Factors Impacting Elementary General Music Teachers’ Career Decisions: Systemic Issues of Student Race,Teacher Support,and Family

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine factors that may influence the projected career plans of elementary general music teachers. Survey participants (N = 972) completed a questionnaire designed to elicit responses about multiple factors and projected career plans in 1 year and in 5 years. The vast majority of participants planned to remain in their position the following year, yet a little under half of them planned on remaining in their positions in 5 years. The variables associated with teacher migration or attrition in 5 years were issues of teacher support (i.e., participation in a mentoring program and recognition in the form of teaching awards), student race, and family responsibilities (i.e., number of children at home). Movers were also more likely to have received a teaching award than those who intended to stay in their current positions or those who planned to leave the profession. Implications for the profession as well as for practice and future research are discussed.

Keywords

career decisions culturally responsive teaching diversity equity inclusion general music music teacher attrition music teacher retention

Introduction

Issues of teacher attrition, retention, and career choice are canonized topics in the research literature due perhaps to their large and potentially negative impacts on the profession and student learning (Bernhard, 2007; Boyd et al., 2011; Guarino et al., 2006). Education stakeholders have viewed these issues with varying degrees of urgency and have attempted to alleviate teacher shortages and other problems in the profession (Marvel et al., 2006; Sutcher et al., 2016). In music education, researchers have explored these issues (Hancock, 2008; Matthews & Koner, 2017; Russell, 2008, 2012; Scheib, 2004) and formed an Area of Strategic Planning and Action group within the Society for Music Teacher Education dedicated to music educator retention, which suggests the magnitude of the impact of teacher attrition. Music educators’ attrition, migration, and career path patterns are perhaps worthy of special attention given the unique aspects of their daily work. The nature of many public school music educators’ positions leads them to affect hundreds if not thousands of students each year, and they often work with the same students for multiple years throughout a student’s schooling.

Citing these and other reasons, music education researchers have examined career path issues, and a summation of their findings provides a relatively detailed profile of in-service music educators. Music educators have tended to cite student success as well as parental and administrative support as contributors to their job satisfaction (e.g., Heston et al., 1996). However, they have reported lower levels of job satisfaction when disrespectful student behavior was present (Lander et al., 2008) or when they had insufficient administrative support (Krueger, 2000). Music educators were also more likely to teach in multiple buildings within a school district than their colleagues (Gardner, 2010) and have reported feelings of isolation (McLain, 2005; Sindberg & Lipscomb, 2005).

There is a growing number of studies focused on elementary general music (EGM) teachers in particular, perhaps because of their unique and important place in the profession (Bulgren, 2017; Kuebel 2017, 2019; Morrow & Connor, 2011; M. Robinson, 2010; Robison, 2017). Elementary general music teachers often see all or nearly all of the students in an elementary school across multiple years, and elementary general music is compulsory in many American school districts. According to the U.S. Department of Education, 94% of elementary schools offer curricular music education (Elpus, 2013; Parsad & Spiegelman, 2012). Comparatively, approximately 34% of high school students participate in music courses (Elpus, 2013), whereas only 21% of high school students participate in secondary-level ensembles (Elpus & Abril, 2011; Lorah et al., 2014). Preservice music teachers often enter their degree program intending to teach in secondary ensemble contexts (Rickels et al., 2013), but many teach outside of this preferred specialization after graduation—often in EGM settings (e.g., Corfield-Adams, 2012; Groulx, 2015; Kuebel, 2017, 2019; Salvador & Corbett, 2016; Shouldice, 2013, 2017). Preservice and in-service music teachers have reported feeling unprepared to teach in EGM contexts (Groulx, 2015; Hamann & Ebie, 2009; Kuebel, 2017, 2019), although others have sought EGM positions after unsatisfying experiences in ensemble teaching contexts (M. Robinson, 2010). Whatever their motivations and experiences, EGM teachers are in growing demand according to enrollment and employment trends (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019).

Some researchers have used predictive modeling techniques to explore music educators’ career plans. Russell (2008), for example, surveyed string teachers regarding their career plans within 1 year and within 5 years for the purpose of studying the factors that may influence their career plans. The majority of string teachers planned to remain at their schools the following year, whereas only half planned to be teaching at their same schools in 5 years. More specifically, the factors associated with decisions to stay, leave, or move to another school were “work culture, perceptions about music’s importance in the curriculum, satisfaction with student characteristics, psychological factors, and teacher socioeconomic background” (Russell, 2008, p. 216). Russell (2012) reported similar findings in another study with a more diverse national sample of secondary music teachers. Again, most of the teachers in this more recent study intended to stay in their positions the following year, but almost half of the participants (45.7%) intended to leave their position within 5 years. Those participants who intended to stay in their current positions cited higher levels of “satisfaction with their professional environment as well as student and psychological issues” (Russell, 2012, p. 74). Participants who planned to leave their positions taught a greater number of minority and special needs students than those who planned to stay. Russell (2012) proposed that music teacher preparation programs could increase “overall teacher efficacy and commitment to mitigate psychological issues leading to teacher attrition” (p. 78) as a means of reducing in-service music teacher attrition and migration.

