In his book Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education, Jay Timothy Dolmage highlights the “steep steps” of postsecondary education, a metaphor that refers both to university stairways that were historically physically inaccessible, but more broadly to the ways in which “the university has always been constructed as a place for the very able.”1 The steep steps metaphor acknowledges the many barriers—inadvertent, and frequently otherwise—to taking part in academia. Whether those barriers are built into architecture, course design, assessment strategies, finances, or curriculum, they ensure that the steps will be too steep for many to climb. Indeed, the steps are steep and current times do seem grim for anyone with a disability in postsecondary institutions, from the first-year undergrad through to the tenured faculty member. Despite decades of advocacy and activism for disability justice in and beyond academia, many colleges and universities remain unable to provide disabled students and staff equitable access to the most basic accommodations such as wheelchair ramps and automatic door openers. Equally pressing yet less readily addressed are the pedagogical needs associated with such conditions as autism, bipolar disorder, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), among the myriad forms of neurodivergence and mental health challenges. Beset by near-global budget cuts and pressures to eliminate DEI initiatives (particularly in the United States), administrators are now abandoning policies that have historically supported the basic rights of equity-deserving (“marginalized”) students and staff.
Support systems offered by postsecondary institutions to their employees and students have been inadequate at the best of times, and now, facing fiscal and political pressures, they are likely to become even more unreliable and ineffectual. “Healthy workplace” initiatives that offer monthly lectures serve the image of the place rather than the needs of the employees. It is true that the institution provides various forms of assistance and accommodation for incoming undergraduates, but the level and quality of such support declines as higher stages of academic accomplishment are attained. There is, for instance, little offered to offset the isolation experienced by dissertation-writing PhD candidates, and faculty are by and large left to their own devices for nonvisible disabilities if the campus does not have a faculty association or union.
As a result, it has become more and more incumbent upon individual instructors to enable access within their own classrooms. Fortunately––and fueled by the growing number of students (and faculty) who identify as disabled––innovative, equity-based pedagogical approaches have emerged that allow for fuller participation, engagement, and learning opportunities. These modalities include Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Differentiated Instruction (DI), crip and anti-ableist pedagogies, trauma-informed pedagogy, and the use of assistive technologies, each of which may figure individually or in combination in the classroom. In order to engage in learning, a student may require a screen reader (an assistive technology) within a UDL environment or require focus on disability (crip) pedagogy to work through trauma(s) from their life. This roundtable works to offer instructors a primer and numerous case studies of UDL’s usefulness in the postsecondary music classroom, and grew out of a roundtable on “Accommodation and Accessibility in the Music Classroom” organized by the AMS Music and Disability Study Group at the 2024 AMS Annual Meeting (we, the convenors, formed the leadership team of the Study Group from 2023–24).
UDL is the pedagogical equivalent of building a ramp to navigate postsecondary teaching during these troubled times and over academia’s steep steps. Developed in Boston in the 1990s by neuroscientists at the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), UDL builds on the architectural concept of Universal Design (e.g., that buildings must be accessible to all people) and applies it to education. Acknowledging that there are many types of learners, UDL encourages instructors to design their courses with attention to the numerous ways students might process information and demonstrate their knowledge of it. Specifically, UDL encourages instructors to design class time, their presentation of course content, and assessment strategies through multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/expression. UDL Guidelines were updated by CAST in July 2024 into a 3.0-edition infographic of pedagogical suggestions.2 Through intentional course design, UDL strives to supplant the accommodations-based system (or, as Thomas J. Tobin and Kirsten T. Behling write, the “one change, one time, to help one person” system) that is currently standard practice on most college campuses.3 In striving, by design, to ensure our classes are accessible and multirepresentational, we reduce the need for students to request accommodations, and therefore better optimize the likelihood of their success.
