Musicteachereducatorperspectivesonsocialjustice final

Running Head: MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

1

Music Teacher Educator Perspectives on Social Justice

Karen Salvador, PhD University of Michigan, Flint

Jacki Kelly-McHale, PhD DePaul University

Author Note Karen Salvador, PhD, Assistant Professor of Music, University of Michigan-Flint Jacki Kelly-McHale, PhD, Associate Professor of Music, DePaul University Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to: Karen Salvador, Department of Music, University of Michigan-Flint, 126 French Hall, 303 E. Kearsley St., Flint, MI 48502. Contact: ksalvado@umflint.edu Abstract

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 2 Given the shifting demographics in American public education, the rising inclusion of students with special needs in “regular” classrooms, and the increasing openness with which students are challenging gender and sex norms, social justice in pk-12 classrooms and teacher education programs has become a prevalent research topic in music education. However, in researchers have not attempted to ascertain the prevalence or nature of social justice education in music teacher preparation, or the extent to which social justice is valued or understood by teacher educators. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the perspectives of music teacher educators with regard to social justice and music education. We surveyed every full-time, tenured or tenure track music teacher educator we could identify who was currently teaching at an institution accredited by NASM to certify music teachers, N=858. Our specific research questions included: How do music teacher educators define social justice in their own teaching or in pk-12 schools? Do music teacher educators view the inclusion of social justice frameworks in undergraduate music teacher education curriculum as relevant? What are the limitations music teacher educators perceive? We also examined possible correlations between music teacher educators’ demographic information, previous experience, and current work environment and their beliefs about teaching for social justice. The survey had an overall 41.2% response rate.

Although there were no statistically significant relationships among demographic and social justice variables, the demographic profile of our profession and the variety of responses to the open-response items invite further research into this important topic.

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE Music Teacher Educator Perspectives on Social Justice

3

Social justice is typically defined as the “equitable redistribution of resources” (Bell, 2007; Barry, 2005), as well as recognizing the “culture and identity of those who are marginalized and subjugated” (Hanley, 2013 p. 2). The former definition stems from the idea of justice as being tied to the responsibility of others to help those in need. The latter definition emphasizes the importance of developing, at least knowledge of and at best, empathy for those who are “other.” Each definition approaches the concept from a different starting point, yet arrives at the same end goal: the removal of “…social, economic, and institutional barriers… that constrain individuals’ or groups’ life choices” (Cochran-Smith et. al., 2009, p. 375). The historical aim of schooling in the Untied States has been to prepare students to be productive members of society, and to provide children with the knowledge necessary for success. Barber (1997) argues that public schools are “schools of publicness: institutions where we learn what it means to be a public and start down the road toward common national and civic identity” (p. 22). From this perspective, the ideas of equitable redistribution, knowledge, and empathy come together to situate social justice as a foundational component of the American education system.

Diversity in American Public Schools In preparing teachers to work in 21st century schools, teacher education programs must address the reality of increasing diversity within the school-aged population. Diversity represented in public schools encompasses but is not limited to socioeconomic status, country of origin, language, religion, ability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and race. With regard to socioeconomic status, we have seen rising levels of poverty among the school-aged population across the nation (Snyder & Dillow, 2012 p. 49).

School populations also reflect an increase in students from other countries: One in four students under the age of 8 have immigrant parents (Fortuny, Hernandez, & Chaudry, 2010). The majority of these students, 43%, are of Mexican origin. Of the remaining students, 22% have parents from Asia and the Middle East; 20% hail from Central and South America and the Caribbean; 15% are from Africa,

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 4 Central and Eastern Europe (2010). This diversity in country of origin is also associated with a rise in the number of students who are English language learners, the variety of languages spoken in schools, and increasing religious diversity (Lippy, 2009).

Students also vary in ability, gender, and sexual orientation. Approximately 6.5 million American children and youth ages 3-21 received special education services in 2011-12 (Institute on Disability, 2013). Increasingly, students with exceptionalities are served in the “regular” classroom.

With regard to gender, student populations are divided roughly 50/50 between males and females, but the dropout rate is much higher among males (Carrington & McPhee, 2008). Gender and sexuality continue to matter in education, as interactions among students (e.g., Reay, 2010) and between teachers and students (e.g., Skelton, Carrington, Francis, Hutchings, Read, & Hall, 2009) indicate differences in behavior and treatment of boys and girls in educational settings. Furthermore, students who are homosexual or who do not conform to gender norms experience bullying and exclusion in schools (e.g., Berlan, Corliss, Field, Goodman, & Austin, 2010; McGuire, Anderson, Toomey, & Russell, 2010).

The racial composition of the American public school has diversified rapidly. In 1970, eighty percent of students enrolled in American public schools were white, and by 2009 that number was just over fifty percent (Orfield, Kuscera, &Siegel-Hawley, 2012, p. 8). In that time, Latino student enrollment rose from one in twenty to nearly one-fourth of the school-aged population. However, this diversity is rarely reflected in individual classrooms, which are increasingly segregated: Eighty percent of Latino students and 74% of black students attend majority nonwhite schools… and 43% of Latinos and 38% of blacks attend intensely segregated schools (those with only 0-10% of white students) across the nation. Fully 15% of black students, and 14% of Latino students, attend “apartheid schools” …where whites make up 0 to 1% of the enrollment (emphasis added, p. 9).

This racial segregation combines with rising levels of poverty among school-aged children to create a

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 5 concomitant increase in so-called “double segregation,” in which: “Millions of black and Latino students, but only a tiny fraction of white and Asian children, go to schools where almost everyone is poor” (p. xvi). For students from immigrant families, this double segregation can be made worse by language segregation, when schools serving high numbers of non-white students in poverty also serve high numbers of English language learners (p. xvi). Thus, the increased diversity of the school-aged population overall is often not reflected in individual schools.

Social Justice in Teacher Education In response to the effects of poverty and segregation on education and to the increasing diversity of student populations, a number of studies describe content and approaches to pre-service teacher education and in-service teacher professional development regarding issues of social justice (e.g., Chubbock, 2010; Cochran-Smith, et.al, 2009; Pollack, Deckman, Mira, & Shalaby, 2010).

However, individual teacher education programs vary widely on how they define the information, dispositions, and abilities required to effectively teach a diverse student population (for extensive review, see Hollins & Guzman, 2005). Moreover, Pollack et al. concluded: …researchers studying efforts to prepare teachers for diversity predominantly seem to desire, expect, and measure personal changes in a teacher’s mind (i.e., a reduction in bias, an increase in awareness about privilege) and in a teacher’s heart (i.e., a decrease in disdain for families of color or an increase in appreciation for urban schools or communities) more often than in the educator’s observable practice. Far less research seems concerned with measuring what teachers are then able to do professionally for students, and even less research seems to measure actual interactions between teachers and students (p. 213).

Although these studies indicate a deep commitment to education for social justice in a few specific teacher education programs, researchers have not investigated the extent to which teacher educators across fields of practice view social justice as an issue. We do not know how teacher educators define

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 6 social justice, how often they engage social justice issues in their courses—or even if they view engaging topics of social justice to be necessary in teacher education. The literature on this topic sometimes mentions criticism leveled against inclusion of social justice as a topic of teacher education, including allegations of “thought control… political screening… and teaching a progressive political catechism” (Villegas, 2007 p. 370). Such critique may indicate that some in the teacher education field are not in agreement that issues of social justice should be addressed in initial teacher preparation.

Social Justice in Music Education Critical Examination of History, Curriculum, and Philosophy.

Particularly in the past decade, researchers in music education have increasingly focused on critical examination of issues related to social justice. On a macro level, new publications such as the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of Social Justice in Music Education (forthcoming) offer a number of lenses for the examination of equity, access, and cultural responsiveness in music instruction. Groups such as Gender Research in Music Education (GRIME), the Consortium for Research on Equity in Music Education (CRÈME), and the Society for Music Teacher Education’s (SMTE) Cultural Diversity and Social Justice Area for Strategic Planning and Action offer venues for collaboration, presentation, and publication regarding social justice topics. Monographs such as Gustafson’s (2009) Race and Curriculum: Music in Childhood Education offer more thorough and detailed critique and suggestions for improvement. Individual authors have also authored dozens of philosophical papers discussing theoretical and critical perspectives (e.g., Bowman, 2007; Kindall-Smith, McCoy, & Mills, 2011; Koza, 2008).