We found no published studies focused on the career plans of EGM educators. EGM educators work in a wide variety of contexts (e.g., Bates, 2011; Doyle, 2014) and face the same serious challenges that all teachers must negotiate, such as student poverty (Saporito & Sohoni, 2007). For some communities, elementary music courses may be the only formal, school-based music instruction students receive. For example, robust secondary-level music programs are less common in schools, perhaps due to the costs associated with such activities. Determining the degree to which EGM educators’ career trajectories might lead to consistent music education experiences for their students (or not) is important because the effects of teacher transience on students could be negative. Therefore, a systematic study of the career paths of EGM educators could be valuable for the profession.

The purpose of this study was to examine factors that may influence the projected career plans of music teachers who identified their primary role as a general music educator for their membership in the National Association for Music Education (NAfME). Following from previous research (Luekens et al., 2004; Russell, 2008), we aimed to identify the characteristics of projected stayers (people who indicate they will stay in their positions), movers (people who indicate they will stay in the profession but teach elsewhere), and leavers (people who intend to leave the profession). As a secondary purpose, we also sought to identify what roles music teachers may take outside of PK–12 programs to examine their possible effects on intended career paths. More specifically, we sought to answer the following research questions: (1) What are participants’ reported future career plans? (2) What are the underlying structures (e.g., dimensions, factors) of elementary general music teachers’ roles, dispositions, and beliefs? and (3) What association, if any, do these structures as well as other school context issues and individual difference variables have with elementary general music teachers’ career plans?

Method

Instrument

The current iteration of the Music Educators Career Questionnaire (MECQ) was adapted from previous studies examining the career plans of string music educators (Russell, 2008, 2012). The MECQ was designed to elicit responses from participants on a wide range of contextual and psychological issues that previous researchers from various fields of study have found to impact educators’ career decisions (Russell, 2007). The questionnaire consisted of nine general sections, including teacher demographics (e.g., race, marital status, age, number of children in one’s own family, any award recognition for their teaching, and items pertaining to the participants’ school context). The majority of items utilized 4-point Likert-type scales to measure responses about job satisfaction, student issues, psychological issues, subject importance, music education philosophy, job market, and teacher quality. Many of the demographic and career plan items were open-ended or ipsative. Russell (2008, 2012) found that the subscales derived from this questionnaire had high internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s α = .67–.88). Items were based on previously published research exploring teacher career decisions (e.g., Hagedorn, 2000; Scafidi et al., 2007; Shoho & Martin, 1999). Researchers have found that teacher career intentions are valid predictors of actual career plans (e.g., Vandenberg & Barnes-Nelson, 1999).

Survey Administration and Participants

We surveyed in-service music educators who identified their primary role as being a general music educator in their membership form to NAfME. We sent an email with an embedded link to the questionnaire to 12,150 current general music educators via the NAfME. The NAfME also sent out two reminder emails on our behalf. The first question in the questionnaire was an informed consent item and an acknowledgment from the potential participant that he or she was a current elementary general music teacher. Ultimately, roughly only one third of the potential recipients opened the emails from the NAfME. We received completed and usable questionnaires from 972 general music educators in the United States, resulting in an 8% response rate (3% margin of error at 95% confidence). Despite the relatively poor response rate, the small margin of error given the population and sample sizes as well as the similarities between the participants’ demographics (Borg & Tuten, 2016) in this study and other studies in which researchers focused on EGM teachers (e.g., Matthews & Koner, 2017) suggested that moving forward with our analyses was appropriate. Indeed, according to Cochran’s formula for sample sizes given the current finite population size (Cochran, 2007; Scheaffer et al., 1995), our sample would only need to be as large as 373 respondents to achieve a 5% margin of error at 95% confidence.

Survey participants (N = 972) were highly representative of the target population. The majority of music teachers in this study were female (82.5%). Although Hancock (2008) found that only 61% of music teachers were females, his estimate included elementary- and secondary-level music teachers. When focusing exclusively on the population of elementary teachers (music and otherwise), researchers from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that 89% were female in the 2015–2016 school year. In regard to personal characteristics, the vast majority of participants in this study were White (97%), their average age was 43 years old (SD = 12.7)—which was also the national average from the 2003–2004 Schools and Staffing Survey conducted by the NCES—and they reported an average of 17 years of teaching experience (SD = 10.8).

Based on responses, we can provide a summary of participants’ (N = 972) school, teaching, and familial contexts. Participants selected suburban as their school setting most frequently (43.70%), followed by rural (38%) and urban (18.30%). On average, participants reported that 35.16% (SD = 28.66) of their students were racial minorities and that 19.22% (SD = 14.80) were students with special needs. Most participants (58%) reported participating in a mentoring program, and a similar majority reported winning an award for teaching (59%). Regarding family demographics, 69.70% of participants reported being married, and 21.70% reported being single (7.60% reported being divorced, and 1% reported being in a civil union). Participants most frequently reported having two or three children (42.80%), but 38.90% of participants reported having no children of their own (11.60% reported having one child, and 5.50% reported having four or five children).

Results

Descriptive Analyses

A detailed professional profile of EGM teachers in this study is available when studying its descriptive statistics. Questionnaire items most commonly had 4-point scales about satisfaction or agreement (i.e., from very dissatisfied to very satisfied or strongly disagree to strongly agree). Participants most commonly reported being satisfied (59.65%) or very satisfied (18.68%) with their noninstructional duties. Participants reported being satisfied (58.01%) or very satisfied (18.17%) with their teaching load and satisfied (51.88%) or very satisfied (37.37%) with their teaching assignment. Yet about one third of participants reported feeling dissatisfied (28.79%) or very dissatisfied (6.15%) with the level of faculty influence on decision-making in their schools. Similarly, about one third of participants were dissatisfied (30.36%) or very dissatisfied (7.18%) with opportunities to collaborate with other faculty members. However, a vast majority of participants reported feeling satisfied (52.51%) or very satisfied (28.82%) with the level of autonomy afforded to them.

