Music therapist teacher support typically involves the delivery of a short-term program in which the music therapist provides consultation and training to classroom or music teachers. The support offered by music therapists to teachers takes many varied forms and seeks to address a range of educational, developmental, therapeutic, and wellbeing related student needs. Music therapist teacher support has traditionally intended to develop teachers’ ability to use music with their students through the use of active music-making or music-listening activities.

The first descriptions of music therapist teacher support coincide with the advent of antidiscrimination legislation in the late 20th century (Australian Government, 1992). At this time, Australian students with diagnosed disabilities and impairments were first able to attend their local mainstream school. This shift towards inclusive education sparked new work possibilities for music therapy service delivery in schools (Johnson, 1996). Subsequently, multiple authors proposed that music therapists were well positioned to support music (Bunt, 2003; Darrow, 1999) and generalist classroom teachers (Jones & Cardinal, 1998) to develop their ability at incorporating music into their classroom as a means of including all students. This intention remains relevant for contempory music therapy practice in schools, as teachers continue to require classroom-based support to uphold inclusive education legislation (Graham, 2016).

Supporting teachers through consultation programs was additionally suggested as a way for music therapists to retain professional relevance and maintain opportunities for employment alongside the movement of students with disabilities to mainstream school settings (Smith & Hairston, 1999). Indeed, facilitating short-term consultancy programs can open up another avenue for music therapists who find it difficult to source ongoing paid work in schools. Furthermore, music therapist teacher support programs can provide a pragmatic solution to the lack of access to music therapy services for students in many school settings, as there are simply not enough registered music therapists to service each school (Rickson, 2008). This insight inspired Rickson (2010) to develop a consultation protocol in which she described processes for working with teaching staff to improve their ability to include students with high support needs through the use of music. Another application of music therapist teacher support outlined in the literature refers to work with school staff outside the therapists’ country of origin (Bolger & McFerran, 2013; Coombes, 2011; Coombes & Tombs-Katz, 2009; Margetts, Wallace, & Young, 2013; McFerran & Hunt, 2008; Quin & Rowland, 2016; Rickson, 2009; Winter, 2015). These international programs typically take place at schools in geographical locations that do not readily have access to music therapy. Several authors have described international programs in which music therapists aim to support teachers to use music therapeutically in order to address issues of trauma or grief experienced by school students in addition to promoting inclusivity (Coombes, 2011; Margetts et al., 2013; McFerran & Hunt, 2008).

More recently, McFerran and Rickson (2014) have explicitly introduced a community music therapy orientation to school-based practice in an attempt to foster the development of flourishing school musical cultures. A community oriented practice involves spending time in the school environment to identify interested staff member advocates, or “players” (Rickson & McFerran, 2014, p. 46), rather than offering training and support to all staff. When music therapists do aim to support teachers within community music therapy oriented school programs, attempts are made to build collaborative partnerships with teachers rather than positioning as an “expert professional”(McFerran & Rickson, 2014, p. 79). Indeed, collaborating with teachers who are engaged partners has been described as being a critical component of successful community music therapy framed school programs (McFerran, Crooke, & Bolger, 2017).

One often implicit intention of music therapist teacher support is that teachers will not only develop their ability to implement musical engagements with their students but that these outcomes will be sustained after the music therapist leaves the school. Over the past decade, music therapists have written about the importance of sustainable program design as an ethical aspect of short-term music therapy projects in schools (Bolger & McFerran, 2013; McFerran & Rickson, 2014; Quin & Rowland, 2016). Some instances of teachers sustaining their use of musical practices after engaging in music therapist teacher support are presented in the literature. Shrubsole (2015) described an example of a classroom teacher sustaining her ability to facilitate and adapt active music making with her students learnt through her collaboration with a consulting music therapist. Furthermore, findings from an evaluation of multiple international skill-sharing projects (some of which took place with teachers) indicated that local partners were able to sustain developments in their use of musical skills after training delivered by the visiting music therapist (Quin & Rowland, 2016).

In general, however, sustaining outcomes for teachers through music therapist teacher support programs has been shown to be a challenging undertaking. For example, Coombes and Tombs-Katz (2009) described the sharing of music therapy practices at two schools on the West Bank. Over a six-week period, music therapist Coombes worked with a group of teachers and social workers to build their ability to implement musical activities with their students. Upon returning to one of the schools five months after the training program had taken place, Coombes discovered that the group of classroom teachers who had taken part in the therapeutic music skill-sharing program were no longer responsible for the music program. In this case, the role of music session facilitator had been passed on to a social worker participant of the program. The authors deduced that relying on one staff member to carry on the use of music was a problematic outcome as there was a possibility that they could leave the school or stop running the music program. Limiting the delivery of music to one staff member also appeared to have restricted the access of students to music-making activities. This discovery aligns with an early finding from BuSTA research project investigation exploring the sustainability of school arts programs. Similarly, it was often found that sustainable provision of an arts program within a school was dependent upon the presence and energy of a sole “passionate” member of staff (McFerran, Crooke, & Hattie, 2017).

