Think2020 | PAPER

Disabled people in the music education workforce

Introduction

In summer 2017 Drake Music carried out a small research project as part of
Think2020, a 3-year strategic programme funded by Youth Music to remove disabling
barriers to music-making and boost inclusion in music education. We have been
developing progression routes for young disabled musicians, training the workforce
and advocating for access, equality and diversity.

During the first two years of Think2020 we became increasingly convinced that
disabled people were under-represented in the music education workforce. Numbers
seemed very low. However, this observation was largely informed by anecdotal
evidence from our work across the sector. We decided to investigate further, to
interrogate whether our assumptions were correct.

It is worth noting here that our assumptions were underpinned by knowledge of

existing data on the discrimination disabled people experience in wider society. For
example, government statistics on disability state that disabled people are more likely
to experience poverty, unemployment, face discrimination in the workplace and/or
be excluded from cultural and leisure activities.

We began with secondary research into existing data to try and gain a better
understanding of the demographic make-up of the workforce. When this revealed an
unclear and incomplete picture we followed it up with primary research into Music
Education Hubs, via a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, with the goal of
generating new knowledge for the sector. Our aim was to understand the current
position so that we can better advocate for, and support, change.

This paper is a sharing of what we have learned and the issues that we see emerging.

www.drakemusic.org 1
Statistical Research

Our first finding was that there is no specific information about the music education
sector workforce which is available to analyse. This is indicative of an issue which we
will come back to later in this report, namely that the music education sector is a
complex landscape. It also raises the question: if we treasure what we measure,
what does this lack of data say about diversity and inclusion in music education?

We widened our criteria to gather data from a range of related sources covering the
arts, music and education sectors to gain some broader insights. Arts Council England
(ACE) and the Department of Education (DoE) statistics show very low levels of
representation of disabled people in the workforce 4% and 0.5% respectively.
These figures look especially low when stacked up against the working age
population average of 19%. That said, at least these figures exist. The UK Music
Survey of Workforce Diversity did not even collect figures for disability, only gender
and ethnicity.

As well as combing the internet for stats we put out a call for data on our blog to try
and unearth more information. We did not uncover any new data, but did receive an
email from a member of the music education workforce highlighting their decision
not to identify as disabled. The emailer asked to remain anonymous as their reasons
for not self-identifying included fear of stigma, bias and potential discrimination. This
is another important area for discussion which we will return to below.

Most of the statistical sources we found asked participants to self-identify we posit

that this means that the figures look lower than they really are. This in turn raises a
question about how disability is perceived.

Freedom of Information Request (FOI) to Music Education Hubs

In July 2017, we undertook a small piece of primary research to try to build a clearer
picture of how well represented disabled people are in the music education
workforce.

We decided to focus on Music Education Hubs as key shapers of the music education
landscape and also a manageable sample. We issued an FOI request to try to obtain
relevant workforce data. We chose this approach as we thought it would be the most
effective way to source and collect data. However, some hubs fed back that they felt
this was rather heavy-handed.

We had a 60% response rate to the FOI, but the data was mixed and in some cases
not useful for our purposes (e.g. data referred to a whole county council rather than
the music hub). From that response rate, we recorded a total of 53 disabled people
working in Music Hubs across England. This total is made up of 32 paid staff in any

www.drakemusic.org 2
capacity (e.g. admin, management, etc.) and 21 paid music leaders. We cannot report
this as a percentage as we were unable to establish the size of the music education
hub workforce as a whole, but overall it seems to support our initial assumption. (See
Appendix for full data, including Drake Music figures)

Although the data was inconclusive, the conversations the process opened up with
people across the sector were certainly illuminating. We had confidential discussions
with a range of music hub staff and other stakeholders, revealing a wide and varying
range of understanding of disability and of approaches to supporting disabled staff.

Key Questions

As we reflected on our small research project, some questions and issues began to
emerge which we think require further consideration:

1. Is there such a thing as the music education sector?

The term music education sector obscures the fact that what we are dealing with is a
complex landscape with huge differences from region to region and no single way of
working or, standardised approach. We looked specifically at hubs as one part of the
sector, which revealed a broader issue: Music Education Hubs are run according to
different models of business, delivery and employment and this makes it challenging
to gather data, as highlighted in the most recent Music Hub Key Data Return (2015-
16):

Every hub has a unique business model, including models where the hub lead organisation
commissions partners to deliver core and extension roles, or devolves funding directly to
schools for them to commission activity. This may impact on the data that is available for
submission to the Arts Council, its reliability and the finances of the hub.