Descriptive Research on Access, Beliefs and Practices in School Settings.

In addition to philosophical, theoretical, and historical work, music education researchers have examined social justice in music education in terms of access to music instruction in public schools, p12 music educators’ beliefs about diversity, and inclusive practices in school settings. For example,

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 7 Elpus and Abril (2011) found that students who participated in traditional high school music ensembles (i.e. band, orchestra, and choir) were statistically more likely to be from white, middle to upper middle class families regardless of school location. Studies also indicate significantly lower rates of participation in secondary performing ensembles among students with IEPs than among the general high school population (Hoffman, 2011; Linsenmeier, 2004). While the above research focused on schools that offer music programs, Salvador and Allegood (2014) reported a lack of structural access: schools with high proportions of nonwhite students were less likely to offer any music program whatsoever. Focusing on a more cultural aspect of access, Butler, Lind, and McKoy (2007) demonstrated that the existence of a music program in a school does not necessarily mean that all students in the school have equitable access to instruction.

On the individual classroom level, Abril (2009) and Kelly-McHale (2013) focused on the beliefs and perspectives of teachers who were striving to be more culturally responsive. Researchers also described a variety of student perspectives on music education, including those of AfricanAmerican gay band students (Carter, 2013) and an English language learner in choir (Carlow, 2006).

Authors have also contributed practitioner-focused articles regarding topics such as ways teachers could be more culturally responsive to students of color in choral settings (Shaw, 2012) or better understand and accommodate religious difference (Hoffman, 2011).

Music Teacher Education Given the extent of philosophical, theoretical, critical, historical, and descriptive research regarding social justice in music education, few studies address how music teacher educators prepare their students for the diversity they will encounter in their classrooms. Salvador (2010) investigated how undergraduate music education programs at masters and doctoral degree-granting institutions prepared teacher candidates to work with exceptional populations in music settings. Of 109 responding institutions, 29.6% required a course in teaching music to exceptional populations, 38.9% offered such

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 8 as course, and 59.8% reported consistent integration of this topic throughout music education coursework. However, 23.9% of institutions indicated no such course was offered or available, and that the topic was not integrated into instruction in a consistent way. This is unfortunate, because a number of studies indicate that coursework focused on exceptionality, offered in tandem with immersion experiences working with students who had special needs, increased undergraduate music education students’ comfort levels with people who had differing backgrounds and abilities, and also resulted in students being more likely to confront people who were being intolerant (Hourigan, 2009; Standley 2000; Whipple & VanWeelden, 2012).

These results are not consistent with findings regarding difference in socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic diversity. In a 2003 survey of 406 undergraduate music education majors, Kelly reported that, although 75% of respondents had completed a course on cultural diversity that included a field component, most preferred to intern and teach in schools like the ones they had attended-predominantly white, middle-class, suburban public schools with strong music programs. Similarly, in a survey of 337 students from 36 colleges and universities in the United States, McKoy (2013) concluded that “the community setting of the school in which preservice teachers conducted their early field experience practicum and student teaching [did] not affect their cross-cultural competence to a significant extent” (p. 388).

Purpose and Problems Given the shifting demographics in American public education, rising inclusion of students with special needs in “regular” classrooms, and the increasing openness with which students are challenging gender and sex norms, social justice in pk-12 classrooms and teacher education programs has become a prevalent research topic in music education. Researchers have described promising practices, related historical precedents, discussed philosophical arguments, and revealed demographic trends with regard to music education and race, class, gender, sexual orientation, ability, country of origin, and

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 9 socioeconomic status. However, in music teacher education (as in general education) researchers have not attempted to ascertain the prevalence or nature of social justice education in music teacher preparation, or the extent to which social justice is valued or understood by teacher educators.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the perspectives of music teacher educators with regard to social justice and music education. Specifically: How do music teacher educators define social justice in their own teaching or in pk-12 schools? Do music teacher educators view the inclusion of social justice frameworks in undergraduate music teacher education curriculum as relevant? What are the limitations music teacher educators perceive? Further, this study will investigate possible correlations between music teacher educators’ demographic information, previous experience, and current work environment and their beliefs about teaching for social justice.

Method Participants We sought to survey every full-time tenure-track music teacher educator currently employed by an institution accredited by the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) to certify music teachers in the United States. Using the online NASM Institutional Directory (National Association of Schools of Music, 2014), we sorted to find all institutions accredited to certify music teachers in undergraduate programs (N=473). From this list, a research assistant utilized each institution’s website to identify every full-time, tenured or tenure-track music teacher educator. We defined faculty as “music teacher educators” based on two or more of the following criteria: (1) identified on the institution’s website as “music education” faculty, (2) duties included student teacher supervision and/or seminar, (3) taught any type of music education introduction/seminar/foundations/topics, (4) taught “methods” course(s)—but not of a single instrument or group of instruments, and/or (5) research interests included educational topics.

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 10 The researchers and graduate assistant piloted this protocol on several randomly selected institutional websites to ensure it could be applied consistently. After identifying a music teacher educator, the research assistant recorded each potential respondent’s name and email address. If in doubt about whether a person met our criteria, the research assistant was instructed to err on the side of including a potential participant. The original list, from May 2014, consisted of 1064 names and email addresses. In September 2014, the researchers cleaned the list, culling: (1) faculty no longer working for a particular institution (e.g., had retired and/or relocated) who therefore could no longer be contacted at that email address, (2) faculty who had strong teacher education credentials but were no longer teaching music education coursework (e.g., were now administrators), (3) faculty who appeared to be music education faculty but upon further investigation did not teach music education coursework (e.g., studio faculty who were listed as “music ed” but only taught a single instrument methods course), (4) part-time or non tenured/tenure track faculty mistakenly included, and (5) faculty on a sabbatical or other leave and sending auto-replies at time of survey launch. This process resulted in a final N of 858 for this survey.

Design The first section of the survey (see appendix A) asked about participants’ demographic information, including gender, ethnicity, SES growing up, highest completed degree, years of PK-12 teaching experience, years of experience teaching music teacher candidates, courses taught, and size of undergraduate music education program. We also asked if the music education majors in the respondent’s program had similar demographic characteristics to schools in which they student teach.

We asked respondents if they were satisfied with their coverage of social justice issues in their instruction of preservice teachers, and if anything was holding them back from doing more.To examine music teacher educators’ perceptions of social justice, we asked them to define social justice, and we also constructed a Likert-type scale adapted from Bryan, Clark, and Drudy (2011). Five prominent

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 11 scholars in the field of social justice in music education piloted the survey and confirmed ease of use, face validity, and construct validity.

We used Qualtrics to deploy the survey, and twelve respondents (1.5%) opted out. These respondents may have opted out of all Qualtrics surveys previously or may have opted out of this study.

Qualtrics also reported 147 “hard bounces, ” meaning that the emailed invitations were rejected—likely by institutional firewalls. We emailed links to these potential participants from our personal email accounts, because they had not opted out, they had been prevented from seeing the email invitation. We sent one reminder to participate both via Qualtrics and also to the “hard bounce list” via personal email two weeks after the initial invitation. Qualtrics recorded 409 non-respondents as “message sent.”

However, in speaking with colleagues about this project, both researchers encountered music teacher educators who were surprised they had not received our invitation to participate. Having just cleaned the lists, we knew that they should have received invitations. Further investigation revealed that institutional or personal spam filters can trap emails from Qualtrics, so that the recipient never sees them. Therefore, we sent one email invitation from our personal email accounts to each of the 409 email addresses. After all these efforts, we received 361 usable responses from our list of 858 possible participants, a response rate of 42.1% for the first section of the survey and the open response questions. Of the 361 surveys returned, 34 respondents skipped items within the Likert-type scale section, Question 13. We chose to perform a maximum likelihood estimation procedure to impute values for the missing data, using the Missing Variables Analysis (MVA) module for the SPSS Base Version 17.0 software (SPSS, 2008). Sixty-three respondents who entirely skipped the Likert-type-scale section. Those surveys were eliminated from all analysis involving the Likert-type data (N=298, a usable response rate of 35%), but were retained for the overall demographic reporting and open response analysis (N=361).