Additionally, when reporting on four classroom teachers’ perceptions of the music therapy consultation process they had facilitated, Rickson and Twyford (2011) shared that three of the teachers found it difficult to carry on with music after the program had ceased. McFerran, Thompson, and Bolger (2015) have also reported that teachers were not able to adapt musical activities learnt with the support of a music therapist to the needs of the students in their new class group. It is contended that further inquiry into the factors that help and hinder teachers from sustaining outcomes when participating in music therapist teacher support programs is warranted.

The first major tension identified within this critical interpretive synthesis was between the needs of the teachers participating in the music therapist teacher support and the needs of their students. We noticed that, on the whole, in spite of the intention to support teachers to develop outcomes from the process, identifying the needs of teachers was not prioritised within music therapist teacher support programs. When references to teacher needs were present, authors tended to portray ways in which teachers were able to cope with challenging work conditions, rather than strengths or personal experience with music. For example, Coombes and Tombs-Katz (2009) outlined the way “Teachers and social workers working in this environment face daily challenges associated with stress and anxiety” (p. 3). Brotons (2001) similarly reported the prevalence of teachers experiencing stress and burnout.

Conversely, authors overwhelmingly described the identification of student needs as the initial focus for their music therapy work with teachers. For example, when writing about her music therapy school consultation protocol, Rickson (2012) noted the importance of collating data pertaining to each individual student and conducting environmental and clinical music therapy assessment processes with students. Indeed, the identification of the individual needs of students can be seen as in keeping with the traditional practice of music therapy in schools (McFerran, 2014, p. 328). However, it seemed that initial identification of the needs of particular students in the classroom was often incongruent with the intentions of supporting teachers to develop their use of inclusive practices. In the mid 1990s, Jones (1996) identified the importance of reflecting on the shift towards inclusive music therapy practice in schools by asking "How do you transition services toward inclusive environments when the services it delivers have historically been associated with institutional-like settings?" (p. 44). McFerran and Rickson (2014) proposed an answer to this question by changing the focus of music therapy school programs in schools from identifying student issues to “getting a feel” for the needs of the whole school community (p. 68). However, in practice, work in this space (McFerran, Crooke, & Bolger, 2017) has still seemed to prioritise student needs over those of staff members.

Furthermore, the enduring initial focus on student needs perceived within the literature seemed to have a direct impact on the experience of the participating teachers. In one publication, Rickson and Twyford (2011) asked school staff members for their perspective on outcomes from a music therapy consultation program. They discovered that despite positive outcomes for students, teachers and support staff stated that their work conditions made it difficult to carry on the music once the music therapist had left the school. One teacher described how although she was receptive to ideas suggested by the music therapist consultant, “apart from the odd thing we haven’t really instigated anything that we got from the music program, because we can’t” (pp. 75–76). This raises the question of whether shifting the initial focus of the consultation program to the identification of teacher needs would have allowed the music therapist to determine the kinds of activities that the teachers might have been able to instigate in their school context, and in turn yielded a different result.

In a later publication, Twyford and Rickson (2013) proposed that:

We agree with this statement and through critical reflection noticed that ways in which the focus of teacher support was depicted within this body of literature did not always appear to be compatible with the needs of participating teachers.

With further immersion in the literature, it also became clear that very few publications explicitly detailed ways in which teachers even volunteered to participate in the music therapist teacher support process. In their description of a music therapy program exploring music therapy for grief and loss with students in Ireland, McFerran & Hunt (2008) shared that despite attempts by the music therapist to prepare staff members to carry on with addressing the issues identified through music therapy, this did not ensue. The authors postulated that “too much responsibility had been placed on an unwilling school community, which resulted in a lack of ongoing action” (p. 49). This insight named the crucial importance of what Bolger later referred to as community “buy in” (Bolger, McFerran, & Stige, 2018) when engaging stakeholders in collaborative music therapy projects striving for sustained outcomes. It is suggested that voluntary participation in the music therapist teacher support process is a likely prerequisite of teachers’ development of sustained outcomes.