Participants reported being slightly more satisfied (44.19%) than dissatisfied (32.79%) with student discipline and—similarly—were more likely to report being satisfied (49.02%) rather than dissatisfied (35.46%) with student motivation. Only about one third (30.79%) of participants reported dissatisfaction with student achievement. Participants reported similar levels of satisfaction with their administrators, their communities, and the parents in their communities. Fifty-one percent of participants reported being satisfied with their administrative support, and 25.60% were very satisfied with it. Similarly, 56.36% of participants were satisfied with their community support, and 23.66% were very satisfied. A vast majority of participants reported being satisfied (64.85%) or very satisfied (19.94%) with their relationship with parents in their communities.

Participants reported being very committed (70.51%) or committed (24.87%) to being music teachers. They found their work very enjoyable (48.69%) or enjoyable (39.43%), with less than 1% finding it not enjoyable. Participants reported nearly identical perceptions about how important music education was to the overall curriculum according to administrators, parents, students, and other faculty members. Participants perceived parents thought music education was usually somewhat important (47.44%) or important (31.56%), which is nearly identical to that of students (somewhat important = 47.88%, important = 31.34%) and that of other faculty (somewhat important = 47.23%, important = 28.73%). Most participants reported that their educational philosophy was somewhat similar to that of their administration (44.57%), and about one third of participants (32.39%) reported that it was similar. When asked about opportunities to leave their current positions, participants were generally dissatisfied with their local opportunities to find a higher paying job outside of education (48.94% dissatisfied and 18.51% very dissatisfied) but were more satisfied with their opportunities to advance within education (48.14% satisfied and 3.83% very satisfied).

In responding to items regarding musical benefits, participants tended to agree or strongly agree with the importance of all benefits listed in the questionnaire. The stem of the questions read “Music is an important subject because of its . . . ,” and participants responded with either agree or strongly agree to the following: “beneficial effects on society as a whole” (31.70% and 59.61%, respectively), “beneficial effects on the musical development of students” (38.18% and 50.65%, respectively), “beneficial effects on learning in other academic areas” (30.33% and 41.30%, respectively), “beneficial effects on social and emotional development of students” (24.70% and 69.75%, respectively), and “inherent value to students” (26.25% and 68.11%, respectively).

Participants rated the importance of items about musical activities in the classroom from not important to very important. With the exception of “connecting music learning to history and culture” and “compose and improvise music,” participants rated all activities as important. More specifically, important and very important percentages were, respectively, 47.14% and 21.52% for “playing musical instruments,” 42.67% and 28.56% for “reading standard musical notation,” 45.54% and 39.35% for “actively listening to and analyzing music,” 50.87% and 30% for “evaluating music performances,” 42.07% and 45.43% for “connecting music learning to history and culture,” and 42.39% and 19.89% for “composing and improvising music” (with 34.57% of participants rating it as somewhat important).

Factor Analysis

We employed factor analysis to organize, conceptualize, and reduce our empirical data into coherent structures or variates (Meyers et al., 2006). More specifically, we used exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring with promax rotation) to identify latent variables underlying the participants’ MECQ responses. We assessed sampling adequacy with the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure (.87), and the assumption of sphericity was met (Bartlett test χ² = 10,475.30, p < .001). A clear and interpretable seven-factor solution emerged once we removed five individual items from the analysis that did not adequately load on any factor (Table 1). Eliminating these items also increased the amount of variance the analysis accounted for—from 41% to 45%. The majority of loadings for the remaining items exceeded .40, and only two items had cross-loadings exceeding .30.

Table 1.

Factor Analysis: Pattern Matrix.

Variable (Extraction Communality)	Factor (% Variance Explained)
Variable (Extraction Communality)	1 (20.31)	2 (7.89)	3 (5.33)	4 (4.44)	5 (2.90)	6 (2.26)	7 (1.87)
Administrator support (.727)	.876
Relations with administrators (.645)	.861
Faculty influence on school decisions (.578)	.723			.
Teacher autonomy (.439)	.673
Similar philosophy to administration (.452)	.610
Noninstructional duties (.233)	.400
Collaboration opportunities (.318)	.324
Teaching load (.325)	.309
Benefits social and emotional development (.636)		.812
Benefits society as a whole (.581)		.773
Benefits musical development (.515)		.684
Benefits students inherently (.365)		.592
Benefits learning in other areas (.330)		.555
Student motivation (.702)			.830
Student achievement (.628)			.773
Student discipline (.460)			.569
Community support (.416)			.418
Relations with parents (.313)			.328
Importance of music to parents (.667)				.768
Importance of music to faculty (.521)				.702
Importance of music to students (.568)				.701
Importance of music to administration (.605)	.501			.528
Students listen to music (.528)					.740
Students evaluate music (.519)					.727
Students connect music to history and culture (.333)					.564
Students read and notate music (.226)					.419
Students play musical instruments (.226)					.374
Students improvise and compose music (.153)					.371
Enjoy music teaching (.625)						.814
Commitment to teaching (.328)						.591
Effectiveness as a teacher (.299)						.490
Teaching assignment (.380)	.309					.388
Opportunities to advance in education (.366)							.555
Opportunities to advance outside of education (.283)							.546

Note. Principal component extraction, promax rotation with Kaiser normalization. Loadings <.30 not shown. Factor 1 = Administrative Role; Factor 2 = Benefits of Music; Factor 3 = Structural Student Issues; Factor 4 = Curricular Importance; Factor 5 = Music Activities; Factor 6 = Teaching Enjoyment; Factor 7 = Pecuniary Opportunity.