Data Analysis

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 12 The research questions addressed in this paper sought to determine the perspectives of music teacher educators regarding social justice in music education. In the first part of the survey, we gathered demographic information and other characteristics of respondents, which were analyzed using percentages. Then, we used open-response questions to address our first three guiding questions: 1) How do music teacher educators define social justice in their own teaching or in pk-12 schools? 2) Do music teacher educators view the inclusion of social justice frameworks in undergraduate music teacher education curriculum as relevant? and 3) What are the limitations music teacher educators perceive?

For open response items, analysis involved cleaning the data (removing identifiers and empty space, unifying fonts, etc.), close reading of the text, creation of categories, and continually revising and refining these categories through multiple sets of coding, allowing overlapping coding and uncoded text (Thomas, 2003). We analyzed the item regarding how participants defined social justice first. After an initial list of themes emerged from this analysis, each response was coded as the theme it best represented, resulting in a list of “frames,” with exemplar quotes. Subsequent open-response questions were subjected to both deductive analysis on the basis of the “frames” as well as inductive data analysis as described by Thomas (2003) above.

The final question sought to determine if there were any possible correlations between music teacher educators’ demographic information, previous experience and current work environment, and their beliefs about teaching for social justice. This question was addressed through comparisons between the above-mentioned characteristics and a Likert-type scale. Participants were asked to respond using a five-point scale to prompts regarding varying issues related to social justice. The Likert-type scale was adapted from Bryan, Clark, and Drudy’s (2011) study of teacher educator attitudes toward social justice in Ireland. The scale was anchored by 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 13 A Cronbach’s Alpha procedure was run for all items and was found to be .73. Two factors embedded in the Likert-type survey, related to curricular views and societal views, were initially determined by the researchers and then tested post-survey using Cronbach’s Alpha procedure. The two factors were named Curricular Views about Social Justice (CVSJ) and Societal Views of Social Justice (SVSJ). The Cronbach Alpha scores for the CVSJ and SVSJ factors were reported at .82, and .71 respectively. George and Mallery (2003) recommend an Alpha value at 0.70 or better to ensure that the internal consistency for the survey and the determined factors was acceptable. Alpha coefficients, means, and standard deviations are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Cronbach Alpha for Survey and Subscales Survey Subscale Α M Total Survey .727 98.05 Curricular Views .815 37.04 Societal Views .707 26.82

SD 9.658 5.221 4.728

Limitations This survey faces several limitations that must be considered in interpretation of the data. There are two possible selection biases. We chose only to include full-time tenure track faculty. Therefore, we missed the voices of part-time faculty and/or doctoral students who may be important influences on future music educators. We opted not to include them because people in these roles change too frequently, and they are also not always listed on departmental websites, which we were using to seek participants. We therefore erred on the side of a more consistent population—full time music teacher educators. The second possible selection bias is that our original list of participants was created in May, for a survey that was deployed months later. Therefore, we may have missed people who started new music teacher education jobs or changed jobs in that interval. This survey also has a potential nonresponse bias: the possibility that people who did not respond to the survey do not view the topic as important. Therefore, the 42.1% of people who did respond may cause the results to skew more toward a view that is knowledgeable and/or positive about issues of social justice in music teacher education.

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 14 Finally, there is a possibility of social desirability bias: that people would respond how they think they “should” respond. This is why we chose an anonymous on-line survey, because social desirability bias is mitigated by anonymity. We also strove to be ‘distanced’ or neutral in our wording of items. Finally, we allowed respondents to abstain from answering some questions.

Results The purpose of this study was to investigate the perspectives of music teacher educators with regard to social justice and music education. Therefore, we surveyed every full-time, tenured or tenure track music teacher educator we could identify who was currently teaching at an institution accredited

by NASM to certify music teachers. Our specific research questions included: How do music teacher educators define social justice in their own teaching or in pk-12 schools? Do music teacher educators view the inclusion of social justice frameworks in undergraduate music teacher education curriculum as relevant? What are the limitations music teacher educators perceive? We also examined possible correlations between music teacher educators’ demographic information, previous experience, and current work environment and their beliefs about teaching for social justice.

Characteristics of Respondents Results for multiple-choice items regarding participants’ characteristics, teaching experience, and instructional responsibilities are included in Table 2. With regard to courses taught, 44% (n=153) of respondents indicated they taught music education courses which were not listed as options on the survey. The most frequently entered “other” courses included: Research in Music Education (n=14), Conducting (general, choral, instrumental, n=13), Instrument Pedagogy Classes (n=10) and Music Technology (n=9).

Table 2 Respondent Characteristics Variable Gender N=353

Male Female Transgender

N

Percentage

167 185 1

47% 52% 0.5%

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

15

White Black/ African American

318 14

89% 3.9%

Asian Hispanic/ Latino

6 5

1.7% 1.5%

Mixed Race Pacific Islander

5 1

1.5% <1%

SES N=354

Lower Third Middle Third Upper Third

63 262 29

18% 74% 8%

Highest Completed Degree N=356 Pk-12 Teaching Experience N=346

Master’s Ph.D.

34 322

9.5% 90.5%

None <5 years 6-10 years 11-20years 21 + years <5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 15-20 years 21+ years

3 74 134 95 50 45 93 68 60 50

<1% 20.8% 37.6% 26.7% 23% 13% 27% 20% 17% 14%

Race N=356*

MTE Experience N=346

Number of pre-service 1-20 students 64 18% students in undergraduate 21-50 students 93 27% program 51-100 students 104 30% N=346 >100 students 85 25% * Open response, in order received: “I don’t answer race questions, irrelevant” “Laplander” “Human” “decline to answer” “African Caribbean” “White Hispanic” “Human” Respondents reported teaching at a variety of institutions. Of those who responded to this item (N=323), most taught at public colleges or universities (65%, n=210), while 16.4% (n=53) taught at private schools with no religious affiliation and 18.6% (n= 60) reported their school was religiously affiliated. Of 298 respondents, 41.6% (n=124) categorized their institution as urban, 29.8% (n=89) saw their institution as suburban, and 28.5% (n= 85) categorized it as rural.

Perspectives on Social Justice in Music Teacher Education

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 16 Definitions of Social Justice. When we asked participants to define social justice, inductive analysis revealed five main themes. Each response (N=364) was coded to the theme it most closely represented, and many responses carried overlapping codes. The themes may be best described as frames through which respondents viewed social justice: (1) equal treatment/equal access/equal opportunity, which included subthemes of (a) fair/just treatment is not the same as equal treatment, and (b) meritocracy; (2) accepting people as they are/celebrating difference; (3) critical, which included subthemes of (a) suggestions for action and (b) moral/ethical imperative; (4) learning/questioning and (5) challenging/dismissing.

Most respondents framed their definition of social justice in terms of equal treatment/equal access/equal opportunity. These responses centered around ideas that all people

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 17 would be treated the same, regardless of any difference, or that opportunities should be the same for all people, regardless of any difference. Exemplar statements articulating this frame included: “Equal rights and opportunity for all,” “No notice of gender, race, ethnicity, economic background, or sexual preference,” and “Equitable access to resources, services, education, health care, et al. regardless of race religion, gender, socioeconomic class, et al.” Within this frame, a subset of respondents spoke about how same treatment was not necessarily equitable treatment. For example: “In order to ensure that all people have equal opportunity, people may have to be treated unequally or differently. I’m not a ‘let’s all just pull ourselves up by our bootstraps’ kind of person. Not everyone has boots.” Another theme among respondents who spoke of equality of opportunity indicated that a socially just society would be, “A meritocracy, in which individuals are given similar (positive) opportunities and finances, gender, race, party affiliation, etc. are not the determining factors in whether the individual is able to advance in society. Instead, the important factors become talent, intelligence, and hard work that result in achievement.”