Several authors of more recent publications reviewed have suggested that building strong positive relationships with school staff members (Twyford & Rickson, 2013) and drawing upon the strengths and resources of school staff (McFerran, Crooke, & Bolger, 2017; McFerran & Rickson, 2014; McFerran et al., 2015) are vital for successful music therapist teacher collaboration. Yet, the critical review process also allowed us to bring to light several instances within the literature in which the music therapist did not appear to be supportive of teachers’ musical and professional needs. For example, it is common practice within music therapy to engage participants in building confidence through use of their preferred musical material and instruments (Wheeler, 2015, p. 451). However, with the exception of the intercultural skill sharing projects outlined by Quin and Rowland (2016), descriptions of the use of teacher preferred instruments and musical material was lacking within this body of literature.

Some authors describing music therapist teacher support programs explained that music making needed to take place out of the classroom as the musical activities were either too noisy (Suh, 2015) or too difficult to manage inside a classroom (Rickson & Twyford, 2011; Twyford, 2012). However, it is argued that leaving the classroom within a music therapy teacher support program is likely to have a detrimental effect on the teachers’ sustained skills. This is because a teacher is unable to leave students unsupervised in the classroom, and rarely has the chance to engage one-on-one with students.

Many authors alluded to the difficulty of engaging in ongoing conversations with teachers due to time constraints faced by both teachers and music therapists. When outlining a community music therapy approach to teacher support, McFerran and Rickson (2014) suggested dialoguing with school leadership at the start of a program to build understanding of the importance of making time to meet with teachers. However, few publications overtly included description of such meetings as part of the process of music therapist teacher support. It is extrapolated that starting music therapist teacher support with a focus on teacher needs may be an important practical step in promoting sustained outcomes from such programs.

Through questioning the initial focus of music therapist teacher support programs we do not wish to imply that the needs of teachers are somehow more important than the needs of students, or that the needs of students and teachers are not interconnected within a classroom setting. However, it is proposed that the order in which music therapists focus on the needs of teachers and students should differ depending upon who is the intended primary recipient of the music therapists’ support. When the intention is to provide support to teachers so they may sustain outcomes from the music therapy program, we argue that the primary focus is the teacher. Focusing directly on the teacher is then more likely to result in sustained practices and benefits. Students also stand to greatly benefit from a shift in focus.

The second major tension identified through this critical interpretive synthesis was between use of therapeutic and educative frames for planning and evaluation. One commonly understood aspect of music therapist teacher support was that a music therapist partners with teachers to set goals for students based on an assessment of students’ needs. The music therapist then supports the teacher to address these goals through music making, regularly evaluating progress and changing goals as needed. However, through critically reading the literature we noticed that framing student goals as therapeutic seemed to restrict the potential for effective collaboration with teachers and subsequent sustained teacher outcomes. Furthermore, we identified that student goals set by music therapists did not always appear to align with teachers’ professional obligations.

Several authors have differentiated between educative and therapeutic frames for the student goals set within descriptions of music therapist teacher support. For example, Bunt (2003), stated that when working in schools "the [music] therapist is challenged to consider the relationship between therapeutic objectives and a more educational framework" (p. 189). The difference between education and therapy has been described as “a difficulty” by Pellitteri (2000, p. 389). Annesley (2014) additionally noted that "sometimes my role can involve allowing things to happen in therapy which might not be accepted in the classroom" (p.37).

This distinction between therapeutic and educational goals for students was often also acknowledged through comparing music education and music therapy programs. Some authors described a certain level of overlap between music education and music therapy yet proposed that each discipline had its own unique goals for students (Bunt, 2003; J. Smith, 2017). For example, several authors have attempted to point out the difference between addressing student learning of music curriculum through music education and addressing therapeutically oriented extra-musical student goals through music therapy (Brotons, 2001; Montgomery & Martinson, 2006; J. Smith, 2017).

A further illustrative example of the differences between frames for goals used by music therapists and teachers was presented in a comparison of outcomes from two drumming groups addressing a school violence prevention initiative (Suh, 2015, p. 78). Within this program Suh noted that, contrary to music education, student participation in music therapy did not relate to the attainment of grades. Mitchell (2016) also pointed out that “a common distinction between music education and music therapy is the fact that education necessitates attainment of predetermined standards” (p.35). However, Suh also noted that, when facilitating a therapeutic drumming group “the music teacher’s approach was more focused on educative goals” whereas the consulting music “therapist was trained to be more focused on the individual’s emotional status than the school music teacher” (pp. 75–76). This paragraph reminded Meg of the differing professional roles held by music therapists and teachers working to address student goals in a school context. It also seemed that debating the differences between the relative merits of therapeutically and educatively framed student goals often seemed to contribute towards an unhelpful dichotomy between therapy and education. This dichotomy in turn detracted from the ability of music therapists to support the work of teachers.

