When music therapy won.

An example of challenging evidence-based oppression.

Evidence tells us something, but never everything. It describes tendencies, not essences; it offers probabilities, not singular acts. Teaching, however, is always singular – always occurring in the encounter between this teacher, this class, this child. The artistry of teaching resists total capture - Andrew Jones

Photo by Vidar Nordli-Mathisen on Unsplash

---

In the Australian Association for Research in Education’s (AARE) most viewed blog post of 2024, Nicole Brunker described a changing landscape in Australian educational policy where evidence-based practice is becoming a means of imposing narrow ideological perspectives of evidence upon the teaching profession.

Little over a year later, with the rise of approaches to educational policy in Australia (although, let’s not forget Aotearoa) that favour top-down mandates to teaching pedagogy and practices in the name of evidence, this is a very real reality for many teachers, school leaders and students.

It seems this approach to policy is not isolated to education.

In this post I wanted to share a story that you may not have heard anything about — one that I would never have either, had I not a close friend impacted by it — that I believe gives an excellent example of how certain ideological interpretations of evidence are being used as a means of justifying irresponsible policy decisions.

But also, I wish to show how the advocacy and political action of the Australian Music Therapy Association (AMTA) provides a useful example for how teachers, associations and unions might challenge education policy that lay claim to questionable interpretations of what it means to be evidence-based.

The test.

In an initial statement on the 26th of November of 2024, it was declared on the NDIS website that:

“While art and music therapy remain permissible, they do not meet the evidentiary standards required to be classified as a ‘therapy’ under the definition of NDIS supports.”

This was met with strong backlash from the AMTA, who began an organised campaign to challenge the unconsulted and sudden change to how music therapy is perceived and funded in Australia.

My friend, who has worked for many years as a music therapist was now confronted with the real reality that her work would not be able to continue as it had been for so long. In declaring that music therapy was not an evidence-based profession, these claims were also a hit to my friend’s identity, who has seen firsthand the value of her work.

In an urgent letter to the NDIS minister at the time, Bill Shorten, the AMTA stated:

“Your office has advised music therapy does not have the evidence to support the section 10 requirement, in particular the requirement that the therapy results in ‘the maintenance or improvement of functional impairment’. This is incorrect.”

This not only raises important questions about the NDIS in terms of their consultation and evidence gathering practices but also its authority to make such a claim that music therapy was not evidence based.

The backtrack.

Following the strong backlash to this move, Shorten, along with NDIS were quick to press pause on the whole change, inviting Dr Stephen Duckett AM to lead an independent review of the effectiveness of the research supporting music therapy.

A year and plenty of taxpayer dollars later, the independent review declared music therapy to be an effective and evidence-based profession.

Music therapy won.

It wasn’t all rosy though. The AMTA expressed disappointment to the pricing cuts for music therapy providers, even after it had been deemed to have a suitable evidence base of its effectiveness.

There was also a recommendation to create a NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee (NDIS EAC) to:

“provide evidence-based decisions about whether supports are effective or not, and whether they should be available through the NDIS¹.”

This recommendation has been approved, and the committee is set to further assess the evidence of music therapy in 2026.

So although Duckett might have positive things to say about its evidence base, music therapy still isn’t safe from the NDIS EAC as they plan to interrogate the field further in the coming year.

The example.

What might we take away from all this?

Firstly, it shows how a narrow understanding and review of evidence is leading to careless policy, on the assumption that government agencies have the authority to decide what is evidence-based and what is not, without engaging with a range of experts in the field and their associations.

Secondly, these events show us that associations and unions can make a difference.

However, making this difference requires diligent, thoughtful, and responsive work. Position statements need to be crafted, opinion pieces need to be prepared, media campaigns organised and social media harnessed as a tool for getting the word out there.

Although the end result was not ideal on the whole, what the AMTA were able to do was show what can be done to challenge misguided and potentially harmful policy decisions. Especially in cases where such decisions are based upon a narrow interpretation and collection of the evidence relating to a professional practice.

What is unique for Australian education is the growing tendency for policymakers to bypass associations and unions in favour of the often loud and convenient advice of prominent think tanks such as Grattan Institute and The Centre for Independent Studies.

The AMTA were able to comfortably provide a reasoned, thoughtful counter narrative to the proposed policy changes without having to push through the noise of these two think tanks, whose function is devoted to seeing their policy recommendations enacted by governments.

Another challenge besetting education and teaching in contemporary times is the way that certain cultural narratives are disseminated about teachers, who are often presented as uninformed, non-experts requiring external control over their work to improve or secure educational outcomes.

If you get a moment, take some time to listen to the difference in how music therapy is framed as opposed to teaching in these two podcasts, both from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC):

👉 The Conversation Hour - Should music therapy be supported by the NDIS?

👉 Life Matters - Could explicit teaching help your kids in class?

Both describe policy impositions by governments upon the work of each respective profession but in quite different and significant ways.

As I believe we have seen through the efforts of AMTA, we have evidence that teacher associations and unions can truly make a difference in challenging both poor policy and false narratives spoken over teachers.

It’s time to organise.

Till next time,

1. This should sound familiar to those in the educational policy landscape.