Who gets to play? Investigating equity in musical instrument instruction in Scottish primary schools

There is a widely held view that learning to play a musical instrument is a valuable experience for all children in terms of their personal growth and development. Although there is no statutory obligation for instrumental music provision in Scottish primary schools, there are well-established Instrumental Music Services in Local Education Authorities that have been developed to provide this facility for pupils. This article presents the findings of a study that was aimed at investigating the extent to which the opportunity to undertake instrumental instruction in Scottish primary schools is equitable. The study employed a mixed-methods approach. Data were gathered from 21 Scottish primary schools, a total pupil population of 5122 pupils of whom 323 pupils were receiving instrumental instruction. The analysis involved an investigation of the academic profile of this group, the representation of children with additional support needs (ASN) and the nature of their ASN. A qualitative analysis of policy and guideline documents and interviews with Heads of Instrumental Services, headteachers and instrumental instructors served to explain and illuminate the quantitative data. The findings showed that particular groups of children with ASN were significantly under-represented and offer explanations of the processes by which this occurs.

The Finometer can function as a standalone instrument in blood pressure variability studies and does not require support equipment to determine breathing frequency

Objective: The Finometer (FMS, Finapres Measurement Systems, Amsterdam) records the beat-to-beat finger pulse contour and has been recommended for research studies assessing shortterm changes of blood pressure and its variability. Variability measured in the frequency domain using spectral analysis requires that the impact of breathing be restricted to high frequency spectra (> 0.15 Hz) so data from participants needs to be excluded when the breathing impact occurs in the low frequency spectra (0.04 - 0.15 Hz). This study tested whether breathing frequency can be estimated from standard Finometer recordings using either stroke volume oscillation frequency or spectral stroke volume variability maximum scores. Methods: 22 healthy volunteers were tested for 270s in the supine and upright positions. Finometer recorded the finger pulse contour and a respiratory transducer recorded breathing. Stoke volume oscillation frequency was calculated manually while the stroke volume spectral maximums were obtained using the software Cardiovascular Parameter Analysis (Nevrokard Kiauta, Izola, Slovenia). These estimates were compared to the breathing frequency using the Bland-Altman procedures. Results: Stroke volume oscillation frequency estimated breathing frequency to <±10% 95% levels of agreement in both supine (-7.7 to 7.0%) and upright (-6.7 to 5.4%) postures. Stroke volume variability maximum scores did not accurately estimate breathing frequency. Conclusions: Breathing frequency can be accurately derived from standard Finometer recordings using stroke volume oscillations for healthy individuals in both supine and upright postures. The Finometer can function as a standalone instrument in blood pressure variability studies and does not require support equipment to determine breathing frequency.

Accessibility Instrument Survey

This chapter presents the main results of the Accessibility Instrument Survey (AIS), collecting basic information on each of the accessibility instruments reviewed in this report (for more detail on these Instruments see Chapter 3). The aim of the survey was to enable quick, objective and comparable overviews of each of the reviewed accessibility instruments. The information collected will enable the categorization of accessibility instruments present in this research, aiming to be a reference for future categorization of accessibility instruments for planning practice. These categories will support the analysis of the coverage of accessibility instruments in this research, i.e., identify how representative this research is across different accessibility instrument types. In addition, these will be used to analyse the characteristics and concerns which most frequently underlie the development of accessibility instruments. Finally, the survey also collects developer’s perceptions on the usefulness of their accessibility instruments in planning practice, enabling the first insight into the main research question of this COST Action, although limited to the developer’s point of view. In summary, the results of the survey will be used for four purposes: Development of an accessibility instrument sheet for each accessibility instrument summarizing its main characteristics (Appendix A); Identify the coverage of accessibility instrument types present in this research (Section 4.3.1) discussing the representativeness of this Action; Provide a glimpse on the characteristics and concerns which most frequently underlie the development of accessibility instruments (Section 4.3.2); Provide a first insight into the perceived usefulness of accessibility instruments in planning practice from the point of view of the developer (Section 4.3.2 and Section 4.3.3). The next section provides an overview of the Survey describing the information collected. This section also describes the development process of this survey including data collection, dates and means. The results of the survey are analysed in the third section starting with a discussion on the coverage of accessibility instruments reviewed by this research (Section 4.3.1), identifying accessibility measure types which are represented and which are absent. This discussion is accompanied by the presentation of the main categories of accessibility instruments from the perspective of the end user. These categories try to summarize the main concerns planning practitioners are expected to have when searching for an accessibility instrument and is built upon some of the information collected by the survey. Following, the third section also presents a general analysis of the results (Section 4.3.2), focussing on the dominant characteristics of the accessibility instruments reviewed and on the developer’s perception of the usefulness their instrument will have for end users. The section ends with a brief cross analysis of results (Section 4.3.3) trying to identify relationships between accessibility instrument characteristics and perceptions of usefulness by developers. The fourth and last section presents the main conclusions of this study.