Furthermore, it seemed that some authors prioritised their own therapeutic agendas to further the profession of music therapy which served to limit their ability to effectively collaborate with teachers. For example, Woodward (2000) stated that knowledge of both education and therapy practice is needed when working with teachers. However, her suggestion that “therapy is more important than teaching because learning and teaching opportunities arise naturally from therapy” (p.97) is problematic in a school context in which the primary aim is the education of students delivered by teaching staff. By contrast, more recent publications demonstrated the evolution of music therapist teacher support towards a greater consideration of the school context in which the work takes place. Mitchell’s (2016) contention that “music therapists do not have a monopoly on music's therapeutic potential and affordances" (2016, p. 34) seems a more helpful starting point for music therapists aiming to support teachers, and more amenable to the development of collaborative partnerships. While music therapists are obviously aware that the professional role of teachers is to educate students, greater consideration of the many aspects encompassed within a teaching role is warranted when developing school-based programs that involve providing support to our teaching colleagues. Thus, we contend that setting student goals with a therapeutic frame is incongruent with our understanding of the fundamental aim of music therapist teacher support programs – supporting teachers with their professional responsibility to teach. Instead, music therapists are encouraged to partner with teachers to set educationally framed student learning intentions, as per teachers’ professional obligations.

Naming a tension between therapeutically and educatively framed goals within this literature base is not intended to imply a hierarchical relationship between therapy and education, nor suggest that setting therapeutically oriented goals for student growth is not a valuable and much needed intention for music therapy programs in schools. However, in rejecting the assumption that student needs must be prioritised over teacher needs, working with teachers to set educationally framed learning intentions for their students is vital. Furthermore, supporting teachers to set educatively framed student learning intentions is expected to contribute to teachers’ sustainment of developments from the music therapist teacher support program after it has ceased.

In her book about music therapy group work in special education, Goodman (2007) acknowledged that the way goals are required by the school setting can challenge the clinical orientation of the consulting music therapist. However, she also pragmatically cautioned the reader that “goal-setting need not define the therapist’s way of working” (p.115, original italics). It is thus proposed that supporting teachers to set student learning intentions has the potential to remove responsibility for measuring student progress from the role of the music therapist. This shift has the potential to mitigate any potential challenges experienced by music therapists who do not feel that measuring student educational progress aligns with their professional training as a music therapist.

Music therapists who feel challenged by the prospect of supporting teachers to set educationally framed student learning intentions are encouraged to develop their knowledge of therapeutically oriented and critical approaches to education. Indeed, Mitchell (2016) presented a case for therapeutic education that uses the affordances of music and posed the question “Just as learning opportunities arise naturally in therapy, what if opportunities for therapeutic growth arise naturally in teaching?” (p. 26).

One of the key aspects of a teachers’ professional role involves the education of students related to the relevant curriculum framework. Engaging in this critical review allowed the identification of some challenges with the current understandings of the educative concept of “curriculum” presented in the body of literature.

Some publications outlined ways in which session goals could be aligned with music curriculum (Brotons, 2001; Chester, Holmberg, Lawrence, & Thurmond, 1999), or suggested that music therapy could address students’ personal and social learning (Bunt, 2003; Robertson, 2000). Meg reflected that music therapists sometimes use the word “curriculum” with a rigidity that is different to the way a trained teacher might understand it. For example, when reporting on community music therapy oriented work across four mainstream school settings, McFerran, Crooke, and Bolger (2017) explained that “some programs crossed the boundaries between structured curricular activities and the more emergent, creatively driven ones” (p. 17). This description contrasts with the idea reflected in current local curriculum guidelines: while teachers are required to use curriculum guidelines to frame learning activities, curriculum use has no bearing on how teachers organise learning activities (Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2015). As such, addressing the curriculum does not need to prohibit emergent and creatively driven ways of learning.

