, suggesting the value of broader conceptualizations of the two terms. However, Shouldice and Timmer (2024) examined LGBTQ+ inclusivity practices and discovered that while teachers might adopt surface-level changes (like avoiding gendered uniforms), deeper inclusive practices (e.g., pronoun use or programming LGBTQ+ composers) were less frequently implemented.
Student Voices and Experiences: A Critical Lens
The lived experiences of students, particularly those from marginalized communities, provide crucial insight into how inclusive terminology functions within music education’s power structures. Their voices reveal the gap between institutional rhetoric and lived reality, demonstrating what hooks (1994) described as the difference between diversity initiatives and genuine transformation. This disconnect becomes especially evident when examining students’ experiences navigating multiple intersecting identities within music education spaces, where the productive nature of power/knowledge creates new forms of exclusion even within supposedly inclusive environments.
Lived Experiences of Students with Disabilities
Research on the lived experiences of students with disabilities in music education settings reveals complex dynamics often overlooked in policy discussions. Gilbert (2018) studied secondary students with visual impairments and highlighted how well-intentioned accommodations sometimes created unintended barriers to full participation. For example, students reported feeling singled out when teachers provided modified materials that differed from those of their peers, creating social isolation despite technical accessibility. Similarly, recent work by Knapp et al. (2024) examining undergraduate experiences demonstrated how institutional policies meant to promote inclusion often failed to address students’ actual needs and preferences, instead reflecting what administrators assumed would be helpful based on deficit-based understandings of disability.
Especially revealing was an investigation of self-efficacy among students with disabilities participating in a summer music camp by Yinger and colleagues (2023). Their findings suggested that successful inclusion requires more than physical accessibility or modified instruments—it demands attention to social dynamics, peer relationships, and students’ sense of musical identity for students to feel included. The experiences documented in choral settings by Juan-Morera et al. (2023) further emphasize how traditional performance practices can either support or undermine students’ sense of belonging. Specifically, when ensemble leaders focused on valuing people’s individual abilities and creating a climate of respect, rather than solely prioritizing musical outcomes, participants felt a greater sense of belonging.
Intersectional Identities and Compounded Exclusions
Intersectional analysis reveals how traditional music education practices create compounded barriers for students with multiple marginalized identities. Recent scholarship on inclusive practice has begun to examine how multiple identity categories intersect to shape student experiences in music education. Bernard and Talbot (2023) researched intersectionality in music and provided concrete ideas for understanding how various aspects of identity—disability, race, gender, sexuality, class, and cultural background—interact within music education contexts to create unique forms of exclusion that cannot be understood through single-identity analysis. Their work revealed how traditional music education practices create compounded barriers for students positioned at the intersection of multiple marginalized identity categories, demonstrating what Foucault (1980) described as the simultaneous operation of disciplinary power across multiple dimensions.
Surface-level identity work fails to address the systemic nature of intersectional exclusion in music education practices. Bernard and Talbot (2023) documented how traditional music education practices often fail to account for the complexity of student identities and experiences, with teachers reporting that even when addressed, most efforts at supporting student identity work were surface-level at best, without examining how deeper structural elements of music education continue to exclude students with intersecting marginalized identities. Instead, Bernard and Talbot (2023) suggested strategies for meaningful change that value and incorporate student identity, including identity worksheets, music identity projects, and class discussion topics that move beyond tokenistic representation toward more comprehensive recognition of student complexity. However, even these progressive approaches can function within existing power structures when teachers determine what constitutes valuable identity expression based on institutional definitions of appropriate musical practice.
Traditional Music Education Practices and Systemic Exclusion
Traditional music education practices function as disciplinary mechanisms that systematically exclude students through what Foucault (1980) described as seemingly neutral technical procedures that normalize certain bodies, behaviors, and forms of knowledge while marginalizing others. These exclusionary practices operate across multiple dimensions simultaneously, creating intersecting barriers that compound for students with multiple marginalized identities and demonstrate how institutional power shapes the very foundations of musical learning. I examine how these mechanisms manifest through four key areas: repertoire selection, gender regulation and hierarchical control, assessment methods, and institutional and systemic barriers.
Repertoire Selection
Repertoire selection practices reveal how institutional power determines legitimate musical knowledge through mechanisms that appear educationally neutral while serving particular cultural interests in ways that defy inclusivity. The question of who defines and determines what constitutes “appropriate” or “educational” repertoire illuminates fundamental power dynamics in music education that operate through what Foucault (1980) identified as the productive relationship between power and knowledge. While scholars have advocated for diverse programming (e.g., Shouldice and Timmer 2024), the process of repertoire selection continues to raise questions about authenticity, authority, and representation, revealing how power/knowledge operates to maintain cultural hierarchies that counter inclusive practice.
Teachers often struggle to balance competing demands: representing diverse musical traditions, maintaining traditional performance standards, and addressing various student needs and interests. These decisions reflect underlying power dynamics that complicate simple applications of inclusive terminology, as educators must navigate institutional expectations while attempting to honor diverse musical practices. For example, a middle school choir director may want to include spirituals in their program but feels pressure to present them in European choral arrangements rather than their original call-and-response format, thereby maintaining familiar pedagogical approaches while appearing to embrace diversity.