Another commonly occurring frame for defining social justice was accepting people as they are/celebrating difference. Responses in this frame centered around ideas of embracing diversity: “Encouraging thinking and acting outside of the normal ‘box’ …trying to broaden one’s approach to living in a world that recognizes and celebrates uniqueness found in all people.” “Recognizing that people are different from each other and that respect of differences is essential.” There was a strong sense of the values of multiculturalism in education: “I think of [social justice] as accepting all individuals as they are, no matter what their socioeconomic, sexuality, racial, etc. characteristics are as well as educating others about the importance of this concept.” Within this frame, diverse ways of thinking and being were considered strengths for society: “Social justice, to me, is working toward a society that honors the contributions of all members of that society and works to find ways to value all unique contributions.”

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 18 Respondents who defined social justice through a critical frame focused more on institutions, power systems, actions, context, morals and ethics. A brief example is: “Social Justice is a disposition to perceive injustices in society and the courage to act against these injustices.” Several respondents provided more detail in their critical frame: It really depends on the context, but generally, social justice is actively working towards equity and justice, including bringing attention to inequitable situations, being reflective and reflexive about assumptions, positions, and biases, acknowledging and addressing power dynamics, helping people become aware of inequitable or problematic situations, working in solidarity with others when appropriate or needed, and sometimes making sacrifices for the greater good.

It includes addressing these issues at micro (local contexts) and macro (societal) levels.

Critical definitions tended to focus on actions: “Social Justice is creating equal access to opportunity.

This is achieved not through liberalist ideas of “equity” but through dismantling of institutional barriers to access, including racism, sexism, classism, heteronormativity, ableism, transphobia, etc.” The critical frame also included moral and ethical consideration: When I consider “social justice” I think of the moral, ethical responsibility I have as a member of society to see the value in each person. Privileged individuals sometimes find it difficult to reach out to others because we see “differences” in others rather than commonalities that cross social status boundaries. I may not hold the same views as someone else or practice the same faith or orientation, but I have a responsibility to treat every other person I encounter with respect and dignity. I strongly believe social justice teachings (aka how to behave “morally and ethically”) have a place in school systems.

Another set of responses were best classified through a frame of learning/questioning.

Responses in this theme showed that some music teacher educators have not engaged yet with the topic of social justice: “I honestly have no idea. The term is foreign to me.” Other respondents in this theme

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 19 had encountered the topic, but were not yet ready to define it: “I have no current working definition-just some ideas that are not well-formed.” “I often struggle with this question...” “I feel that I do not hold a strong grasp on the concept of social justice.”

Finally, some responses seemed to challenge or dismiss the invitation to define social justice.

Some respondents may have felt rushed for time, or did not want to give the amount of thought needed to construct an answer to such a complex question. Responses in this category included: “I don’t” and “Don’t know, Batman” as well as several versions of “I would have liked for you to do it.” However, some of the challenges were more of a rejection of the need to discuss social justice in music teacher education: “I stick with the subject matter and try to make it interesting enough that all learners will forget about everything else except the subject matter for at least that period.” “Not really sure. I believe life and success are up to you and you alone. I don’t have time to teach this and music too—I hear sociology is an interesting field for those who are so inclined.”

Teaching About Social Justice Topics. Several questions inquired about social justice topics in the music teacher educator’s practice. Forty percent (114 of 285 respondents who answered this question) reported that they were currently satisfied with their coverage of this topic in their instruction of preservice teachers. When we asked participants to select options to describe anything holding them back from being satisfied with their coverage of social justice in music education courses, 65% of respondents indicated lack of time (n=186), 29% lack of knowledge (n=82), 29% nothing (n=82), and 5% were concerned about tenure (n=14). Ten percent cited lack of interest (n=9) or felt it was not their job (n=21). We invited participants to add any thoughts in response to this question, and 113 respondents wrote a total of 4,756 words. Frequently shared frustrations included a lack of funding/time/availability of good clinical sites for fieldwork, along with increasing demands placed on teacher educators and teacher education programs by accreditation and testing. One respondent spoke for many in this regard:

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 20 Our state now requires students pass a nationally normed test on content before they can get a teaching license. It has become increasingly difficulty to cover even the most basic musical and education concepts and still allow students to graduate within a reasonable amount of time. While I feel these issues [social justice] are very important, my students won’t even get a chance to address those issues as teachers if they do not first learn all of the content that the state and NASM require. My approach to my curriculum design is more pragmatic than it is ideological. There are many, many issues and ideas I wish I had more time to explore.

Another common response to this question was well-articulated by this respondent: “I don’t feel the music education profession is doing enough to prepare teachers to be leaders in this field We need more clinics, workshops, and classes designed to lead the way.” Along with this call for more professional development, many responses indicated a willingness to teach the topic, but “I’ve never been exposed to social justice learnings, so I don’t know where to start!” Finally, the question asked if people were satisfied with their current coverage of social justice topics, and a number of the open-responses clarified that a respondent was satisfied that he or she was NOT covering social justice topics: “This would take away from the time for teaching music content. I leave to the Political Science courses or History, etc.” Some who were satisfied with not covering the topic had more ideological reasons for not including it: I do not believe that we as music educators need to teach lengthy units on social justice.

For example, LGBTQ is none of our business and has NOTHING to do with one’s education.

This being the case, to teach a course or even a lengthy unit on such a topic is essentially a waste of time for undergraduates, and rather should be reserved for masters or doctoral coursework. Teaching social justice is as easy as saying “We are all equal, and should be treated as such. We should celebrate our differences as much as we celebrate our similarities. In the

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 21 end, we are all human beings.” End of story. I just saved myself a week of time to talk about more important topics such as music selection, instructional behaviors, and curricular issues.

Effective means of communicating about social justice issues. Two hundred eighty- five respondents shared the strategies they find most effective as a means of communicating about issues of social justice. Many respondents reported field experience was most valuable: [Students] need to live it. This is not something you can talk about effectively, because it is not just cognitive, but procedural and emotional. They need to feel, taste smell, and live what it is like to work in these classrooms and THEN be empowered with the necessary knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be an agent of change.

Respondents also found that several types of discussion were effective. These discussions were often linked to fieldwork experiences: My students teach in a 100% free lunch school during their labs for two semesters. We discuss potential populations characteristics, and then discuss their feelings and thoughts about teaching in a place that is lacking many of the niceties that they had when they grew up. We discuss their experiences after they teach. Having students think through issues of equity, access, cultural stereotypes and other issues by creating a space where students can dialogue and work through complex issues collaboratively. I’m willing to have students move out of their comfort zone to consider issues they may not have thought about in the past.

Other types of discussion included conversations about journals regarding students’ own experiences, discussion of case studies, and discussion of current events/news related to social justice. Respondents also recommended bringing in (or skyping with) teachers from urban and low SES areas for dialogue.

Several proponents of discussions specified that students must take on varying perspectives or make a decision regarding what must be done in the hypothetical situation for it to be most effective.

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 22 In addition to fieldwork and discussion, respondents reported that readings, modeling, film/documentary, and sharing personal experiences can all be effective in communicating about social justice. In addition to the case studies mentioned above, respondents also recommended readings regarding current events, the role of music in social justice, ethnographies, and critical theory.

Respondents repeatedly stressed that actions speak louder than words: “Our classrooms already have diverse enrollments, although with less representation from minorities than the national norm. The way teachers treat students in class and facilitate student interactions speaks volumes about what they think about other people and their values.” Respondents found it effective to share their own experiences from when they were in the p-12 classroom. Some professors go further, modeling activism: “I am active in disability awareness and the ‘multicultural’ community on campus, as well as a member of the ‘faculty allies’ which is a diverse group of ‘safe’ faculty who support the gay/transgender student population.” Finally, several respondents stated that the most effective social justice instruction is embedded throughout music education coursework, as is expressed in this response that sums up many of the strategies listed above: Teaching by example; teaching with cases; responding to incidents of uncivil behavior in wise and principled ways. Finding ways to uncover and dislodge prejudice and narrowmindedness without strident tone or undue pressure. The music education faculty considers social justice as one of our primary goals, and this shared commitment across classrooms and individuals is a valuable asset.

Again, several respondents used this open-response item to reiterate the view that teaching about social justice is not necessary or not their job. For example: “I don’t. Politics should never enter the classroom.”