The Administrative Role factor encompassed issues related to the role of the school administrator, job structure, and interteacher relations. The Benefits of Music factor included the beliefs teachers have regarding the benefits of music to a variety of stakeholders writ large. The Structural Student Issues factor dealt with student motivation and discipline as well as the support provided by community members and parents. The Curricular Importance factor involved how participants felt various stakeholders valued their music curriculum. The Music Activities factor comprised participants’ views of the importance of a comprehensive music education. The Teaching Enjoyment factor embodied participants’ views about enjoying their role as a music educator. Finally, the Pecuniary Opportunity factor covered participants’ satisfaction with salary and opportunities for financial growth. Interfactor correlations ranged from .01 (Benefits of Music and Structural Student Issues) to .52 (Structural Student Issues and Teaching Enjoyment), with a median coefficient of |.26|. Subscale scores (responses averaged across items associated with each factor) yielded reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α = .68–.84) acceptable for exploratory research involving psychological constructs. Nonetheless, because the Pecuniary Opportunity factor consisted of only two items, we removed this factor from any subsequent analyses.

Impact of Latent Variables on Short-Term and Long-Term Career Plans

We used multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) to determine whether the participants’ MECQ subscale scores varied as a function of teachers’ career plans. For both models, the dependent variables were the subscale scores derived from the factor analysis, and the covariate was the number of years participants reported teaching. We included the covariate to account for the potential impact of longevity in the field on intended career plans. The independent variable for the first model consisted of the participants’ short-term (i.e., 1-year) career plan as a stayer, mover, or leaver, and the participants’ long-term (i.e., 5-year) career plan as a stayer, mover, or leaver served as the independent variable in the second model (Table 2).

Table 2.

Bivariate Analyses for Model Building.

	Year 1 Career Plans		Year 5 Career Plans
	F	p	F	p
Administrator Role (Factor 1)	25.961	< .001	18.587	< .001
Benefits of Music (Factor 2)	0.433	.649	0.645	.525
Structural Student Issues (Factor 3)	34.413	< .001	28.660	< .001
Curricular Importance (Factor 4)	15.239	< .001	12.731	< .001
Music Activities (Factor 5)	0.551	.577	0.232	.793
Teaching Enjoyment (Factor 6)	26.923	< .001	29.268	< .001

Note. Items in bold are included in the subsequent corresponding analyses. The findings in this table are not meant to be interpreted and are used simply for the model-building process.

Short-Term Career Plans

In the first MANCOVA dealing with participants’ short-term career plans, we violated the assumption of equality of covariance matrices (Box’s M = 44.729, p = .002). Based on further analysis, we found that the Teaching Enjoyment factor led to the violation of this assumption. Therefore, we removed this variable from the analysis and achieved equality of covariance matrices (Box’s M = 14.28, p = .31). Nonetheless, to ensure as robust an analysis as possible, we employed Pillai’s trace in the omnibus test rather than Wilks’s lambda because it is a more conservative test and often considered robust to violations of assumptions (Russell, 2018). We found that the omnibus test was significant (Pillai’s trace = .082, F = 12.12, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .041). We established equal variance of the dependent variables across all groups via Levene’s test (ps = .41, .38, .20, respectively). We found significant differences between groups regarding Administrative Role (F = 23.78, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .052), Structural Student Issues (F = 29.12, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .064), and Curricular Importance (F = 14.21, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .032).

Through an examination of the pairwise comparisons (with Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons), we found that stayers (Estimated marginal means EMM = 1.91, SE = 0.02) had higher ratings, on average, for Administrative Role (i.e., a more favorable experience) than movers (EMM = 1.55, SE = 0.05) or leavers (EMM = 1.65, SE = 0.10). We found no significant difference between movers and leavers regarding the Administrative Role variable. We found a single significant difference regarding the Structural Student Issues variable between stayers (EMM = 1.84, SE = 0.02) and movers (EMM = 1.43, SE = 0.05) and significant differences between stayers (EMM = 1.39, SE = .02) and movers (EMM = 1.08, SE = .06) as well as stayers and leavers (EMM = 1.05, SE = 0.12) for the Curricular Importance variable. However, no significant differences were found between movers and leavers.

Long-Term Career Plans

To examine the more long-term career plans of participants, we conducted a similar MANCOVA using the same dependent variables and covariate. We used the grouping of participants’ career plans in 5 years as the independent variable and achieved equality of covariance matrices (Box’s M = 14.60, p = .27). As with the previous analysis, we employed Pillai’s trace in the omnibus test rather than Wilks’s lambda. We found that the omnibus test was significant (Pillai’s trace = .068, F = 9.99, p < .001, partial η² = .034). We established equal variance of the dependent variable across all groups via Levene’s test of equality of error variance (ps = .77, .18, .56, respectively). We found significant differences between groups on the Administrative Role (F = 17.58, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .039), Structural Student Issues (F = 23.33, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .052), and Curricular Importance variables (F = 13.15, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .030).