Decisions about cultural representation, including which traditions to include and how to present them, often reinforce what Spivak (1988) termed epistemic violence—the systematic exclusion of marginalized ways of knowing. For example, when a high school band director adds a single piece by a composer of color to an otherwise exclusively Eurocentric program, this tokenistic inclusion can function to legitimize the continued marginalization of diverse musical traditions. Well-intentioned efforts at cultural inclusion can also reproduce what hooks (1992) identified as eating the other, where educators incorporate diverse cultural elements in tokenizing ways without meaningful transformation of existing power structures. When this happens, marginalized musical traditions are consumed by institutional structures that strip them of their cultural context and political significance, reinforcing rather than challenging existing hierarchies.
The selection process itself reveals how institutional power shapes knowledge production in music education. Music educators typically rely on established publishers, familiar repertoire databases, and their own educational experiences when choosing music, creating what Foucault (1980) would recognize as a self-perpetuating system of knowledge validation. This system appears neutral and objective, yet it reproduces the cultural preferences and biases of dominant groups, demonstrating how power operates most effectively when it seems natural and inevitable. Similarly, this system typically assumes normative embodiment, marginalizing composers (and performers) with disabilities while treating ableist assumptions about musical participation as universal standards. Relatedly, major music publishers regularly underrepresent composers with disabilities or discount the needs of performers with disabilities. These same institutional mechanisms also systematically marginalize diverse bodies and needs within pedagogical training programs, emphasizing Western classical and normative techniques, thereby creating a cycle in which teachers continue to reproduce the musical hierarchies they experienced as students.
Gender Regulation and Hierarchical Control
Gender regulation in music education operates through interconnected systems of bodily discipline and leadership hierarchies that function as what Foucault (1980) identified as techniques of normalization that maintain binary gender expectations and patriarchal power structures. Performance attire policies exemplify these regulatory mechanisms, as documented by Cates (2022), who found that standard choir dress codes requiring gender-specific formal wear created significant distress for transgender and gender non-conforming students. These seemingly neutral policies about “professional appearance” operate through what Foucault (1980) described as disciplinary power, creating docile bodies that conform to institutional expectations while marginalizing those who cannot or will not comply. In Cates (2022), students reported feeling forced to choose between participating in music and maintaining their gender identity, revealing how traditional practices create exclusion through seemingly objective standards. The discourse of “professionalism” and “tradition” serves to naturalize these exclusionary practices, making them appear necessary rather than constructed.
Leadership selection processes in music education likewise reproduce existing social hierarchies through merit-based discourses that obscure their discriminatory effects by treating normative embodiment, neurotypicality, and dominant cultural knowledge as universal standards of musical competence. Traditional approaches to section placement and leadership roles continue to reinforce conventional power structures through what appear to be merit-based decisions that may actually reflect and reproduce broader social inequalities across multiple identity categories. Brinson (2016) revealed how traditional practices around section leadership, solo opportunities, and ensemble roles can reinforce social hierarchies related to gender and seniority, even within supposedly inclusive spaces. Similarly, the same social hierarchical structures may marginalize students whose embodiment or learning differences do not align with institutional expectations. Supposedly objective evaluations often rely on assumptions about physical capacity, processing speed, and communication styles that systematically exclude students with disabilities from leadership consideration. For example, opportunities to conduct frequently prioritize normative gestural communication and assume particular forms of musical knowledge acquisition. At the same time, solo selections may reflect biases about which bodies and voices are deemed musically valuable. Leadership patterns in music ensembles demonstrate how these merit-based systems operate to marginalize students across multiple identity categories while appearing neutral or objective. These patterns demonstrate how power operates through seemingly objective evaluations of musical ability that reflect and reproduce broader social inequalities according to what Foucault (1980) identified as the productive capacity of power to shape both knowledge and subjectivity.
Assessment Practices and Knowledge Validation
Assessment in music education functions in what Foucault (1980) termed examination—a technology of power that produces knowledge about student subjects while reinforcing institutional authority to define legitimate musical practice. Assessment practices often privilege certain cultural expressions of musicianship over others, functioning as mechanisms of power/knowledge that determine which musical understandings count as legitimate. Traditional assessment methods in music education typically privilege forms of musical knowledge and expression (often with an overemphasis on notation) that align with dominant cultural values while marginalizing others (Knapp et al. 2024). As such, evaluating student achievement in inclusive settings can be challenging when diverse cultural traditions and musical expressions are present.
The measurement of musical competence reveals how institutional power shapes definitions of legitimate knowledge and expression through seemingly objective assessment practices. VanWeelden and Heath-Reynolds (2017) found that teachers struggled to create authentic assessment practices that accommodate diverse learning needs while maintaining what they perceived as high musical standards. Their findings suggest that traditional assessment methods often fail to capture the range of musical learning and expression in inclusive settings, instead measuring students’ ability to conform to predetermined standards that reflect dominant cultural values. For instance, students who demonstrate sophisticated musical understanding through improvisation, call-and-response, or other culturally specific practices may be assessed as deficient if evaluation focuses solely on written notation or formal performance techniques that privilege Western classical traditions.