Current impediments to social justice in p12. Two hundred eighty-five respondents chose to list factors that they consider to be impediments to social justice in p-12 education. For the majority,

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 23 issues of money and time came to the forefront. “School funding based on local property taxes creates large inequalities between rural, urban, and suburban music programs… Performance traditions that include expensive instruments, expensive uniforms, and expensive participation fees exclude lower income families.” With regard to time, many viewed an increasing focus on standardized testing and “tested subjects” as disproportionately affecting certain groups of students and also as resulting in less music instruction for certain groups of students. The strains on money and time coexist: “Lack of resources, instruments, performance opportunities, varied curricula in less affluent schools, less qualified faculty, standardized testing environment of “low performing schools” in core areas, transportation for after school events, ensembles, and other extra curricular activities, administrative priorities are not aligned with an appropriate arts education.”

Other respondents pointed to a lack of diversity, both with regard to the homogeneity/segregation of school populations and also the lack of diversity in graduates from teacher education programs.

Students coming from privileged backgrounds being “certain” that they want to teach in similar situations. There may also be a lack of potential school placements where music ed students can experience inner city culture and children. Many students come with preconceived notions about children from poverty backgrounds and shy away. Some really want to teach complex music to capable students and feel that they will not be able to do this in urban or rural schools.

Also there are safety concerns in many city schools that are daunting to some undergrads.

Perhaps related to this, respondents mentioned the elite and exclusionary nature of admission into college and university music education programs. Many respondents focused on the viewpoint that music education has limited itself in a way that does not serve social justice. Examples of comments in this category include: The field of music education could do more to break away from the traditions of the past

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 24 40 years. Euro-centric materials of band, chorus, and orchestras do not invite greater participation in the musical community. Furthermore, we could do more to sensitize our students to the changing demographics of the students they will teach. Many music education majors are of the majority culture, and find themselves unfamiliar and incapable of dealing with students different than themselves….

Many respondents also pointed to a number of larger systemic/institutional factors that they viewed as impediments to social justice in p-12 public schools, listed here by one respondent: “Income inequity/Poor education policy/Corporate reform agenda/Charter schools/Attacks on teachers unions/ Privatization of public education/ Racism and homophobia.” Another respondent described systemic institutional factors this way: 1. Human nature to form stereotypes about peoples.

2. Years of social injustice to all kinds of marginalized people, resulting in social and institutional structures that reinforce marginalization.

3. Teachers’ prejudices and misunderstandings that arise from #1 and #2 4. Legislators’ and the general public’s prejudices and misunderstandings arising from #1 and #2 However, a smaller number of respondents identified a different set of larger issues, exemplified by comments such as “Broken or unstable families” and “Entitlement expectations rather than work/reward coupled with lack of positive home support.”

Additional experiences respondents would like to incorporate. Of the 251 respondents who listed additional experiences they would like to incorporate to help music teacher candidates understand social justice in music education, most described some aspect of fieldwork. Respondents suggested more fieldwork, in more diverse placements, and with better preparation, reflection, and debriefing regarding differences in race, ethnicity, primary language, ability, and SES. Respondents

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 25 also stated that they would like to incorporate more readings (particularly case studies), discussion, and debate on social justice, as well as exploration of personal and systemic biases. Many respondents stated or reiterated that this topic must be embedded meaningfully throughout coursework, although other respondents indicated that this topic was already addressed in the college or department of education, so they did not feel it was necessary in music education. In both cases, several respondents indicated a need for more focus on solutions or strategies rather than too much discussion of all the problems. Another theme revolved around ideas of activism, such as this one: “Spend more time in the public schools assisting poorly trained music educators. Sponsor university-based programs for marginalized populations in the surrounding community.” An additional set of responses revolved around the idea of teaching undergraduates to be multimusical and helping them understand how to be more culturally responsive in their pedagogy. Finally, a number of respondents indicated either a wish to be more politically involved themselves or to start talking with students about the impact of politics on music education.

Correlations between Demographic and Setting-Based Characteristics The final research question explored whether there was a main effect of race/ethnicity, gender, SES, institutional setting and affiliation, years of experience teaching pk-12, and years of experience as a music teacher educator on the respondents’ views of social justice as represented on the Likert-type scale. Two factors embedded in the Likert-type survey, related to curricular views and societal views, were initially determined by the researchers and then tested post-survey using Cronbach’s Alpha procedure. The two factors were named Curricular Views about Social Justice (CVSJ) and Societal Views of Social Justice (SVSJ). The Cronbach Alpha scores for the CVSJ and SVSJ factors were reported at .82, and .71 respectively. To analyze the data, respondents’ characteristics were grouped according to demographics and setting. Because 63 respondents answered “don’t know/haven’t thought about it” to all of the Likert-type questions, their responses were not used for this analysis. The

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 26 adjusted demographic data used in the Likert-type analysis section of the survey is presented in the full results table for each factor (CVSJ Table #3; SVSJ Table #4).

Kruskal-Wallis test of independent samples was used to explore whether there was a main effect between (a) demographics and (b) setting/experience on views of social justice. The researchers chose to use non-parametric procedures because the data were not normally distributed, as assessed by the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality, p = .05. There was also a right skewness visible in the histogram. The assumption of homogeneity of variances was also violated, as assessed by Levene's test for equality of variances, p = .009.

The seven categories that we defined as characteristics to be tested were organized as follows: 1) Gender = male, female, transgender; 2) SES = lower third, middle third, high third, no response; 3) Race = majority, minority, no response; 4) MTE experience = 1-10 years, 11-20 years, 21 + years; 5) Pk-12 experience = 1-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-20 years, 21+ years, no pk-12 experience; 6) Setting = rural, suburban, urban, no response; 7) Affiliation = public, private, religious, no response. The no response option was provided because of the desire to help respondents feel that they could be anonymous due to the possibility of social desirability bias. The race/ethnicity characteristic was collapsed into the majority/minority category due to the small response rates across the various options (McKoy, 2013).

Due to the parameters of the Kruskal-Wallis H test, all tested characteristics were run individually. At the Îą = 0.05 level of significance, there is no difference in the median CVSJ (Table 3) and SVSJ (Table 4) scores (and, hence, the mean CVSJ and SVSJ scores) among the demographic groups as defined as gender, race/ethnicity, and SES. The same holds true for the comparison between CVSJ and SVSJ scores when run between groups based on university setting, affiliation, and past teaching experience.

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 27 Further analysis of the median CVSJ and SVSJ scores for gender, race, and SES demonstrates a more positive perception of social justice within the curriculum, but a more neutral perception regarding social justice from a societal perspective across all categories. The total means for the distribution of CVSJ across each category ranged from M= 4.33-4.78. This demonstrates a more positive curricular view of social justice. The distribution of SVSJ across all categories tested produced a total mean score that ranged from M= 2.75-3.75. This score is more neutral and presents the possibility that respondents view social justice within society from a more neutral perspective.

Based on the fact that the null hypothesis was retained on all measures, the mean rank was calculated across all distributions using the legacy procedure (Dunn, 1964). Mean ranks are reported as part of Tables 3 and 4. An examination of the mean rankings further confirms the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test.

Table 3 Curricular Views about Social Justice by Demographic Group CVSJ N Mea Media Min Ma SD MR n n x Gender Male 136 4.38 4.56 2 5 .641 140.8 Female 161 4.45 4.78 1 5 .683 157.1 Transgen 1 4.33 4.33 4 4 .

94.5 der Total 29 4.42 4.56 1 5 .663 8 SES Low 55 4.32 4.56 2 5 .730 140.1 Middle 217 4.45 4.56 2 5 .627 152.4 High 24 4.36 4.56 1 5 .825 142.9 Non2 4.67 4.78 5 5 .157 164.8 report Total 29 4.42 4.56 1 5 .663 8 Race Majority 265 4.43 4.56 1 5 .660 151.8 Minority 28 4.29 4.56 2 5 .738 130.3 Non5 4.51 4.67 4 4 .243 132.9 report Total 29 4.42 4.56 1 5 .663 8 MTE 1-10 118 4.39 4.56 1 5 .645 140.4 exp.