Through an examination of the pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons, we found that those who planned to stay in their position in 5 years had higher ratings, on average, on the Administrative Role variable (EMM = 1.95, SE = 0.03) than both movers (EMM = 1.71, SE = 0.03) and leavers (EMM = 1.82, SE = 0.05). We found no significant difference between ratings of movers and leavers. Similarly, stayers (EMM = 1.90, SE = 0.03) had higher ratings, on average, for the Structural Student Issues variable (i.e., a more positive view) than both movers (EMM = 1.63, SE = 0.03) and leavers (EMM = 1.74, SE = 0.05), whereas no significant difference existed between movers and leavers. Finally, stayers (EMM = 1.46, SE = 0.03) had higher ratings, on average, for the Curricular Importance variable (i.e., more likely to have a positive view) than movers (EMM = 1.25, SE = 0.04) and leavers (EMM = 1.20, SE = 0.06); we found no significant difference between movers and leavers.

School Context Variables and Career Plans

We conducted a series of bivariate analyses to examine the relationships between selected school context variables and the participants’ short-term career plans. Due to the number of tests we conducted, we set an a priori α of .01 to mitigate Type I error. We originally found that four school context variables were significantly associated with participants’ projected career plans: school setting (χ² = 12.90, p = .012), participating in a mentoring program (χ² = 7.81, p = .02), the percentage of racial minority students (F = 21.28, p < .001), and percentage of special needs students (F = 3.36, p = .035). However, due to the more conservative α, we interpret that only the percentage of racial minority students impacted the short-term career plans of EGM teachers. These findings should be tempered, however, due to a relatively minimal effect size ( $η^{2}$ = .045). Through post hoc analyses (Games-Howell), stayers (M = 32.95) reported teaching significantly fewer racial minorities than movers (M = 51.39) but not leavers (M = 35.90), and movers reported teaching significantly more racial minorities than leavers.

We also found two school context variables associated with participants’ long-term career plans. Participating in a mentoring program (χ² = 36.25, p < .001) and percentage of racial minority students taught (F = 12.23, p < .001) were significantly associated with the participants’ long-term career plans. Stayers were more likely to report participating in a mentoring program than either movers or leavers, and stayers (M = 30.53) reported working with significantly fewer racial minority students than movers (M = 40.51) and leavers (M = 38.62).

Individual Difference Variables and Career Plans

We also examined relationships between selected individual difference variables and the participants’ career plans. As with the previous set of analyses, we set an a priori α of .01 to mitigate Type I error. We found that the number of children participants had in their own families was related to both their short-term (χ² = 21.44, p = .006) and long-term career plans (χ² = 50.94, p < .001). In each instance, movers were more likely to have fewer children than either stayers or leavers. Whether or not a teacher had received an award for teaching had a significant impact on participants’ long-term career plans (χ² = 27.21, p < .001). Movers were more likely to have received a teaching award than either stayers or leavers.

Discussion

We found that the vast majority of general music teachers in our sample (84%) intended to stay in their current position in the following year. This is a promising outcome that seems to indicate that EGM teachers are willing to stay in their job in the short term despite not entering their teacher preparation programs with the intention of pursuing elementary general work (Rickels et al., 2013) or perhaps feeling unprepared to teach in an EGM setting that is out of their area of expertise (Corfield-Adams, 2012; Kuebel, 2017, 2019). This finding also mirrors those of Russell, who found that 83% of string teachers (Russell, 2008) and 74% of secondary music teachers overall (Russell, 2012) reported intentions to stay in their position the following year.

Teachers who taught in environments with less diverse student populations were more likely to stay in their position. To be clear, we do not suggest that any issue that may exist is the fault of the students or due to their demographic backgrounds. We do suggest, however, that many aspects of formal music education in the schools do not adequately meet the needs of minority students, nor do university teacher preparation programs prepare many teachers to teach in districts that do not replicate their own experiences, which have been shown to have additional problems such as funding, community support, and greater student poverty (e.g., Saporito & Sohoni, 2007). Given the lack of racial diversity in the population of teachers and preservice music educators (Elpus, 2015) as well as the lack of diversity of music students present in many music classrooms in both PK–12 and university settings (Elpus & Abril, 2019), it is not surprising that teachers may not be as well prepared to teach diverse student populations.

One important caveat to this portion of the discussion is that our questionnaire did not have an item about the socioeconomic status or access to resources for students. Therefore, it is possible that conditions of student and school poverty contributed to teacher migration and not necessarily the percentage of racial minority students. However, given that poverty disproportionately affects communities of color (Owens, 2020; Saporito & Sohoni, 2007), we feel comfortable stating that future researchers need to more closely examine any possible relationship between these factors and teacher career decisions.

Our results from the long-term (i.e., 5 year) projection analyses are potentially alarming. It appears that fewer than half (48.7%) of current EGM teachers intend to stay in their current position in 5 years. Less than one fifth (17.2%) of participants indicated a desire to migrate from their position to a different teaching position. Unfortunately, one third (34.2%) indicated that they intended to leave the music classroom in 5 years. However, nearly half of those who indicated leaving the profession within 5 years (42.3% of leavers) indicated leaving due to retirement. Unfortunately, the remaining 57.7% of leavers are leaving for reasons other than retirement. If the profession deems that number to be unacceptable (assuming some teacher attrition to be necessary and healthy), then looking into the reasons for these departures is imperative. The two most impactful variables were participation in a mentoring program and proportion of minority students. It may be reassuring that mentoring programs can mitigate teacher attrition. However, we must be able to admit to and be willing to confront any potential systemic racism (both structural in the communities in which teachers work as well as formal music education). To clarify, we are not suggesting that individual music educators are racist or making career decisions based on such thinking. However, it would be naïve and dismissive of the growing body of research discussed previously (e.g., Elpus, 2015) that shows formal music education remains primarily populated by White teachers, students, and musical practices, suggesting the existence of systemic issues that need to be addressed.