Evaluating teacher effectiveness in implementing inclusive practices also reveals how power operates through seemingly objective measures of professional competence. Current teacher evaluation systems often rely on observable behaviors and quantifiable outcomes such as “students follow agreed upon classroom routines,” “students respond appropriately to non-verbal gestures,” or “students articulate their personal contribution and responsibility in group work” (Perpich Center for Arts Education 2020, 16). However, these observable behaviors may not capture the nuanced ways teachers create inclusive environments. For example, teacher evaluation checklists commonly include items such as “uses age-appropriate and music-specific vocabulary,” “clearly articulates instructions,” and “models learning targets” (Perpich Center for Arts Education 2020, 16–18), which focus on technical delivery rather than inclusive pedagogical approaches.
Reducing inclusive practice to observable behaviors exemplifies the fundamental tension Schmidt (2005) identified between accountability measures and authentic teaching practices in music education. Schmidt argued that “current evaluation systems fail to account for the complex interpersonal and cultural dynamics that characterize effective music education” (78), particularly when teachers work with diverse student populations. This reduction risks missing critical qualitative aspects of how inclusion functions in music education spaces and may reduce the concept to a pedagogical afterthought rather than a fundamental approach to teaching.
The pressure to maintain traditional performance standards while accommodating diverse learning needs creates what Conway (2008) described as “fundamental tensions within existing assessment frameworks that reflect competing educational philosophies and institutional priorities” (145). These tensions reveal how assessment functions not simply as measurement but as an example of Foucault’s (1980) examination—a technology of power that combines surveillance and normalization to produce knowledge about student subjects while reinforcing institutional authority to define legitimate musical practice. VanWeelden and Heath-Reynolds (2017) highlighted the fundamental challenge of measuring inclusive practice without reducing it to quantifiable metrics, reflecting broader questions about how institutional power shapes what counts as evidence of educational effectiveness. Additionally, truly inclusive environments must be responsive to the specific student community and should look different across educational contexts, making standardized evaluation approaches problematic for authentic assessment of inclusive practice.
Institutional and Systemic Barriers
Institutional policies function as mechanisms of exclusion through seemingly neutral administrative practices that maintain existing hierarchies. Such policies and procedures often create unintended barriers to inclusive practice that operate through what Foucault (1980) referred to as the seemingly neutral operation of administrative power that serves a specific set of interests while appearing objective and necessary. Rigid institutional structures within music education systematically exclude many students from full participation, as revealed in the comprehensive analysis of Culp and Clauhs (2020), through mechanisms such as traditional ensemble structures that accommodate only certain types of learners, scheduling conflicts that privilege certain activities over others, and resource allocation systems that continue to privilege certain kinds of music education while marginalizing alternatives. Beyond these structural barriers, pedagogical limitations further restrict inclusive practice, including teachers’ lack of preparation for supporting diverse learners (Culp and Salvador 2021), insufficient professional development on inclusive pedagogy (Knapp 2024), an emphasis on competition and product that dominates secondary ensemble settings (Tucker 2023), and gaps in cultural knowledge that may prevent meaning engagement with diverse musical traditions (Culp and Jones 2020; Frank 2023).
Educational policies that deny access to music education reveal how institutional power operates through hierarchies of curricular value. A particularly concerning barrier identified—often colloquially discussed but not adequately addressed in policy discussion—is that students with disabilities are frequently pulled out of music classes or denied access altogether to receive “remediation” and “enrichment” for subjects included in standardized testing, which in many instances may be a violation of a student’s legal right to the Least Restrictive Environment (U.S. Department of Education 2023). This practice reflects broader systemic priorities that devalue music education and fail to recognize the significant benefits that inclusive music education can provide to all students, including those with disabilities, demonstrating how institutional power, according to Foucault’s (1980) analysis, operates to maintain hierarchies of educational value that serve administrative efficiency rather than student needs.
The interaction of these institutional barriers with broader societal inequities creates additional complexities in implementing inclusive practices, thereby demonstrating the systemic nature of exclusion in music education. The nature of these barriers requires attention to both local institutional contexts and broader structural inequities. While individual teachers may implement inclusive practices within their classrooms, institutional and systemic constraints often limit the effectiveness of their efforts (Knapp 2025). Addressing these barriers requires a coordinated effort across different levels of the educational system and sustained attention to how institutional structures can better support inclusive practice, while recognizing that such changes challenge existing power arrangements.
Progressive Pedagogies and Their Limitations
Progressive pedagogical approaches, while genuinely seeking to address exclusion, often remain constrained by the institutional contexts and power structures within which they operate and may fail to incorporate inclusive practice successfully. These approaches—including Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL), to name a few—demonstrate the productive nature of power/knowledge (Foucault 1980), creating new possibilities for inclusion while simultaneously establishing new forms of normalization and control. I analyze how CRP becomes constrained by unchanged institutional structures and professional development approaches that treat it as technical skill acquisition, and how UDL is often reduced to retrofitted accommodations rather than comprehensive educational redesign, revealing how institutional power operates to contain even well-intentioned inclusive reforms.