While UDL is often most readily associated with the goal of creating educational access and equity for students with disabilities, its central premise is ultimately to work toward access for all learners, including students who might face barriers stemming from caregiving responsibilities or cultural, economic, and linguistic barriers, as well as those recovering from trauma. Recent publications have commenced work to understand how UDL can better interact with antiracist, critical, and international frameworks.4 This work is crucial, and moves us as educators toward the realization that there is “no such person as Mythical Norm (i.e., the average student)” and stresses the reality that, beyond the classroom itself, “our world is further enriched because of the inclusion of all students.”5 As convenors, it is our hope that UDL researchers and practitioners who work in the postsecondary music classroom will continue this work to synthesize UDL with additional intersectional teaching methods that address the realities of all students, including abolitionist, anti/decolonial, care-centered, critical, transgressive, and trauma-informed pedagogies.6
Numerous resources are available for postsecondary educators seeking to deepen both their theoretical knowledge and active practice of UDL. Those readers who learn most effectively through audiovisual means might benefit from the “Teachings in Education” YouTube channel’s infographic video summary, or from Lillian Nave’s Think UDL podcast series.7 In addition, CAST’s “UDL on Campus” offers a centralized online resource of learning tools, media, and examples for postsecondary educators to draw on, while CAST also offers numerous UDL credential and certification programs.8 Finally, those who learn best through reading and text can benefit from two recent publications: an updated edition of Anne Meyer and David H. Rose’s classic Universal Design for Learning: Principles, Framework, and Practice, and a specific publication for postsecondary music educators: Alexandria Carrico and Katherine Grennell’s Disability and Accessibility in the Music Classroom: A Teacher’s Guide.9
Above and beyond the barriers and constraints already posed by the postsecondary institution, music studies presents people with disabilities with challenges unique to the discipline. The pernicious specter of ableism haunts some of the most venerated traditions within the field of study, whether the expectations of unimpaired hearing and cognitive processing for aural skills, of manual dexterity for keyboard skills, or of confidence for the performances of auditions, juries, and master classes. The stakes may well be even higher for music faculty, who may feel compelled to hide conditions such as hearing impairment or performance anxiety in order to maintain employment. Overall, the embodied and multisensorial nature of our subject of study places physical, mental, and emotional demands on teachers and learners that find no parallels in fields like history or economics. Furthermore, with the exception of Carrico and Grennell’s coauthored book, published resources specifically on UDL in the postsecondary music classroom remain rare, and therefore the case studies, examples, and applications of UDL that the contributors to this roundtable provide are especially useful.
The continuing success of these pedagogical initiatives unfortunately frequently depends on the efforts of individual instructors. It’s particularly noteworthy that the sessional/adjunct instructors who quite commonly teach large courses with multiple students with disabilities are least supported in exploring alternative approaches to pedagogy, since the time needed to prepare courses according to principles of UDL, for example, typically goes unwaged. Moreover, the existing university/college infrastructures are often so fragmented that faculty members receive multiple accommodations requests for some forms of impairment and none for others. Instructors may be well informed about the needed font type and size for their PowerPoint slides, for example, but will not be advised or trained to deal with the access requirements for students exhibiting a range of neurodivergent and mental health profiles. Of course, while as music pedagogues we make every effort to work hard to accommodate the access needs of our disabled students, it is also essential for us to recognize our individual needs and limitations. At times it means stepping back from responsibilities, at others seeking assistance from friends and colleagues. If we are not in a position to secure counsel from associates at our institutions out of a fear of stigmatization, guidance is available through societies like the Society for Disability Studies (SDS) or the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD).10
The contributions to this roundtable also offer community and resources. Students who are hard of hearing, or have low vision, or dyslexia, or any type of non-normative bodymind, might struggle with traditional classroom expectations of participation and engagement. As such, these essays often highlight flexibility as a defining characteristic of UDL. Michael Weinstein-Reiman’s contribution, “Deconstructing Music Theory’s Ideal Listener with the Principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL),” offers strategies for in-class listening activities that afford diverse ways of engaging with musical sound. He encourages his students to draw diagrams of musical works as well as transcribe what they hear and use varied vocabulary (technical and nontechnical) to describe musical features. Reba Wissner’s piece, “Using Universal Design for Learning in Score Reading and Music Listening,” similarly expands the scope of how students interact with music. Such expansions may entail non-score-based listening, or the use of alternative forms of musical notation. These systems, Wissner argues, can enhance how students listen, in contrast to the standard score format which may hinder students with disabilities from equal engagement.