Emphasizing race was not an intention of this study, yet our findings necessitate a comparison with previous literature. Recent studies about race issues in music education contain themes of inequity, marginalization, culturally relevant teaching, and underrepresentation (Bates, 2019; Bond & Russell, 2019; Doyle, 2012, 2014; Hess, 2018; Powell, 2020). Notably, previous researchers have situated issues of race, social class, and urbanicity as inextricably linked, a point for which Doyle (2012, 2014) in particular made a convincing correlation. However, in the current study, only the percentage of students who were racial minorities was a significant predictive variable for EGM teachers to leave their current positions; urban settings were not (possibly due to the smaller proportion of participants teaching in an urban setting). Nonetheless, it might be helpful to the profession and to future researchers to reexamine these issues as the possibly separate variables they appear to be.

We also found two individual difference variables that impacted teachers’ projected career decisions: having children of their own and receiving an award for teaching. Movers were more likely to have fewer children. This is a logical and unfortunate finding given that those with no or fewer children may feel more financially free to move positions and less geographically bound by familial responsibilities. Given the larger number of participants who identified as women (83%), these findings might be an outcome of gender inequality for women with children who feel less able and more guilty about moving to a different position or seeking a more time-consuming (and higher paying) administrative position while parenting, as a growing number of researchers have found (Fitzpatrick, 2013; Gannerud, 2001; Moreau et al., 2007). Oddly, movers were also more likely to have received a teaching award than stayers or leavers. One may guess that receiving such an award emboldened a teacher to look for a more “desirable” position, thus leading to migration.

Implications for Practice

Although we cannot make causal inferences, the association we found between the percentage of minority students at a school and teachers’ career plans underscores the importance of studying issues of race within the context of music teacher education more deeply. As such, we believe there is a clear need for music teacher educators to allow for more opportunities to teach in practicum settings or student teaching settings with students of diverse populations. Fortunately, efforts are underway to diversify the music teacher workforce, beginning with collegiate music education programs (Robison et al., 2020). Relatedly, important efforts to critically evaluate the audition procedures that determine music teacher education programs are also emerging. Broadening opportunities and minimizing the systemic barriers against historically marginalized populations, whose experiences and skills may lay outside the canon of Western art music, is a promising approach (Fitzpatrick et al., 2014). If EGM teachers find themselves teaching in contexts for which they have not been prepared, they could consider enrolling in mentoring programs (see Bond & Russell, 2019; Conway, 2015), and music teacher educators could consider making student teachers aware of such professional development opportunities prior to graduation.

It is also important that preservice and in-service teachers as well as music teacher educators confront their own potential biases, perhaps via professional development activities in which they learn about and learn to incorporate musics other than those found in traditional music programs in meaningful ways, which is an established practice of culturally responsive teaching (Bond, 2017). Simple tools such as the Harvard Implicit Biases Tests online (see https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html) could be used to help teachers better understand personal biases. Moreover, teachers can benefit from immersing themselves in the growing literature centered on culturally responsive teaching (Abril, 2013; Bond, 2017; Lind & McKoy, 2016; K. M. Robinson, 2006; Shaw 2016). More broadly, we see these results as indicative of a growing need to rethink best practices in music education curricula as well as music curricula in higher education to allow for and encourage other peoples, other musics, and other worldviews of musical engagement. We are not suggesting that individual racism is a prevalent issue in the profession given the nature of and limitation of survey research such as this study. Nonetheless, we should, as a profession, continue to examine the implicit and explicit biases we possess as well as those we may perpetuate by allowing systemic racism to continue to marginalize people.

Bridging Implications for Practice and Implications for Future Research

We can identify several practices in music teacher preparation programs that may be contributing to these systemic problems, and we offer them here in question form as entry points for critical examination and possible research agendas. Are there undue or arcane and archaic limitations on acceptable instrumental and vocal genres in music education programs? Is there too much of a focus on Western art music in private studio instruction and therefore jury requirements and barrier examinations? Are only traditional large ensembles valued, and is the ensemble repertoire inclusive or even authentic? Do institutions disproportionately allocate funds to bring Western art music ensembles to their campuses? Do music history and music theory curricula pose an undue strain on students who practice non-Western art music? Regarding preservice music teachers of color themselves, do they feel seen, included, and represented in most music education programs? If not, are there efforts to reach out to students of color on college campuses? Are institutions funding scholarships and creating partnerships with marginalized schools for recruitment to their campuses? Finally, what potential measures can help elementary general music teachers find a route to varied positions or opportunities while maintaining a healthy work-life balance when parenting and beyond?