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy: Promise and Constraints
Attempts at implementing CRP practices reveal complexities in creating genuinely inclusive music education spaces that extend beyond individual teacher efforts to encompass broader systemic challenges that continue to privilege dominant cultural norms. Teachers frequently encounter difficulties in authentically representing multiple cultural traditions within existing time constraints, while questions of cultural authority and authenticity in repertoire selection add further complexity, reflecting deeper power dynamics about who has the authority to represent different cultural traditions.
Student experiences with cultural representation reveal the gap between institutional rhetoric and lived reality in CRP implementation. McQueen (2022) reported that culturally responsive practices increased student agency, which suggests the potential of such approaches. However, McQueen (2022) also raised questions about who defines cultural responsiveness and how student voices inform these definitions. If teachers are making these decisions in the absence of student input and voice, they risk reproducing rather than challenging existing power structures. This approach reflects what Foucault (1980) would identify as the authoritative positioning of educators as experts on student experience, undermining the very goals of CRP. While most educators who value culturally responsive teaching would likely center student voices, there is a risk that others who offer only a cursory nod to these practices might fail to recognize the crucial value of student voice and experience.
Scholars have also explored the impact of CRP on student identity development. Guan et al. (2023) noted that when students see their cultural backgrounds reflected in curriculum and pedagogy, they experience stronger connections to their musical and cultural identities. However, other scholars also reveal the limitations of authentic representation in institutional contexts that may prioritize different cultural values. For example, when musics from non-Western traditions are presented in exoticized ways or without historical or cultural context, students reported feeling tokenized rather than valued (Hess 2015). This exemplifies how power/knowledge operates to incorporate difference in ways that maintain rather than challenge existing hierarchies.
Institutional constraints limit the transformative potential of culturally responsive approaches by maintaining existing power relations despite surface-level changes. The challenge of balancing traditional music education goals with CRP often creates tensions that are difficult to resolve within existing institutional structures that continue to prioritize Western classical traditions and standardized performance outcomes. Moreover, the professional development needs for implementing these practices typically exceed available resources, leaving teachers without adequate support for this important work (Knapp 2024), which reflects how institutional power operates through resource allocation to constrain progressive pedagogical innovations.
These implementation challenges reflect deep contradictions between emancipatory intentions and institutional contexts, demonstrating how power operates to contain progressive change. This containment occurs through what Foucault (1980) describes as the capacity of institutional power to absorb and neutralize challenges to existing authority structures, allowing institutions to appear responsive to calls for change while maintaining fundamental arrangements that continue to privilege dominant cultural forms and traditional pedagogical approaches.
In my experience, professional development experiences have often treated culturally responsive teaching as technical skill acquisition rather than fundamental transformation of how teachers understand their role, authority, and relationship to power. This reflects what Foucault (1980) identified as the tendency of institutional power to fragment complex social issues into manageable technical problems. This approach fails to address the power dynamics that shape teacher-student relationships and continues to position educators as cultural authorities who determine how and when to include diverse perspectives. Without addressing these underlying power structures, culturally responsive pedagogy risks becoming another form of what Ahmed (2012) identified as institutional discourse that appears progressive while serving to maintain existing arrangements.
Universal Design for Learning: Technical Solutions and Systemic Limitations
Deploying asset-based approaches such as UDL similarly reveals a fundamental contradiction between the emancipatory promise and their practical implementation, illustrating how power/knowledge operates to contain potentially transformative approaches within existing institutional structures that prioritize technical implementation (CAST 2024). While UDL theoretically represents a shift from deficit-based accommodations to systemic accessibility, some scholars have argued its implementation in music education often reinforces rather than disrupts existing power dynamics (Hess 2023). I argue that this contradiction stems from three interrelated factors that demonstrate how power/knowledge operates to contain potentially transformative approaches within existing institutional structures: limited training, unchanging institutional contexts, and predictable reduction.
First, most music educators receive limited training in UDL principles and struggle to apply them comprehensively (Knapp et al. 2024). Without the time to understand deeply what constitutes UDL, educators are more likely to simply pick and choose from a checklist of ideas rather than explore comprehensive applications. Second, the institutional contexts in which educators implement UDL often remain unchanged, limiting its transformative potential for even the most willing teacher. Static institutional contexts mirror what Foucault (1980) described as the capacity of institutional power to absorb progressive innovations without fundamentally altering existing arrangements. Third, even when implemented, UDL is frequently reduced to what Hess (2023) critiqued as “predictable learning variability,” potentially reifying the very homogeneity it claims to resist by creating new categories of acceptable difference that still exclude students who do not fit predetermined patterns of variability.
While UDL holds promise as a framework, its implementation often remains constrained by the same power structures it ostensibly challenges, revealing how progressive pedagogies are co-opted to serve existing institutional interests. When educators view UDL as a technical solution rather than a paradigm shift, they tend to use UDL principles primarily for students with disabilities rather than the entire student population (Knapp et al. 2024), thereby maintaining the very deficit-based thinking UDL was designed to eliminate. Knapp (2020) and Quaglia (2015) represent rare examples of UDL application beyond disability accommodation, demonstrating its potential for broader application. However, both reveal significant implementation barriers, such as institutional resistance to curricular change, faculty’s lack of training in inclusive pedagogies, resource limitations for adaptive strategies, and the challenge of balancing specialized support with broader UDL principles.