This also impacts on how possible it is to effect sector-wide change and implement
strategies consistently across the country. One music hub may have significant
resources to use in improving inclusive practice in their area, another may have very
little. Also, different hubs are at different stages of their journey in making their offer
more inclusive to disabled people, with differing levels of understanding and
expertise. This is important to note as participation in music from an early age
increases the chances that a disabled person might choose music education as a
sector to work in.

2. What do people understand by disability?

In our FOI questions, we used the term disabled. Feedback from some Hubs
indicated that this term had led to a degree of confusion, namely what constitutes
disability? Did we mean: physical impairments, learning disability, mental health

www.drakemusic.org 3
issues, OCD, dyslexia, diabetes? While we recognise that we could have provided
more clarity, we believe this reveals a broader issue: we are not all starting from the
same place in terms of our understanding of disability and disabling barriers.
Discussions around core aspects of disability such as the Social Model of Disability
are necessary and happening in various ways within hubs, but there is no unified
approach, shared language or understanding. This is challenging, but does also
present an excellent opportunity to engage in a dialogue with the sector, which in
turn will support growth and change.

At Drake Music we use the definition of disability provided in the Disability

Discrimination Act (1995) and the Equalities Act (2010): You are disabled if you have
a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term negative
effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.

The Equalities Act provides further explanation as follows:

substantial is more than minor or trivial, e.g. it takes much longer than it usually
would to complete a daily task like getting dressed
long-term means 12 months or more, e.g. a breathing condition that develops as a
result of a lung infection

3. Should we be collecting data on disability?

The lack of centralised data about the music education workforce is in part related to
the first issue, around the complex landscape, but is collecting this data something we
should be aspiring to? If we know more about the people who work in music
education surely this would enable us to effect real change, for example through
structural, strategic and practical interventions and programmes?

4. Are we ready to have nuanced, sensitive and sometimes challenging conversations

as a sector, and as a society?

In our research, we were always looking at self-reporting of disability. Music Hubs

may not know if a staff member or music leader is disabled if they choose not to
declare it. And people may not declare for any number of reasons fear of stigma,
not wanting to be labelled, concerns over bias or discrimination. Some people had
discussed being disabled with their line manager, but didnt want to share this with
other colleagues. One respondent said: there may be many people working in the sector
who are the same as me; living with a hidden disability that they don't make public for
whatever reason.

The variety in approaches to the question of identifying as disabled demonstrates the

assumptions, stigma and prejudice which still exist. To really bring about change we
need to accept our responsibility to collectively tackle this situation. To be ready to
have challenging conversations, to live with feeling uncomfortable in those

www.drakemusic.org 4
discussions and to be open to making space for both the conversation and for real
and lasting change. Are we ready for that and who will lead it?

A Call to Action

We can see from our research that the music education sector can and does employ
disabled people. At Drake Music we dont claim to have cracked it, to have all the
answers, or to be experts who always get these things right. We still have much to
learn and want to continue to bring about change at all levels of our organisation and
our practice. The Social Model of Disability underpins our organisation and practice,
requiring us to take positive steps to address barriers both attitudinal and in the
context of access, particularly in terms of music technology.

The following principles are at the heart of everything we do and continue inform our
Think2020 programme:

- Music is a human right - Everyone has the right to make music

- Nothing about us without us A slogan from the Disability Rights
movement which encapsulates our belief that true equality is based in
disabled and non-disabled people working together.
- Inclusion at every level - We advocate for inclusive practice at all levels:
policy, management and delivery.
- Action, not aims We take and advocate for an active position. Inclusion
isnt an aim or objective but an active process of change. It needs
action to be felt and understood, for it to become embedded in our
everyday world.

We are talking about the need to do things differently. The need to change in order
to be inclusive. As Disabled and non-disabled people, we need to work together to
address inequality and achieve change, sharing core values. The value of access and
equality cannot be left out or forgotten.

Access must be understood as a critical aesthetic that allows inclusion to happen. This
goes to the heart of the change we want to see:
we are together
we all belong in our strengths and diversity
we are valued for contributing and shaping
we succeed in making change together, for the better

If we want real inclusion, we need to take action. We need support across the sector
from individuals to schools to hubs to funders to policy makers to make this
happen. Join our campaign; be a music leader!