In her chapter about the possible forms of music therapy service delivery, Johnson (1996) explained that learning goals for students who require the regular curriculum to be modified to suit their needs are outlined in an “individualized education plan” or IEP (p. 71). Several authors described music therapy consultation programs where content was framed according to the IEPs of individual students (Brotons, 2001; Chester et al., 1999; Goodman, 2007; Twyford & Rickson, 2013). However, these authors did not include information about how IEP goals connected to the overarching curriculum framework used by the whole class. For example, Rickson and Twyford (2011) presented four case examples of music therapy consultation to address the IEP goals of students with additional needs. The authors concluded that “Although some ideas could be taken into the classroom, the group activities were difficult to manage in a class of twenty-five children” (p. 72). We agree that music therapists have specialised knowledge that can support the inclusion of students with a range of individual needs. However, this oversight seemed to restrict the potential for the classroom teacher to uphold inclusive education legislation (UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2016) by engaging the whole class group in musical activities suggested by the music therapist.

We realised through reflecting on language used to describe planning and evaluation in the music therapist teacher support literature that music therapists could benefit from a greater knowledge of curriculum. In particular, it would likely be helpful for music therapists to deepen their understanding of the relevant curriculum framework in their own setting. This knowledge would likely assist them to support teachers to develop educatively framed student learning intentions to address in their work together.

Reconceptualising the primary aims of music therapist teacher support as assisting teachers with their task of educating students led us to critically re-examine descriptions of teacher learning goals presented in the literature. This investigation revealed that learning goals for staff almost always related to skill development to address identified student needs rather than the professional learning needs of the teachers. When writing about facilitating in-services for teachers, Heine (1996) reminded readers to “recognise teachers as adult learners who bring to the in-service a host of ideas, experiences, needs and strengths” (p. 95). Some publications aligned with this statement and presented what appeared to be highly collaborative and teacher focused processes for determining staff goals related to the overall focus on building inclusivity (Rickson, 2010), or therapeutic growth for students (Coombes, 2011). At other times authors mentioned the ways in which music therapists used their expert knowledge to suggest possible goals for teachers. From there, teachers set professional learning goals based on the areas of practice they needed to develop in order to best serve their students. It is therefore suggested that collaborating with teachers to set intentions for their own learning may support both teacher engagement and the likelihood of sustained outcomes from the process.

Again, this is not to suggest a hierarchical relationship between teacher and student needs in which one is prioritised at the expense of the other. Rather, it is advised that working alongside teachers to set professional learning intentions within music therapist teacher support programs may potentially mitigate the challenges reported within the literature of teachers not being able to sustain outcomes from their interaction with the music therapist.

As previously outlined, many authors commented that teachers found it difficult to sustain gains in their ability to use music with their students after the program had ended. However, there were some positive additional sustained outcomes described in the literature. McFerran, Crooke, and Bolger (2017) outlined ways in which one wellbeing coordinator was now targeting a wider group of students with her music program. Coombes and Tombs-Katz (2009) shared that staff were now using music to assist with management of student behaviour, commenting that the music therapy teacher support program may have contributed to them developing confidence in this area.

Another powerful sustained outcome presented in several publications was that the music therapist teacher support programs exposed staff members to other ways of seeing and being with students. Some authors reported that the music therapist teacher support programs provided an alternative framework for understanding a child with additional needs (Pellitteri, 2000) and showed teachers about specific talents of students (Coombes & Tombs-Katz, 2009; Rickson & Twyford, 2011). Others described staff changing ways in which they spoke to students after engaging in the music therapy program (McFerran et al., 2015) and referred to improved relationships between staff and students (Margetts et al., 2013; McFerran, Crooke, & Bolger, 2017; Rickson, 2009). Coombes and Tombs-Katz (2009) mentioned that one teacher built their ability to manage stress throughout their participation in the music therapy program. They went on to state, however, that this “was not a primary goal of the program” (p. 6).

These outcomes caused us to consider ways in which outcomes described from music therapist teacher support programs could be aligned to outcomes reported in the professional learning literature. For example, authors have described the way that teacher professional learning programs can also result in improved student-teacher relationships (Roorda, Koomen, Jantine, & Oort, 2011) and teacher stress management (Owen, 2016). We also noticed that the sustained outcomes presented above appeared to be more closely relate to teachers’ professional growth, than their development of music skills to use in the classroom. We agree with a suggestion made by Woodward (2000) that using music therapeutically requires specialised and professional skills that are outside the realm of being a teacher. It is therefore suggested that music therapists work alongside teachers to set their own professional learning intentions to address through their collaboration with the music therapist.

This proposition is not intended to prohibit music therapists supporting teachers’ ability to use music in their classroom. Rather, this recommendation intends to honour the agency of teachers as professionals. Placing emphasis on teacher-driven learning may in turn assist music therapists in ensuring that music therapy interventions are supportive of the needs of teachers, who may then better support the needs of their students.