Retrofitted approaches to UDL implementation reveal how technical solutions fail to address fundamental power structures in educational design and limit inclusive possibilities. A critical barrier to effective UDL implementation is that many teachers attempt to add UDL after the fact or as an afterthought rather than incorporating it proactively in the initial design of curricula and learning experiences, reflecting what Foucault (1980) classified as the tendency to treat systemic problems as technical issues requiring individual solutions. This retrofitting approach fundamentally undermines UDL’s potential as a transformative framework, reducing it to a set of technical accommodations rather than a comprehensive redesign of educational environments that would challenge existing assumptions about normalcy and difference. Many traditional music education structures, including ensemble formats, assessment requirements, and performance expectations, often conflict with UDL principles, requiring fundamental rather than superficial changes to existing practice.
Research Methodology and Epistemic Justice
Research practices, even those purporting to be inclusive, often reproduce existing power relations through methodological choices that privilege certain forms of knowledge while marginalizing others. Researchers’ methodological approaches regularly reflect and reproduce existing power relations, creating what Santos (2014) termed epistemicide—the systematic exclusion of marginalized ways of knowing that operates through seemingly objective research practices. Like Santos (2014) and Smith (2021), in a decolonial critique of research methodologies, encouraged scholars to question how research practices challenge or reinforce existing power structures. This includes examining whose knowledge counts as evidence, who benefits from research outcomes, and how methodology choices reflect and reproduce power relations.
How scholars research inclusion and inclusive practice reveals how power operates through seemingly neutral practices that shape both what can be known and who has the authority to know it. Researchers’ choice of methodology often reflects and reproduces existing power relations through decisions about who gets studied, who conducts the research, and whose voices are centered in the analysis, revealing how research itself participates in the very power structures it claims to examine objectively. The predominance of teacher perspectives in inclusion-related research, combined with the typical positioning of researchers from dominant groups, creates a narrow lens through which inclusion is understood and evaluated. This emphasis on teacher perspectives in isolation inadvertently reinforces what Freire (1970) identified as the banking model of education, where knowledge flows unidirectionally from teachers to students, by reproducing these same hierarchical relationships within research practices that claim to study inclusive education. In music education, the voices of students, particularly those who are historically marginalized based on identity characteristics (e.g., race, disability, sexual orientation), are limited, with existing studies typically including only a single person or a small group (e.g., Gerrard-Ramirez 2022; Knapp et al. 2024; Nichols 2013; Parker and Draves 2017). These patterns demonstrate what Foucault (1980) theorized as the productive capacity of power to create subjects who understand themselves through institutional discourses.
Future research must address power imbalances through methodological innovations that recognize how knowledge production participates in broader systems of power. This includes developing new approaches that actively incorporate multiple perspectives on inclusion and inclusive practice, and accounting for the complex ways these terms function across different educational contexts, while remaining attentive to how research methodologies themselves participate in the reproduction of power relations. Such approaches might include greater emphasis on participatory action research, where students co-design studies of their own experiences; community-based participatory research that positions marginalized communities as knowledge producers rather than subjects; and collaborative autoethnography that centers the lived experiences of those most affected by exclusionary practices. Additionally, researchers must account for the complex ways inclusive terminology functions in different educational contexts by employing comparative case study methodologies that examine how power operates differently across various institutional settings, socioeconomic contexts, and cultural communities.
Critically, scholars must remain attentive to how research methodologies themselves participate in the reproduction of power relations (Foucault 1980). This requires examining how seemingly neutral methodological choices—such as the selection of research sites, the framing of research questions, the interpretation of data, and the dissemination of findings—can inadvertently reinforce existing hierarchies by privileging certain forms of evidence while marginalizing others. For instance, traditional survey methodologies may fail to capture the nuanced experiences of students with non-normative communication patterns. At the same time, interview protocols designed by researchers from dominant groups may not elicit authentic responses from marginalized participants who have learned to code-switch or mask their experiences in institutional settings. Music education researchers must explore what Smith (2021) termed “decolonizing methodologies” that explicitly interrogate how their own positionality, institutional affiliations, and methodological training shape both the questions they ask and the knowledge they produce.
Teacher Education and Professional Development
Current approaches to teacher education and professional development often reinforce rather than transform existing power hierarchies, revealing how institutional power shapes professional formation in subtle but profound ways that continue to inadequately address inclusive practice. For example, Culp and Salvador (2021) examined undergraduate and graduate coursework and revealed significant variation in how programs approach inclusion and inclusive practice. While some programs integrated these concepts throughout their curriculum, others treated them as add-on components, potentially reinforcing that inclusion is separate from core music education practice. This structural inconsistency reflects how power/knowledge operates to define what counts as essential versus supplementary knowledge in teacher preparation, and places inclusion as peripheral rather than fundamental to music pedagogy.