www.drakemusic.org 5
Appendix

1. Background to Drake Music

1.1. Drake Music have been leaders in music, disability and technology since the creation
of the charity in 1993. We work across four strands: Learning & Participation,
Research & Development, Training & Consultancy and Arts & Collaboration. We are
an Arts Council National Portfolio Organisation and are also funded by Youth Music
under their Fund C stream.
1.2. The Drake Music team are passionate about opening up opportunities for disabled
people to both participate as musicians and also to take up roles within the music
education sector and the music industry.
1.3. Drake Music support disabled peoples musical progress through a range of learning
& participation opportunities, through commissioning new work and CPD and also
through the development of new, bespoke instruments like the Kellycaster.
1.4. Think2020 is funded by Youth Music as part of their strategic Fund C stream. It is a
three year programme designed to affect strategic change in the music education
sector, with 2017/18 being the final year.
1.5. While we do use the Equalities Act & Disability Discrimination Act definitions of
disability, we recognise that Equalities Legislation doesn't fully reflect a social model
definition of disability as articulated by the wider disability movement and many
organisations of disabled people. We feel the Social Model of Disability as a
definition underpins our organisation and practice, requiring us to take positive steps
to address barriers both attitudinal and in the context of access, particularly in terms
of music technology. We wish to support and encourage change in our practice
toward a much more inclusive music sector at all levels.

2. Statistical Data sources

2.1. Arts Council England report: Equality, Diversity and the Creative Case (2015-16):
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/download-
file/Equality_diversity_creativecase_2015_16_web_0.pdf
2.1.1. 4% of National Portfolio Organisation staff self-defined as disabled, against a
working age population average of 19%.
2.1.2. These are the lowest figures reported for any demographic grouping. For
example, 17% of the workforce come from Black and Minority Ethnic
backgrounds, 55% are female.
2.1.3. Arts Council England state: We welcome the continued progress with Black
and minority ethnic representation across the workforce of the National
Portfolio, which now stands at 17 per cent against the working age population
average of 15 per cent... We acknowledge the slower progress in relation to the
representation of disabled people across the workforce in our National Portfolio
and Major Partner Museums, which our data tells us now stands at 4 per cent
against the working age population average of 19 per cent.
2.2. Department of Educations School Workforce Report from Nov 2015:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/53
3618/SFR21_2016_MainText.pdf
2.2.1. Data shows an employment rate of 0.5% for disabled people, again to be
compared to the working age population average of 19%.

www.drakemusic.org 6
 2.2.2. The data relates to the whole school, not specifically to the music department.
2.2.3. The data is unlikely to include peripatetic teaching staff delivering one-to-one
music lessons, which is a key point of musical engagement for many young
people.
2.2.4. The data does not refer specifically to SEN/D schools.
2.3. UK Music Workforce Diversity report: https://www.ukmusic.org/equality-
diversity/uk-music-diversity-survey-results/
2.3.1. This inaugural diversity survey took data from almost 3,000 staff from major
and independent record labels, music publishers, managers, producers, royalty-
collection societies and the live music industry.
2.3.2.
2.4. As well as searching for data we also put out a call for information to our networks
and social media followers, including a wide range of music education professionals.
We were hopeful that this would return some additional data sources for us to
analyse. Even though the blog post on our website was viewed more than 180 times
(as well as the question being asked via twitter & facebook), it did not yield any new
statistics.

3. Freedom of Information (FOI) request

3.1. We asked all 121 Music Education Hubs in England a series of questions as a
Freedom Of Information request, using the lead organization as our primary contact.
It is important to note that we recognise that there were some difficulties in how the
questions were posed and also the use of the FOI approach, which we would rectify
were we to undertake similar research in the future.
The questions were:
3.1.1. How many of your paid staff are disabled?
3.1.2. What percentage of your total number of paid staff are disabled?
3.1.3. How many of your paid music teachers/ leaders are disabled?
3.1.4. What percentage of your total number of paid music teachers/ leaders are
disabled?
3.2. Drake Musics figures relating to the FOI are as follows:
3.2.1. How many of your paid staff are disabled? 16
3.2.2. What percentage of your total number of paid staff are disabled? 38%
3.2.3. How many of your paid music teachers/ leaders are disabled? 16
3.2.4. What percentage of your total number of paid music teachers/ leaders are
disabled? 43%
3.2.5. These figures reflect the work that we have undertaken to increase the
diversity of our workforce, to embed and embody inclusive practice, particularly
with reference to our Think2020 programme.
3.3. We received responses from 72 Music Education Hubs to our request:
3.3.1. 36 completed responses with usable data (i.e. figures for music education hub
staff).
3.3.2. 3 Hubs completed responses with no statistical data (i.e. provided some
contextual information but not figures).
3.3.3. 7 Hubs completed responses with unusable data (i.e. figures for the Local
Authority workforce as a whole, not the Music Education Hub).
3.3.4. 11 Hubs responded by saying they were awaiting data but no further
information was received.