Samantha Bassler’s contribution, titled “Trauma-Informed Pedagogy and Universal Design to Benefit Music Students with PTSD,” reminds us that listening is not always an unproblematically joyful activity. Thus UDL encompasses different ways of choosing when and whether to listen. As Bassler notes, students and faculty with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and complex post-traumatic stress disorder (C-PTSD) may have “music-specific triggers” and may also feel unsafe in “group rehearsals and ensemble settings.” UDL in this context involves offering not only multiple ways of listening, but offering the option of not listening. Content warnings and permission to leave the classroom without facing stigma are key elements of trauma-informed pedagogy. Along similar lines, Shannon McAlister acknowledges that the classroom can be a fraught space for students with neurodivergent and/or disabled bodyminds. McAlister advocates for “quieter assessment spaces” in her essay “Beyond Compliance: Enhancing Accessibility in Higher Education Through Universal Design for Learning.” She observes that students––and faculty––with various forms of neurodiversity or disability would benefit from this silence, especially when involved in stressful activities such as test taking.
Many of the contributors recount ways in which listening––when not distracting or triggering––may open the door to accessible pedagogy in their classrooms. Indeed, listening (and music making) can serve as a metaphor for the relational process of creating access together, as Eric Whitmer (“The Relevance of Kairotic Spaces in the Musicology Classroom”) observes in his analogy between chamber music and the sharing of access needs within a community. Whitmer draws on Margaret Price’s notion of kairotic space––an unstructured setting that can be stressful and inaccessible to neurodivergent people who may struggle with social subtexts. He notes that UDL is most effective when balanced with personalized access designed for each person’s needs. Whitmer and McAlister both offer critiques of student disability centers for not tailoring accommodations to particular individuals. The one-size-fits-all approach of such centers, as the contributors remind us, is not aligned with UDL principles of flexibility.
However, Faith Lanam’s “Leveraging Technology in Universal Design for Learning in the Music Classroom” cautions against viewing UDL as an easy solution to accessibility challenges. Lanam writes, “Although our aim is to minimize obstacles to the greatest extent possible, instructors will invariably need to address and resolve emergent impediments to access.” The contributors are writing from different positions of privilege and contingency within academia. They are mindful of balancing their own needs with their commitment to student access. Lanam reflects on how she honors her own boundaries by designating specific times when she will and will not be available to respond to students’ emails. Educators who are graduate students face a particular challenge in offering access to their students while navigating the student disability center for their own accessibility needs. Whitmer recounts his frustration when he requested help from the student disability center with figuring out social dynamics in his performance studio. Unhelpfully, the staff offered him additional time to complete his tests. Likewise, McAlister draws on her lived experience when acknowledging that student disability centers require labor from students: the labor of obtaining documentation for a medical diagnosis and reaching out to staff to disclose that diagnosis. Bassler also draws attention to feeling marginalized and stigmatized for her PTSD-related behavior in the academic workplace. Collectively, the contributors advocate for access and understanding to be applied across academia, rather than just to the privileged members of an educational community.
Part of this shared work, as the contributors point out, involves multiple formats for learning: synchronous and asynchronous online instruction as well as in-person classes. Lanam highlights the benefits of “prerecorded lecture videos and guided practice sessions” that introduce keyboard skills such as playing scales and chord progressions. Her students have the option of watching these videos at any time and in a manner of their choosing––in small chunks or extended study sessions, depending on what works for their schedules, learning style, and disability needs. Defining access broadly, she explains how such formats enhance access for students with disabilities as well as those with “caregiving responsibilities, inflexible employment schedules, housing instability, and challenges related to English language acquisition.”
Assessing participation can be fraught with challenges for students with the aforementioned access issues. As several contributors mention, participation requirements, if not carefully designed for accessibility, can create barriers for certain students. Bassler explores how to move beyond ableist rules for classroom conduct, with the goal of creating trauma-informed environments. As she points out, students––and faculty––with PTSD might not always behave in expected “collegial” ways. Accessibility in this context involves giving grace and being understanding if a student appears sullen and defensive. Indeed, as McAlister argues, standard participation methods, such as raising one’s hand and speaking out loud, may be inaccessible for some neurodivergent and disabled students. McAlister incorporates “nonverbal responses, such as asking students to hold up fingers for answers or use thumbs-up/-down gestures.” Such collective modes of participation can reduce anxiety, making the classroom more about community and less about individuals competing for a good grade. Weinstein-Reiman offers a helpful example of a classroom activity in which his students listen to and discuss Julia Perry’s Homunculus, C.F. in small groups.