11-20 112 4.42 4.56 2 5 .714 155.3 21+ 68 4.48 4.56 2 5 .609 155.6

H

P*

3.1 5

.

206

1.1 6

.

762

1.8 3

.

400

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE Total 29 4.42 4.56 1 5 .663 8 Pk-12 1-5 56 4.36 4.56 2 5 .656 6-10 118 4.37 4.56 1 5 .690 11-20 80 4.53 4.78 2 5 .554 21+ 41 4.45 4.78 2 5 .778 No 3 4.56 5.00 4 5 .770 experienc e Total 29 4.42 4.56 1 5 .663 8 Setting Rural 75 4.32 4.56 2 5 .703 Suburban 72 4.43 4.67 1 5 .760 Urban 102 4.52 4.67 2 5 .585 Non49 4.38 4.56 3 5 .584 report Total 29 4.42 4.56 1 5 .663 8 Affiliatio Public 181 4.42 4.56 2 5 .660 n Private 43 4.45 4.56 3 5 .614 Religious 51 4.42 4.56 2 5 .670 Nonreport Total

23

4.42

4.56

1

5

.792

29 8

4.42

4.56

1

5

.663

2.2 4

28 .

326

4.6 9

.

320

6.8 9

.

075

.

34 6

.

951

H

P

1.2 5

.

534

1.2 8

.

735

138.2 142.0 160.9 161.6 183.3

131.8 158.6 161.3 138.8

147.4 154.9 152.2 5 150.2 8

*Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05.

Table 4 Societal Views about Social Justice by Demographic Group SVSJ N Mea Media Min Ma SD MR n n x Gender Male 136 3.46 3.50 2 5 .756 148.5 Female 161 3.45 3.50 1 5 .822 150.9 Transgen 1 2.75 2.75 3 3 .

56 der Total 29 3.45 3.50 1 5 .791 8 SES Low 55 3.45 3.50 2 5 .798 147.9 Middle 217 3.45 3.50 1 5 .786 149.9 High 24 3.48 3.63 2 5 .872 154.7 Non2 3.00 3.00 3 3 .000 84.0 report Total 29 3.45 3.50 1 5 .791 8

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE Race Majority 265 3.46 3.50 1 5 .799 150.7 1 Minority 28 3.37 3.50 2 5 .744 140.0 9 Non5 3.45 3.25 3 5 .737 137.9 report 0 Total 29 3.45 3.50 1 5 .791 8 MTE experien ce

Pk-12

Setting

1-10

118

3.50

3.50

2

5

.804

11-20

112

3.46

3.50

2

5

.781

21+

68

3.36

3.25

1

5

.786

Total

29 8 56 118 80 41 3

3.45

3.50

1

5

.791

3.38 3.49 3.54 3.23 4.08

3.50 3.50 3.75 3.25 4.00

2 1 2 2 3

5 5 5 5 5

.817 .783 .748 .823 .770

29 8 75 72 102 49

3.45

3.50

1

5

.791

3.37 3.46 3.53 3.41

3.25 3.50 3.50 3.50

1 2 2 2

5 5 5 5

.812 .856 .719 .809

29 8 181 43 51 23

3.45

3.50

1

5

.791

3.46 3.37 3.56 3.45

3.50 3.25 3.75 3.50

2 1 2 1

5 5 5 5

.785 .846 .756 .791

1-5 6-10 11-20 21+ No experienc e Total Rural Suburban Urban Nonreport Total

Affiliatio Public n Private Religious Nonreport Total

155.7 8 150.7 8 136.5 0 140.1 153.3 158.9 128.3 211.2

29

.

48 1

.

786

2.2 4

.

326

4.6 9

.

320

1.5 3

.

675

2.6 6

.

447

141.9 150.5 156.9 144.3

149.3 140.6 164.3 134.8

29 3.45 3.50 1 5 .791 8 *Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05.

Discussion

According to this survey, which contains data from 42.1% of all music teacher educators we identified as currently working in institutions accredited by the National Association of School of

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 30 Music (NASM) to certify music teachers, our profession remains overwhelmingly white and of middle class origins with slightly more female than male members. The gender-related data in this survey do not align with the data presented by Higher Education Arts Data Services (HEADS) data that are annually collected by NASM; however, the race-related data are in alignment (HEADS, 2014). The 2013-14 HEADS data reports that 66% of all music faculty as male and 31% as female. The report does not give institutions the opportunity to report numbers regarding transgendered or otherwise nonconforming faculty. It is interesting to note that regardless of the highest degree the institution offered men are reported to makeup 65-67% of the faculty while the womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s percentage is reported between 27-32%. In this survey women respondents reported slightly higher than male, 52% to 47% respectively. Though the difference between male and female participants is slight, it is important to note that this does not reflect the overall make-up of music school faculty. This difference suggests the possibility that music education programs are trending in a more gender inclusive manner than their performance and music studies counterparts, or that female music teacher educators were more willing to participate in a survey that explored social justice.

Perspectives of Social Justice in Music Teacher Education.

Music teacher educator perspectives of social justice were examined through open response questions. Participants were asked to define social justice as one of the open responses on the survey.

Coding of the responses yielded definitions that were grouped into five thematic categories (1) equal treatment/equal access/equal opportunity, which included subgroups of (a) fair/just treatment is not the same as equal treatment, and (b) meritocracy; (2) accepting people as they are/celebrating difference; (3) critical, which included subthemes of (a) suggestions for action and (b) moral/ethical imperative; (4) learning/questioning and (5) challenging/dismissing. From these themes the relationship between colorblind and pluralistic perspectives in music teacher education is apparent despite overlapping ideas amongst the themes, such as equal access, acceptance of differences, and critical perspectives.

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 31 Williams and Land (2006) define colorblindness as practice in the classroom that seeks to continue to perpetuate the dominant group’s primacy, and efforts to bring all students to “the normalized White standard” (p. 579). In the current study, the idea that effort and ambition are enough to rectify unfair treatment, or that there is no place within the curriculum for the inclusion of social justice ideals, appeared in the themes of equal treatment/meritocracy and challenging or dismissing.

These ideas are rooted in the concept that good teaching is effective for all students and that content and pedagogy determine success (Finney & Orr, 1995; Sleeter, 1992). A colorblind perspective of social justice also supports descriptive research concerning the make-up of music education programs in the pk-12 context. The majority of students who participate in music programs across the United States come from White middle class backgrounds (Elpus & Abril, 2011) despite the diversity found in their schools (Butler, Lind, & McKoy, 2007), and schools with more diverse populations were less likely to offer music programs (Salvador & Allegood, 2014). Furthermore, students with IEP’s are underrepresented (Hoffman, 2011; Linsenmeier, 2004). The demographics of the American music student contribute to an underlying narrative or hidden curriculum that posits the idea that music programs are for White middle and upper class students who have no academic deficiencies. Students who do not fit this profile do not last in music programs outside of compulsory general music instruction in the elementary years.

Pluralistic practices are also recognizable in the data as respondents described the need to work toward eliminating barriers and embracing ideals found within multicultural and culturally responsive paradigms. Teachers who acknowledge differences in race and ethnicity, and who seek to employ strategies that that are responsive have been shown to foster academic growth and more positive attitudes toward schooling (Foster, 1995). The thematic categorization of the definitions of social justice demonstrates that music teacher educators define social justice within both paradigms, but also brings into focus the idea that content and pedagogy are still primary foci within music education

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 32 classrooms. In general, open responses focused on socioeconomic status and racial diversity, or used the blanket code â&#x20AC;&#x153;urbanâ&#x20AC;? to indicate settings with a number of nonwhite and/or poor students. Although there were some responses that also touched on sexuality and gender, issues of religion, country of origin, and ability were largely ignored in open responses.

The 40% percent of respondents, who reported that they were satisfied with their coverage of social justice issues within their curriculum have either already acted on a desire to include this component or are satisfied with little or no coverage. The majority of respondents, 65%, stated that a lack of time was their major impediment while 10% stated that they had no interest or that it was not their job. The content driven nature of music education perhaps stands as an impediment itself. The focus on content and pedagogy, as opposed to student identity and experience, contributes to the colorblind perspective described by Williams and Land (2006). The drive towards standards-based teaching and standardized testing could perpetuate this problem.

