Does Music Education Have a Poverty Problem?

In this literature review, Beveridge clearly makes a clear connection that when we are talking about “Low-SES” or “Poverty” there is an implication that these are most likely to be students of color. She identifies three categories of concern:

1.) Logistics: Band (for example) can be very expensive. Additionally, activities like band usually carry an expectation of time commitments outside the school day. These factors can be significant barriers for families living in poverty.

2.) Teacher Attitudes: Families with lower income levels are more likely to attend schools that have disproportionately fewer resources. These schools are more likely to see higher levels of turnover as White teachers (especially) are more likely to seek employment in schools serving White middle-class neighborhoods. Also, there is a perception that music programs are generally considered to be of high quality “based on achievement in Western art music” (p. 13). Cultural differences may exist that undervalue musics other than Western art music, Consequently, this may elicit negative teacher attitudes toward low-SES students’ musical ability.

3.) Educational Policy: The whirlwind of legislation and policy governing education with an emphasis on test scores has also disproportionately affected those who live in poverty. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 named the arts a core subject. However, underperforming schools continue to limit access to music education courses due to the underwhelming accountability measures put in place.

Music teachers need more support! In this case, more support for music teachers equates to more money and larger budgets. The more resources available to music teachers, the less likely they are to burn out and move away from schools serving lower-income communities. This may be especially true for White teachers. More available resources may eliminate the need for music teachers to fundraise. More financial support may also mean that “teachers are more likely to report satisfaction from their jobs since they no longer feel that they are supporting students by themselves” (p. 15).

Support must also be available to recruit and retain more teachers of color. This support should especially be focused on recruiting the preservice music educators of tomorrow. Are we doing enough to effectively recruit more undergraduate students of color to join the ranks of music teachers?

Money can’t fix everything. There is a problem of cultural disconnect and racism that must be faced as well. Teachers tend to “gravitate to ethnically homogeneous schools that also tend to be higher income” (p. 15). This may be due to White teachers’ view of students living in poverty, which let’s face it, are more likely to be students of color.

We must begin to think outside the box of elitism insofar as how we define quality musical opportunities for students. Perhaps connecting our curriculum to the cultural music capital brought before us in course offerings and ensembles is one way that we can increase involvement. Western art music doesn’t have to be the only tradition we study in schools.

Reading this article forced me to reflect on my journey as a White music educator hunting for jobs: Which jobs were interesting to me and why? Why was I immediately dismissive about “certain” jobs in “certain” communities? Would my skillset be an asset to this community? Why or why not? The list goes on, there’s a lot to unpack here for me.

As our nation and its students continue to become more diverse, I believe that we must pursue (and value) musics other than traditional Western art music in ensembles. Whether it is passive or intentional, White teachers are more likely to be all-in on the virtues of Western art music and hold narrow views of what it looks like to be “talented.”