www.drakemusic.org 7
 3.3.5. 2 were exempted from Freedom Of Information requests. The Hubs in
question told us they were now constituted as charities and as such do not have
to respond to FOI requests.
3.3.6. 8 requested us to re-direct our questions to the Local Authority.
3.3.7. 5 came back as email address not known.
3.4. Statistics for usable data received
3.4.1. How many of your paid staff are disabled? Out of the 36 completed responses:
12 Hubs have paid staff who self-reported as disabled.
The lowest (and most common) number was 1 disabled person in any one
Hub, the highest was 8.
24 out of the 36 Hubs reported having no disabled people on their paid
staff.
3.4.2. What percentage of your total number of paid staff are disabled? Out of the 36
completed responses:
7 Hubs provided a figure for this question.
The lowest figure was 0.43% and the highest 7.5%.
The mean average across the 7 Hubs who provided figures was 4.2%.
3.4.3. How many of your paid music teachers/ leaders are disabled? Out of the 36
completed responses:
8 Hubs reported having music leaders who self-reported as disabled.
The lowest (and most common) number was 1 disabled music leader in any
one Hub with the highest being 7 for one particular Hub.
A total of 28 out of the 36 Hubs reported having no disabled music leaders.
3.4.4. What percentage of your total number of paid music teachers/ leaders are
disabled? Out of the 36 completed responses we received:
8 Hubs provided a figure for this question.
The lowest figure was 0.43% and the highest 7%.
The mean average across the 8 Hubs who provided figures was 3.3%.

4. Reasons for inconsistent data/ lack of data from FOI request

4.1. We received feedback from some Music Education Hubs that using the FOI request
was not the easiest or most approachable way to gather data, whilst others Hubs
responded to our questions without comment. As a small charity, we hoped that FOI
would be the most effective way to gather data from all 121 Hubs.
4.2. We recognise that for some, FOI can feel like trying to find out information which is
being hidden. Equally, FOI means an organisation has to respond within a set
number of days, which we appreciate can be a challenge (especially for some smaller
Hubs).
4.3. Some Hubs passed our original request onto their Local Authority to process. This led
to confusion as our four questions were then mistakenly taken to mean the whole
Local Authority workforce and not just the Hub. We then received data we couldnt
use.
4.4. In our original questions we used the term disabled. Feedback from some Music
Education Hubs indicated that this term had led to some confusion, namely what
constitutes a disability? Did we mean: physical impairments; learning disability;
mental health issues, OCD; dyslexia; diabetes? We recognise that we could have
provided more clarity over this term.
4.5. Some Music Education Hubs pointed out that their staff are under no obligation to
declare a disability and hence they were unable to give accurate data: There are no

www.drakemusic.org 8
 contracted staff in the Music Service who have declared themselves to be disabled.
This is purely a self-reporting element now, and if staff choose not to tell us they
consider themselves to be disabled they dont have to.
4.6. Equally, some Hubs said that they could not provide data as to provide the exact
number and percentage could identify those individuals and identify that they have a
disability which is sensitive personal data and is therefore exempt under S40(2) of
the FOI Act .
4.7. Some Music Education Hubs told us they are now commission only and so do not
actually employ any staff to gather data for.
4.8. Some Hubs reported that, due the numerous partner organisations involved in
delivering work for the Hub, it was virtually impossible to gather data around our
four questions from them based on their current capacity.
4.9. During this research we spoke to several heads of music hubs who spoke honestly
about their experiences with disability, either in a personal capacity, or regardling
disabled members of staff. These conversations were by their nature confidential,
but some of the issues raised are discussed in general terms below, without
identifying individuals. One recurring theme was how disabled staff in Music Hubs
can best be supported by their employer to enable them to do their job. Alongside
the survey responses, the conversations also showed varying understandings of
disability.
4.9.1. In one example, the head of a Music Hub gave the example of a job candidate
who indicated he had a disability on his application form. Having rung the
candidate to ask what special support they could provide for him the Music Hub
was able to give the reassurance that at interview they would allow additional
time for him to collect his thoughts.
4.9.2. In another case, the head of a Music Hub described how he supported
disabled members of his team who had chosen not to share with colleagues that
they have a disability. One example was proof reading documents written by a
member of staff with dyslexia.
4.9.3. Another Music Hub head described the experience of putting in place specific
support for one disabled music leader who was facing challenges connected to
his disability, the cost of which was significant. This support can be challenging
for some Music Hubs to manage, for example the additional costs and time
resources that may be needed; but all the Music Hubs we spoke to were
motivated to do their best and aware of their responsibilities to disabled staff.
4.9.4. We are extremely grateful for those colleagues in Music Education Hubs who
contacted us directly to share their thoughts and experiences so honestly around
the subject of disability within their workforce. We are also grateful for the
support of Music Mark as we conducted this work.

5. Government data source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disability-

facts-and-figures/disability-facts-and-figures

6. Disability Discrimination Act: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/50/contents

7. Equalities Act: https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010

www.drakemusic.org 9