Implications for Future Research

Given the tentative nature of our findings, it is important to explore the potential relationships between teachers’ career intentions and school context variables further and with more sophisticated and rigorous methods. This could be done through more targeted survey work as well as through qualitative work aimed at examining the deeper meanings behind why teachers might wish to leave their positions. In summary, we are hopeful that researchers and other relevant stakeholders will continue their work to make the music education profession more diverse, equitable, and inclusive through research about teacher preparation program audition requirements, teacher attrition, teacher recruitment, music education curricula, and culturally responsive and sustaining teaching.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Tiger Robison

Joshua A. Russell

Author Biographies

Tiger Robison, PhD, is assistant professor of music education at the University of Wyoming. His research interests include music educator career paths, gender, early childhood music, and informal music-making.

Joshua A. Russell, PhD, is professor of music education at the University of Hartford. His research interests focus on the social psychology of music teaching and learning.

References

Abril

C. R.

(2013). Toward a more culturally responsive general music classroom. General Music Today, 27(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371313478946

Bates

V. C.

(2011). Sustainable school music for poor, white, rural students. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 10(2), 100–127.

Bates

V. C.

(2019). Standing at the intersection of race and class in music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 18(1), 117–160. doi:10.22176/act18.1.117

Bernhard

H. C.

(2007) A survey of burnout among college music majors. College Student Journal, 41(2), 392–402.

Bond

V. L.

(2017). Culturally responsive education in music education: A literature review. Contributions to Music Education, 42, 153–180.

Bond

V. L.

Russell

J. A.

(2019). Music teacher educator perceptions of and engagement with culturally responsive education. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 221, 7–28.

Borg

Tuten

T. L.

(2016). Early versus later respondents in intranet-based, organizational surveys. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 4(2), 137–156.

Boyd

Grossman

Ing

Lankford

Loeb

Wycoff

(2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 303–333. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210380788.

Bulgren

(2017). The career interests, choices, and self-efficacy of male elementary general music teachers. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/138602

10.

Cochran

W. G.

(2007). Sampling techniques. John Wiley & Sons.

11.

Conway

(2015). Beginning music teacher mentor practices: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 24(2), 88–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083713512837

12.

Corfield-Adams

(2012). A qualitative study of undergraduate instrumentalists teaching elementary general music education [UMI No. 1314803341] [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

13.

Doyle

(2012). Music teacher perceptions of issues and problems in urban elementary schools. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 194, 31–52. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.194.0031

14.

Doyle

J. L.

(2014). Cultural relevance in urban music education: A synthesis of the literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 32(2), 44–51. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123314521037

15.

Elpus

(2013). Is it the music or is it selection bias? A nationwide analysis of music and non-music students’ SAT scores. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429413485601

16.

Elpus

(2015). Music teacher licensure candidates in the United States: A demographic profile and analysis of licensure examination scores. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63(3), 314–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429415602470

17.

Elpus

Abril

C. R.

(2011). High school music ensemble students in the United States: A demographic profile. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59(2), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429411405207

18.

Elpus

Abril

C. R.

(2019). Who enrolls in high school music? A national profile of US students, 2009–2013. Journal of Research in Music Education, 67(3), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429419862837

19.

Fitzpatrick

K. R.

(2013). Motherhood and the high school band director: A case study. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, (196), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.196.0007

20.

Fitzpatrick

K. R.

Henninger

J. C.

Taylor

D. M.

(2014). Access and retention of marginalized populations within undergraduate music education degree programs. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(2), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429414530760

21.

Gannerud

(2001). A gender perspective on the work and lives of women primary school teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830020023393

22.

Gardner

R. D.

(2010). Should I stay or should I go? Factors that influence the retention, turnover, and attrition of K–12 music teachers in the United States. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(3), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632910903458896

23.

Groulx

T. J.

(2015). Perceptions of course value and issues of specialization in undergraduate music teacher education curricula. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 25(2), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083714564874

24.

Guarino

C. M.

Santibanez

Daley

G. A.

(2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 173–208. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076002173

25.

Hagedorn

L. S.

(2000). Conceptualizing faculty job satisfaction: Components, theories, and outcomes. New Directions for Institutional Research, 27(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.10501

26.

Hamann

Ebie

(2009). Students’ perceptions of university method class preparation for teaching across music disciplines. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 27(2), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123308330045

27.

Hancock

C. B.

(2008). Music teachers at risk for attrition and migration: An analysis of the 1999–2000 schools and staffing survey. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429408321635

28.

Hess

(2018). Troubling whiteness: Music education and the “messiness” of equity work. International Journal of Music Education, 36(2), 128–144. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761417703781

29.

Heston

M. L.

Dedrick

Raschke

Whitehead

(1996). Job satisfaction and stress among band directors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(4), 319–327. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345444

30.

Krueger

P. J.

(2000). Beginning music teachers: Will they leave the profession? Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 19(1), 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/875512330001900105

31.

Kuebel

C. R.

(2017). Key elements of preparation and transition for an instrumental major teaching elementary general music. Visions of Research in Music Education, 30, 1–19.

32.

Kuebel

C. R.

(2019). Preparedness of instrumental music majors teaching elementary general music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 67(3), 304–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429419850110

33.

Lander

Alter

Servilio

(2008) Students’ challenging behavior and teachers’ job satisfaction. Beyond Behavior, 18(1), 26–33.

34.

Lind

V. R.

McKoy

C. L.

(2016). Culturally responsive teaching in music education: From understanding to application. Routledge.

35.

Lorah

J. A.

Sanders

E. A.

Morrison

S. J.

(2014). The relationship between English language learner status and music ensemble participation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(3), 234–244.