Even when programs do address inclusive practice comprehensively, deeper challenges emerge through professional socialization processes. Both Salvador et al. (2020) and Knapp (2024), who worked with graduate students and practicing teachers, respectively, revealed how teachers often experience initial resistance when examining their personal biases and privileged perspectives. This resistance exemplifies what occurs through subjectification (Foucault 1980)—the ways individuals come to understand themselves and their professional identity through institutional discourses that maintain existing power relations.
Professional socialization mechanisms limit transformative learning by maintaining existing hierarchies through subtle power dynamics. Scholars have identified the challenge of translating theoretical understanding into practical strategies, noting that it requires sustained support and mentoring throughout the implementation process (e.g., Knapp 2024; Salvador et al. 2020). These implementation challenges also reveal how power operates not only through explicit policies but through the subtle mechanisms of professional socialization that shape how teachers understand their role and authority. According to Foucault (1980), institutions create subjects who understand themselves primarily through dominant discourses. Within this framework, teachers internalize ways of being that maintain existing power relations even when they consciously attempt to be more inclusive. In addition to the challenges of learning about inclusive practice across preservice and in-service communities, extended collaborative learning and reflection opportunities remain limited in many educational contexts unless the teacher seeks out the experiences independently, demonstrating how institutional structures constrain professional development while maintaining existing power arrangements.
Developing teacher capacity for inclusive practice requires attention to both technical skills and a deeper conceptual understanding of how power shapes educational relationships. Salvador et al. (2020) highlighted that teachers must develop specific strategies and techniques, as well as the capacity to analyze and respond to the complex ways in which inclusion functions in their particular contexts. This involves developing critical consciousness about power dynamics, cultural responsiveness, and the multiple ways inclusion can be interpreted and implemented. Additionally, it requires a deep willingness to engage in personal reflection (Knapp 2024) to examine how teachers’ own positionality shapes their understanding of students’ needs and experiences.
Embracing Productive Tensions: Toward Transformative Practice
The contradictions between inclusive rhetoric and exclusionary outcomes reveal opportunities for transformation rather than problems with a simple solution. The deployment of inclusive terminology in music education demonstrates a complex tension between emancipatory intentions and practical outcomes that cannot be resolved through technical solutions alone. Instead, it requires what Foucault (1980) would recognize as fundamental challenges to existing power/knowledge arrangements. While these terms hold genuine potential for creating more equitable educational spaces, their current implementation often falls short of transformative change, reflecting not malicious intent but rather the persistent influence of power structures operating through seemingly neutral institutional practices that shape how inclusive language is understood and deployed.
This creates what might be understood as a form of institutional contradiction, in which well-intentioned efforts at inclusion coexist with, and sometimes inadvertently reinforce, traditional hierarchies and an insider/outsider mentality in music education. However, rather than viewing these tensions as problems to be solved, I propose that educators and scholars view them as productive spaces for transformation that reveal how power operates in educational contexts. Creating genuine transformation requires fundamentally restructuring music education’s power relations, centering marginalized voices in defining and implementing inclusive practice, and dismantling rather than merely modifying exclusionary institutional structures.
Building on these insights, I propose that teacher preparation programs move beyond technical approaches to develop critical consciousness about how inclusive terminology functions within power structures in music education. This approach would directly address the tensions documented in the literature between theoretical understanding and practical implementation through what Foucault (1980) would recognize as counter-conduct—practices that challenge dominant ways of organizing educational relationships. Specifically, teacher preparation programs should require courses that explicitly examine how power operates in music education, including analysis of their own institutional practices and curriculum design. Programs should integrate critical analysis of these terms throughout their coursework, helping future teachers understand how different interpretations of inclusion shape pedagogical choices and student experiences while recognizing their complicity in existing power structures.
Preservice preparation should also include sustained engagement with diverse student populations and careful examination of how various interpretations of inclusive practice manifest across different educational contexts, with specific attention to how power operates through seemingly neutral pedagogical decisions. Additionally, future researchers might develop new methodological frameworks that better capture both the measurable impacts of inclusive practices and the lived experiences of students navigating these spaces, while recognizing how research itself participates in power/knowledge relationships. This methodological expansion should prioritize approaches that center student voices, particularly those with non-normative communication patterns and those from marginalized communities, to provide a more authentic and nuanced understanding of how inclusive terminology functions in practice.
At the institutional level, school music programs should establish regular audits of their repertoire selection, assessment practices, and leadership opportunities to identify patterns of exclusion, with findings informing concrete policy changes. These audits must move beyond surface-level counting to examine how power operates through seemingly neutral criteria for musical value and student achievement. Music education practitioners require more nuanced frameworks for navigating these terminological tensions in their daily experiences that recognize the productive nature of these tensions rather than seeking to eliminate them. Rather than seeking universal definitions or applications, teachers should develop context-specific understandings of how different approaches to inclusion and inclusive practice serve student needs while remaining attentive to how their own positionality shapes these understandings. This involves moving beyond checklist approaches to inclusive practice toward more flexible and responsive pedagogical frameworks that recognize the ongoing operation of power in educational relationships.