The research that supports the inclusion of culturally diverse field experiences and student teaching placements espouses the idea that these types of placements help music teacher candidates develop culturally responsive mindsets. However, Kelly (2003) found that despite taking a course in social justice students still expressed a desire to work in a school setting that was reflective of their background. The fact that 79% of respondents added comments to the survey regarding impediments to teaching about social justice suggests that the desire to discuss the role of social justice is present. It also suggests that there is a need for a realignment of thought that would empower teacher educators and teachers to develop a more student centered focus in the classroom. That 62% of respondents indicated that there was no time to teach undergraduate music education students about anything other than the content measured on state teacher examinations begs the question of why these exams are so divorced from the skills, knowledge, or practices that might allow our music teachers to teach all students.

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 33 The perspective that “teaching social justice is not my job” and “politics should not enter the classroom” was a consistent minority view across the open-response questions. This response is consistent with the view that teaching undergraduates about social justice topics would constitute some form of political indoctrination (Villegas, 2007). However, most responses to the question about impediments to social justice mentioned political issues, such as funding for schools, increased testing, narrowing of curriculum, and institutional factors that contribute to marginalization. Finally, in the open response questions about impediments to social justice and about best practices for teaching about social justice, with only a few exceptions, responses centered around race and poverty, raising the issue of whether music teacher educators are addressing the other ways that p-12 students are diverse, including ability, religion, gender, home/primary language, country of origin, and sexuality.

Correlations Between Characteristics and Social Justice Factors. Statistical analysis of the correlation between demographic and setting characteristics and responses on the Likert-type scale seeking to determine a specific social justice awareness factor did not indicate any significant differences between the groups. This is not a surprising finding given the descriptive demographic data reported in this study, namely that music teacher educators are overwhelmingly White and from a middle class background. Furthermore, the gender divide among respondents was almost equal.

Visual analysis of boxplots and histograms showed a positive skew on all runs of the data. An examination of the medians that resulted from the Kruskal-Wallis H test show that the CVSJ scores across all characteristics ranged from 4.33-4.78, with one median reported at 5.00 for the characteristic no pk-12 experience (n=3) Conversely the median scores for SVSJ ranged from 2.75-3.75, with one median reported at 4.00 for the characteristic no pk-12 experience (n=3). These data imply that university professors in music teacher education would like to be seen as being more inclusive with regard to social justice in curriculum, as well as with the way that the music teacher education curriculum impacts instruction outside of the academy. Regarding societal views, participants appear to

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 34 be more neutral in their responses. The desire to be seen as neutral, with regard to the SVSJ factor, supports previous research that individuals often choose neutral responses in order to mask negative opinions (McKoy, 2006) especially since the prompts in this factor were designed to look at world views that are more closely associated with self. The more positively skewed medians on the CVSJ factor could indicate more of a social desirability bias with regard to curriculum and practice. The CVSJ factor was designed to examine how curricula and schools integrate or impact social justices issues. The desire to be seen in a more positive manner on this factor corresponds with the way a person is perceived in the work place.

Many of the open responses regarding to perceptions of social justice were contradictory to the overall scores reported on the Likert-type scale. Kelly-McHale (2013) found that statements about cultural responsiveness in the curriculum, made by a general music teacher in interviews, were often contradicted in practice. This implies that the awareness of issues related to social justice and the actual practice of working toward implementation are not connected.

The examination of mean rank across all distributions suggested that there were some groups that though, not statistically significant, presented increased or decreased mean ranks as compared within their group. The biggest differences were reported on the the SVSJ distribution between the pk12 experience groups. Those who identified as having 21+ years of teaching experience had the lowest rank at 128.3, while those with no experience had a rank of 211.2 The difference in rank here presents the possibility that extensive experience in pk-12 teaching may trend towards a more negative view of social justice. While those with no pk-12 experience have a much more positive view of societal views of social justice. Despite the research done on field experiences, student teaching, and in-service training in general education with regard to attitudes towards diversity (e.g., Chubbock, 2010; Cochran-Smith, Shakman, Jong, Terrell, Barnatt, & McQuillan, 2009; Pollack, Deckman, Mira, & Shalaby, 2010), it is apparent that perhaps research that

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 35 is designed to determine whether or not experience shapes views of social justice in society is necessary. Research has shown that community perceptions of diversity shape teacher behavior in the classroom, as well as teacher reactions to their students (Freeman & Freeman, 2001). Therefore, the examination of the impact interactions between teachers, parents, students, and colleagues have on individual views of society and the role of social justice is warranted.

Conclusion Schools are social institutions, established to perpetuate the goals of our democratic society, and must be viewed in that manner in order that they may be maintained and flourish. When we talk about social justice in schools as a way to reform and improve schools, or as a moral imperative (Hanley et. al., 2013), we are entering into an epistemological arena that is predicated on understanding the concepts of social and justice as well as the application of each term individually and collectively. We can discuss issues that impact society from a perspective that largely shields us from marginalization, just as we can approach the same issue from the perspective of those who are marginalized. However, dominant and marginalized are on opposite sides of a continuum and, because of that positioning, the two viewpoints are often not seen in tandem.

The reality for music teacher educators is that pk-12 schools are more diverse now than when we were teaching in them, and that this trend toward more diversity will continue. It is important to note that this study did not examine the impact of teacher education in social justice on classroom interactions or on student outcomes. Yet, this study provides a picture of the views that music teacher educators hold of social justice in music education. The picture includes conflicting views of the definition of social justice, of the necessity of social justice instruction in the undergraduate curriculum, and of the impediments to a more socially just p-12 music education experience. There were no statistically significant correlations between demographic characteristics and the social justice factors

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 36 identified through the survey. What this survey does provide is a springboard to action within the music teacher educator community.

Further research that investigates the confluence of music teacher educator and music education candidate views on social justice is needed. These studies should be followed closely or paired with studies that look at the intersections between music teacher educator views of social justice and music teacher candidates’ practice within fieldwork, student teaching, and the first five years of teaching. The goal of such research should be to determine the influence of college professors on the socially just teaching practices of preservice and new teachers and to develop a broad understanding of what social justice looks like in music classrooms. To address the need for more information and/or professional development on social justice articulated by respondents in this survey, such research must be reported to the music teacher education profession in a way that supports growth and invites participation.

Similarly, research and professional development oriented to helping music teacher educators and p-12 music teachers develop a more nuanced and informed understanding of social justice is necessary. Since, like music teacher candidates, the majority of music teacher educators identify as White and come from middle class backgrounds, efforts to increase the diversity of music teachers and music teacher educators may pay dividends in the form of broadening the discussion of equitable access to music instruction and how music education could be more just and inclusive. However, many students who are not White or middle and upper class often do not have the opportunity to participate in music programs (Salvador & Allegood, 2014), and therefore would not be accepted as a music major in order to become a music educator at the majority of NASM accredited schools. This has created a circle of homogeneity within pk-12. As one respondent commented, Being active in trying to change the school of music is a bit more challenging, but without that change, my students will suffer, as will their future students. This generation of teachers is willing to try new things, but they can’t embrace what they don’t know, and don’t experience.

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 37 When their love of some musics is actively discoursged and denigrated by respected professors, students are put in a difficult position. Change is hard, but if we don’t change higher education, we will perpetuate the status quo, leaving our teacher candidates unable or unwilling to adapt to their own teaching circumstances.

If music education is for everyone, then we as a profession need to be ready to prepare music teacher candidates who are ready to teach all students. This might challenge our ability as music teacher educators, because it requires that we extend and reframe the ways in which music teacher candidates perceive quality, equity, and justice within pk-12 contexts—not only for the ways we traditionally have thought of “diversity” [race, SES] but also students from different countries, and/or who speak other languages, and/or who have a different religion. Future music teachers also need to understand how to teach students with a variety of levels of ability and need, as well as students who are gender or sexuality nonconforming. We, as the music teacher educators, must challenge ourselves to discover and create socially just models of music instruction. In the words of one respondent: “[Social justice is] …a multifaceted jewel worthy of and requiring individual and collective mindsets prioritizing policy and action—lived experiences—that promote the actualization of each person’s humanity.” Music education can be one way we approach this lofty goal.