36.

Luekens

M. T.

Lyter

D. M.

Fox

E. E.

Chandler

(2004). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the teacher follow-up survey, 2000–01 (NCES 2004–301). Government Printing Office.

37.

Marvel

Lyter

D. M.

Peltola

Strizek

G. A.

Morton

B. A.

Rowland

(2006). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the 2004-05 teacher follow-up survey (NCES 2007-307). Government Printing Office.

38.

Matthews

W. K.

Koner

(2017). A survey of elementary and secondary music educators’ professional background, teaching responsibilities and job satisfaction in the United States, Research & Issues in Music Education, 13(1), Article 2. http://ir.stthomas.edu/rime/vol13/iss1/2

39.

McLain

B. P.

(2005). Environmental support and music teacher burnout. Bulletin for the Council for Research in Music Education, 164, 71–84.

40.

Meyers

L. S.

Gamst

Guarino

A. J.

(2006). Applied Multivariate Research: Design and Interpretation. SAGE.

41.

Moreau

M. P.

Osgood

Halsall

(2007). Making sense of the glass ceiling in schools: An exploration of women teachers’ discourses. Gender and Education, 19(2), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250601166092

42.

Morrow

S. L.

Connor

N. P.

(2011). Voice amplification as a means of reducing vocal load for elementary music teachers. Journal of Voice, 25(4), 441–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2010.04.003

43.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Public elementary and secondary schools by type and size of school: 2016. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_216.40.asp

44.

Owens

(2020). Unequal opportunity: School and neighborhood segregation in the USA. Race and Social Problems, 12(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-019-09274-z

45.

Parsad

Spiegelman

(2012). Arts education in public elementary and secondary schools: 1999–2000 and 2009–10 (Report NCES 2012–014). Retrieved from US National Center for Education Statistics, Department of Education website: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012014rev.pdf

46.

Powell

S. R.

(2020). Outside in the music teaching machine: Remembrances of marginalization. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 223, 26–41. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.223.0026

47.

Rickels

D. A.

Brewer

W. D.

Councill

K. H.

Fredrickson

W. E.

Hairston

Perry

D. L.

Porter

A. M.

Schmidt

(2013). Career influences of music education audition candidates. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(1), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429412474896

48.

Robinson

K. M.

(2006). White teacher, students of color: Culturally responsive pedagogy for elementary general music in communities of color. In Frierson-Campbell

(Ed.), Teaching music in the urban classroom: A guide to survival, success, and reform (Vol. 1, pp. 35–53). MENC/Rowman & Littlefield Education.

49.

Robinson

(2010). From the band room to the general music classroom: Why instrumentalists choose to teach general music. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 185, 33–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/41110364

50.

Robison

(2017). Male elementary general music teachers: A phenomenological study. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 26(2), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083715622019

51.

Robison

Williams

Hoffman

Eros

(2020). Music teacher recruitment of precollegiate and marginalized populations: A review of the literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 38(2), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123319884989

52.

Russell

J. A.

(2007). Career decisions of string music educators: Factors associated with retention, migration, and attrition. (UMI No. AAT 3273719) [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

53.

Russell

J. A.

(2008). A discriminant analysis of the factors associated with the career plans of string music educators. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(3), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429408326762

54.

Russell

J. A.

(2012). The short and long-term career plans of secondary music educators: Characteristics of stayers, movers, and leavers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 191, 61–80.

55.

Russell

J. A.

(2018). Statistics in music education research. Oxford University Press.

56.

Salvador

Corbett

(2016). “But I never thought I’d teach the little kids”: Secondary teachers and early-grades music instruction. Music Educators Journal, 103(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432116655199

57.

Saporito

Sohoni

(2007). Mapping educational inequality: Concentrations of poverty among poor and minority students in public schools. Social Forces, 85(3), 1227–1253.

58.

Scafidi

Sjoquist

D. L.

Stinebrickner

T. R.

(2007). Race, poverty, and teacher mobility. Economics of Education Review, 26(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.08.006

59.

Scheaffer

R. L.

Mendelhall

Ott

(1995). Elementary survey sampling (5th Ed.). Duxbury Press.

60.

Scheib

J. W.

(2004). Why band directors leave: From the mouths of maestros. Music Educators Journal, 91(1), 53–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/3400106

61.

Shaw

J. T.

(2016). Pedagogical context knowledge: Revelations from a week in the life of itinerant urban music educators. Music Education Research, 20(2), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2016.1238062

62.

Shoho

A. R.

Martin

N. K.

(1999). A comparison of alienation among alternatively and traditionally certified teachers [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

63.

Shouldice

H. N.

(2013). Trading Hindemith for “hugs, high-fives, and handshakes”: One preservice music teacher’s decision to teach elementary general music. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 195, 41–57. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.195.0041

64.

Shouldice

H. N.

(2017). “I love knowing that what I’m doing has purpose”: Male instrumentalists who choose to teach elementary general music. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 27(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083717699622

65.

Sindberg

Lipscomb

S. D.

(2005). Professional isolation and the public school music teacher. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 166, 43–56.

66.

Sutcher

Darling-Hammond

Carver-Thomas

(2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the US. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/productfiles/A_Coming_Crisis_in_Teaching_REPORT.pdf

67.

Vandenberg

R. J.

Barnes-Nelson

(1999). Turnover intentions: Examining their functionalities. Human Relations, 52(10), 1313–1336. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679905201005