The world of postsecondary education is rapidly changing, which can cause turmoil and steep steps for anyone inhabiting this institutional landscape, let alone for those with disabilities. As the sector is increasingly shorn of its support mechanisms and networks through the elimination of DEI programs, those of us who can make a difference on a local level should do what we can to facilitate access for members of our community. All of us would benefit! Furthermore, the types of changes UDL suggests are relatively simple to achieve and can have an extremely positive impact; in a slightly different context, Wissner cites James Lang’s concept of “small teaching,” in which one “minor adjustment [can] have a major impact on student learning.” Or, to bring together the necessity of UDL and access, and to return again to Dolmage, while UDL turns its attention from architecture to pedagogy, it in fact nevertheless remains about building. We make the metaphorical steps of music academia less steep by “building community, building better pedagogy, building opportunities for agency.”11 It is in the spirit of building and creating changes, large and small, that we offer this roundtable on accessibility and accommodation in the music classroom.
- Jay Timothy Dolmage, Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education (University of Michigan Press, 2017), 2, 44.↗
- CAST, Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0, last modified 2024, https://udlguidelines.cast.org.↗
- Thomas J. Tobin and Kirsten T. Behling, Reach Everyone, Teach Everyone: Universal Design for Learning in Higher Education (West Virginia University Press, 2018), 5.↗
- Seán Bracken and Katie Novak, eds., Transforming Higher Education Through Universal Design for Learning: An International Perspective (Routledge, 2019); Andratesha Fritzgerald, Antiracism and Universal Design for Learning: Building Expressways to Success (CAST Professional Publishing, 2020); Nicola Martin et al., eds., Universal Design for Learning: A Critical Approach (Routledge, 2025).↗
- Nicola Martin et al., “Introduction,” in Universal Design for Learning: A Critical Approach, ed. Nicola Martin et al. (Routledge, 2025), 2; Seán Bracken and Katie Novak, “Introduction: Universal Design for Learning: A Global Framework for Realizing Inclusive Practice in Higher Education,” in Transforming Higher Education Through Universal Design for Learning: An International Perspective, ed. Seán Bracken and Katie Novak (Routledge, 2019), 7.↗
- See, for instance, Bettina L. Love, We Want to Do More Than Survive: Abolitionist Teaching and the Pursuit of Educational Freedom (Beacon Press, 2019); Sheila Cote-Meek, Colonized Classrooms: Racism, Trauma and Resistance in Post-Secondary Education (Fernwood Publishing, 2014); Colleen Renihan et al., eds., Sound Pedagogy: Radical Care in Music (University of Illinois Press, 2024); Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 50th anniversary ed. (Bloomsbury, 2018); Kimber Andrews and Kristy Swift, eds., Trauma-Informed Pedagogy and the Post-Secondary Music Class (Routledge, 2025); and bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom (Routledge, 1994).↗
- “Universal Design for Learning: UDL,” uploaded by Teachings in Education YouTube account, December 18, 2019, 6 min., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmGgplQkrVw; Lillian Nave, host, Think UDL, podcast, accessed August 31, 2025, https://thinkudl.org/.↗
- CAST, “UDL on Campus,” accessed August 31, 2025, https://udloncampus.cast.org/home; “Get CAST-certified,” accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.cast.orgc/resources/udl-credentials/.↗
- Anne Meyer and David H. Rose, Universal Design for Learning: Principles, Framework, and Practice, 3rd ed., ed. David Gordon (CAST Professional Publishing, 2025); Alexandria Carrico and Katherine Grennell, Disability and Accessibility in the Music Classroom: A Teacher’s Guide (Routledge, 2023). Though not written through the perspective of UDL, Kimberly A. McCord’s Teaching the Postsecondary Music Student With Disabilities (Oxford University Press, 2017) is also an indispensable resource for course-design possibilities.↗
- The SDS has developed an important set of principles that can assist academics in advocating for disability justice at their institutions. See “SDS Principles,” Society for Disability Studies, accessed November 13, 2025, https://disstudies.org/index.php/sds-principles/. Meanwhile, AHEAD provides a useful list of online resources, ostensibly for “new professionals,” but helpful to anyone in academia who is negotiating accommodations. See “Resources for New Professionals,” Association on Higher Education and Disability, April 18, 2023, https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/new-professionals.↗
- Dolmage, Academic Ableism, 118.↗