These directions for future development suggest the need for sustained dialogue across stakeholders in music education—specifically dialogue that acknowledges how power shapes all educational relationships. Researchers, teacher educators, practitioners, and students must engage in ongoing conversations about how these terms function and how they might better serve the goal of creating genuinely equitable music education spaces. Expanding and deepening these conversations represents a crucial next step in developing more nuanced and practical approaches to inclusion in music education, while recognizing that such dialogue itself participates in the ongoing production of knowledge about educational practice.
Music education can move toward more authentic and effective approaches to creating equitable educational spaces through increasingly sophisticated engagement with these terminological tensions that recognize their productive potential rather than viewing them as problems to be solved. This evolution requires critically examining how these terms function—and sometimes dysfunction—in theory and practice while remaining attentive to how power operates through seemingly progressive educational reforms. By embracing rather than resolving these tensions, music educators can develop more nuanced and effective approaches to serving all students in their musical development while remaining critically aware of how their own practices participate in broader systems of power and knowledge production.
About the Author
Erika J. Knapp, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of music education at Texas Woman’s University. Knapp’s research focuses on equity in music education, the underrepresentation of marginalized voices, inclusive practice, and teacher professional development. Her research has been published in journals such as the Journal of Music Teacher Education, Music Education Research, Research Studies in Music Education, The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, and Psychology of Music. She also has several forthcoming book chapters.
References
Ahmed, Sara. 2012. On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Duke University Press.
Armes, Jocelyn W., Adam G. Harry, and Rachel Grimsby. 2023. Implementing universal design principles in music teaching. Music Educators Journal 109 (1): 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/00274321221114869
Arnesen, Anne-Lise, Reeta Mietola, and Elina Lahelma. 2007. Language of inclusion and diversity: Policy discourses and social practices in Finnish and Norwegian schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education 11 (1): 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110600601034
Bartolome, Sarah J. 2017. Comparing field-teaching experiences: A longitudinal examination of preservice and first-year teacher perspectives. Journal of Research in Music Education 65 (3): 264–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429417730043
Bernard, Cara, and Brent C. Talbot. 2023. Music teachers’ experiences with implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion. Music Educators Journal 109 (3): 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/00274321231159652
Brinson, Jeffrey. 2016. The musician’s perspective of hierarchy in musical ensembles. Master’s Thesis, Nipissing University.
Brown, Laura S., and Judith A. Jellison. 2012. Music research with children and youth with disabilities and typically developing peers: A systematic review. Journal of Music Therapy 49 (3): 335–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/49.3.335
CAST. 2024. Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org
Cates, Dustin. 2019. Choral directors’ experiences with gender-inclusive teaching practices among transgender students. PhD., Diss., University of Missouri-Kansas.
Cates, Dustin. 2022. Key changes: Choral directors’ experiences with gender-inclusive teaching. International Journal of Choral Singing 10: 242–71. https://acda.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/IJRCSVol10Cates.pdf
Conway, Colleen M. 2008. The implementation of the National Standards in music education: Capturing the spirit of the standards. Music Educators Journal 94 (4): 34–39. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/00274321080940040104
Culp, Mara E., and Matthew Clauhs. 2020. Factors that affect participation in secondary school music: reducing barriers and increasing access. Music Educators Journal 106 (4): 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432120918293
Culp, Mara E., and Sara K. Jones. 2020. Shame in music education: Starting the conversation and developing resilience. Music Educators Journal 106 (4): 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432120906198
Culp, Mara E., and Sara K. Jones. 2023. Creativity is instrumental: Instrument-specific strategies and suggestions for assisting learners with physical disabilities and differences in general and instrumental music. Music Educators Journal 110 (1): 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/00274321231199411
Culp, Mara E., and Karen Salvador. 2021. Music teacher education program practices: preparing teachers to work with diverse learners. Journal of Music Teacher Education 30 (2): 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083720984365
Cumberledge, Jason P., and Matthew L. Williams. 2023. Representation in music: College students’ perceptions of ensemble repertoire. Research Studies in Music Education 45 (2): 344–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X211066844
Darrow, Alice-Ann, and Mary Adamek. 2018. Instructional strategies for the inclusive music classroom. General Music Today 31 (3): 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371318756625
Draper, Amanda R. 2022. Music education for students with autism spectrum disorder in a full-inclusion context. Journal of Research in Music Education 70 (2): 132–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224294211042833
Fettes, Mark, and Fatemah Mahbod Karamouzian. 2018. Inclusion in education: Challenges for linguistic policy and research. In Language policy and language acquisition planning, edited by Maarja Siiner, Francis M. Hult, and Tanja Kupisch, 219–235. Springer.
Foucault, Michael. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1979. Random House. Translated by Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham, and Kate Soper.
Frank, Richard. 2023. The funnel of knowledge: The challenges and opportunities of implementing culturally diverse music in music education. Master’s thesis, Utrecht University.
Freire, Paolo. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury Press.
Gerrard-Ramirez, Crystal. L. 2022. “Denying America”: Vivian’s counterstory of undocumented status. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 233: 7–26. https://doi.org/10.5406/21627223.223.01
Gilbert, Danni. 2018. “It’s just the way I learn!”: Inclusion from the perspective of a student with visual impairment. Music Educators Journal 105 (1): 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432118777790
Grimsby, Rachel. 2023. “A meeting of equals”: Music educators and special education paraprofessionals in a community of practice. Research Studies in Music Education 45 (3): 497–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X221078521
Guan, Tao, Ning Luo, and Koji Matsunobu. 2023. Nurturing student ethnic identity through culturally responsive music teaching in China. International Journal of Music Education 41 (4): 598–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/02557614221132550
Hammel, Alice M., and Kevin W. Gerrity. 2012. The effect of instruction on teacher perceptions of competence when including students with special needs in music classrooms. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 31 (1): 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123312457882
Hess, Juliet. 2015. Decolonizing music education: Moving beyond tokenism. International Journal of Music Education 33 (3): 336–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415581283
Hess, Juliet. 2023. The dangers of predictable learning variability: Challenging the imagining of disability in the Universal Design for Learning in music education. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 236: 21–42. https://doi.org/10.5406/21627223.236.02
hooks, bell. 1992. Eating the other: Desire and resistance. In Black looks: Race and representation, 21–39. South End Press.
hooks, bell. 1994. Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.
Juan-Morera, Borja, Icíar Nadal-García, Belén López-Casanova, and Eva Vicente. 2023. Self-perception of inclusion in an inclusive choir: An analysis using the Scale for the Assessment of Inclusion (SAI). Behavioral Sciences 13: 758. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13090758
Knapp, David. 2020. Modern band and special learners. General Music Today 34 (1): 49–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371320942279
Knapp, Erika J. 2024. “I want to be a better person and a better teacher”: Exploring the constructs of race and dis/ability in a music educator collaborative teacher study group. Journal of Music Teacher Education 34 (3): 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837241277778
Knapp, Erika J. 2025. “There is no manual for this”: Teaching students with disabilities in self-contained classroom settings. Research Studies in Music Education 47 (2): 170–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X241328959
Knapp, Erika J., Julianna LoBiondo, and Paulina Diaz. 2024. “I have to convince people I am worth accommodating”: A narrative inquiry of a blind student in undergraduate music education. Visions of Research in Music Education 46 (6): 83–108. https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/vrme/vol46/iss1/6
McCord, Kimberly A., and Emily H. Watts. 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
McQueen, Kiel. 2022. January 2022 report: Examining teachers’ perceptions of school working conditions: Analysis of Fall 2021 School Operations Survey. CSO Research Reports 1. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cso_research_reports/1
Nichols, Jeananne. 2013. Rie’s story, Ryan’s journey: Music in the life of a transgender student. Journal of Research in Music Education 61 (3): 262–79. https://doi.org.10,1177/0022429413498259
Parker, Elizabeth C., and Tami J. Draves. 2017. A narrative of two preservice music teachers with visual impairment. Journal of Research in Music Education 64 (4): 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429416674704
Perpich Center for Arts Education. 2020. Arts teacher development and evaluation: What to look for in music. Minnesota Department of Education. https://perpich.mn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Arts-Teacher-Development-and-Evaluation_-What-to-Look-For-in-Music.pdf
Quaglia, Bruce W. 2015. Planning for student variability: Universal Design for Learning in the music theory classroom and curriculum. Music Theory Online 21 (1): 1–21. https://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.15.21.1/mto.15.21.1.quaglia.pdf
Salvador, Karen. 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
Salvador, Karen, Allison Paetz, and Abby Lewin-Zeigler. 2020. Being the change: Music teachers’ self-reported changes in mindset and practice. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 39 (1): 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123320925754
Santos, Bonaventura S. 2014. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Paradigm Publishers.
Schmidt, Patrick. 2005. Music education as transformative practice: Creating new frameworks for learning music in communities. In Praxial music education: Reflections and dialogues, edited by David J. Elliot, 89–109. Oxford University Press.
Shouldice, Heather N., and Sydney Timmer. 2024. LGBTQ+ inclusivity in U.S. choral classrooms. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/87551233241253829
Spivak, Gayatri C. 1988. Can the subaltern speak? In Marxism and the interpretation of culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, 271–313. University of Illinois Press.
Smith, Linda T. 2021. Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. 3rd ed. Zed Books.
Tucker, Olivia G. 2023. Band teacher agency in a high-stakes performance environment. Journal of Research in Music Education 70 (4): 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224294221088856
U.S. Department of Education. 2023. Least restrictive environment. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.114
VanWeelden, Kimberly, and Julia Heath-Reynolds. 2017. Steps to designing authentic assessments for students with disabilities in music classes. Music Educators Journal 104 (2): 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432117733028
VanWeelden, Kimberly, and Laura 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
Yinger, Olivia Swedberg, Martina Vasil, Austin S. Robinson, Megan Jaspersen, Elaine Eisenbaum, and Lindsey C. Mullis. 2023. Universal Design for Learning in a music camp: Perspectives and musical self-efficacy of children with disabilities. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 42 (1): 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/87551233221118905