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE References

38

Abril, C. R. (2009). Responding to culture in the instrumental programme: A teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s journey. Music Education Research, 11(1), 77-91.

Barber, B. R. (1997) Public schooling education for democracy. In J. I. Goodlad, & T. J. McMannon (Eds.), The Public Purpose of Education and Schooling. The Jossey-Bass Education Series (21-33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Barry, B. (2005). Why social justice matters. Polity.

Bell, L. A. (2007). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (Eds). Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 1-14 Berlan, E. D., Corliss, H. L., Field, A. E., Goodman, E., & Austin, S. B. (2010). Sexual orientation and bullying among adolescents in the growing up today study. Journal of Adolescent Health 46(4), 366-371. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.10.015 Bryan, A., Clarke, M., Drudy, S., Gallagher, T., & McEvoy, L. (2011). Social Justice Education in Initial Teacher Education: A Cross Border Perspective. School Leadership Policy And Practice North And South, 133.

Bowman, W., Ed. (2007). Special Issue: Theorizing social justice in music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 6(4). http://act.maydaygroup.org/php/archives_v6.php#6_4 Butler, A., Lind, V.R., & McKoy, C. L. (2007). Equity and access in music education: Conceptualizing culture as barriers to and supports for music learning. Music Education Research 9(2), 241-253. doi: 10.1080/14613800701384375 George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 11.0 update. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Carlow, R. (2006). Diva Irina: An English language learner in high school choir. Bulletin of

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE the Council for Research in Music Education, 170, 63–77.

39

Carrington, B., & McPhee, A. (2008). Boys' 'underachievement' and the feminization of teaching. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy 34(2), 109120. DOI: 10.1080/02607470801979558 Carter, B. A. (2013). “Nothing better or worse than being black, gay, and in the band” A qualitative examination of gay undergraduates participating in Historically Black College or University marching bands. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(1), 26-43.

Chubbuck, S. M. (2010). Individual and structural orientations in socially just teaching: Conceptualization, implementation, and collaborative effort. Journal of Teacher Education 61, 197-212. DOI: 10.1177/0022487109359777 Cochran-Smith, M., et al (2009). Good and just teaching: The case for social justice in teacher education. American Journal of Education. 115(3), 347-377.

Dunn, O. J. (1964). Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics, 6, 241-252.

Elpus, K., & 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.

Freeman, D. E. & Freeman, Y. S., (2001) Between worlds: Access to second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Finney, S. & Orr, J. (1995). I've learned a lot, but...: Cross-cultural understanding and teacher education in a racist society. Journal of Teacher Education, 46 (5), 327-358.

Fortuny, K., Hernandez, D. J., & Choudry, A. (2010). Young children of immigrants: The leading edge of America’s future. Brief 3. Urban Institute http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412203young-children.pdf

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 40 Foster, M. (1995). African American teachers and culturally relevant pedagogy. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 570–581). New York, NY: Macmillan.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 11.0 update. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gustafson, R. I. (2009). Race and Curriculum: Music in Childhood Education. New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

Hanley, M. S., Sheppard, G. L., Noblit, G. W., & Barone, T. (Eds.). (2013). Culturally relevant arts education for social justice: A way out of no way. Routledge.

HEADS (2014). NASM 2013-2014 HEADS data summaries. Reston, VA: Higher Education Arts Data Services.

Hoffman, A. R. (2011). Rethinking Religion in Music Education. Music Educators Journal, 97(4), 55-59.

Hoffman, E. C., III (2011). The status of students with special needs in the instrumental musical ensemble and the effect of selected educator and institutional variables on rates of inclusion (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Hollins, E., & Guzman, M. T. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. (pp. 477-548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hourigan, R. M. (2009). Preservice music teachers’ perceptions of fieldwork experiences in a special needs classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education 57(2), 152-168. doi: 10.1177/0022429409335880 Institute on Disability. (2013). Annual Disability Statistics Compendium. University of New

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 41 Hampshire. Retrieved 6/6/2014 from http://disabilitycompendium.org/compendiumstatistics/special-education Kelly-McHale, J. (2013). The influence of music teacher beliefs and practices on the expression of musical identity in an elementary general music classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(2), 195-216.

Kelly, S. N. (2003). The influence of selected cultural factors on the environmental teaching preference of undergraduate music education majors. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 12(2), 40-55. doi: 10.1177/10570837030120020106 Kindall-Smith, M., McKoy, C. L., & Mills, S. W. (2011). Challenging exclusionary paradigms in the traditional musical canon: Implications for music education practice. International Journal of Music Education, 29(4), 374-386 Koza, J. (2008). Listening for Whiteness: Hearing Racial Politics in Undergraduate School Music.

Philosophy of Music Education Review, 16(2), 10. doi: 10.2979/PME.2008.16.2.145 Lippy, C. H. (2009). Christian nation or pluralistic culture: Religion in American life. In Banks, J. A. & McGee, C. A., Eds: Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives. New York: Wiley. 109-114.

Linsenmeier, C. V. (2004). The impact of music teacher training on the rate and level of involvement of special education students in high school band and choir (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kent State University, Kent, OH. (AAT3159804) McKoy, C. (2013). Effects of selected demographic variables on music student teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; selfreported cross-cultural competence. Journal of Research in Music Education, 60(4), 375394.

McKoy, C. (2006). Pre-service music teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; cross-cultural awareness, exposures, and attitudes: A preliminary study. Southern Music Education Journal, 2(1), 78-94.

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 42 McGuire, J. K., Anderson, C. R., Toomey, R. B., & Russell, S. T. (2010). School climate for transgender youth: A mixed method investigation of student experiences and school responses.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence 39, 1175-1188. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-010-9540-7 National Association of Schools of Music. (2014). NASM Directory Lists. Accessed May 14, 2014 from http://nasm.arts-accredit.org/index.jsp?page=Directory_Lists Orfield, G., Kuscera, J., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2012). E Pluribus… separation: Deepening double segregation for more students. Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project UCLA. Retrieved 6/16/14 from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8g58m2v9 Pollack, M., Deckman, S., Mira, M., and Shalaby, C. (2010). "But what can I do?" Three necessary tensions in teaching teachers about race. Journal of Teacher Education 61. 211-216.

DOI: 10.1177/0022487109354089 Reay, D. (2010). 'Spice Girls', 'Nice Girls', "Girlies', and 'Tomboys': Gender discourses, girls' cultures, and femininities in the primary classroom. Gender and Education 13(2), 153-166.

DOI: 10.1080/09540250120051178 Salvador, K. & Allegood, K. (2014). Access to Music Education with Regard to Race in Two Urban Areas. Arts Education Policy Review. 115(3), 82-92.

DOI:10.1080/10632913.2014.914389 Salvador, K. K. (2010). Who isn’t a special learner? A survey of how music teacher education programs prepare future educators to work with exceptional populations. Journal of Music Teacher Education 20(1), 27-38. doi: 10.1177/1057083710362462 Shaw, J. (2012). The skin that we sing: Culturally responsive choral music education. Music Educators Journal, 98(4), 75-81.

Skelton, C., Carrington, B., Francis, B., Hutchings, M., Read, B., & Hall, I. (2009). Gender 'matters' in the primary classroom: pupils' and teachers' perspectives. British Educational

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE Research Journal 35(2), 187-204. DOI: 10.1080/01411920802041905

43

Sleeter, C. E. (1992). Keepers of the American Dream: A study of staff development and multicultural education. London: Palmer Press.

Snyder, T.D., and Dillow, S.A. (2012). Digest of Education Statistics 2011 (NCES 2012-001).

National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Standley, J. M. (2000). Increasing prospective music educators’ tolerance for student diversity.

Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 19(1), 27-32.

Thomas, D. R. (2003). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/soph/centres/hrmas/_docs/Inductive2003.pdf Villegas, A. M. (2007). Dispositions in teacher education: A look at social justice. Journal of Teacher Education 58, 370-382. DOI: 10.1177/0022487107308419 Whipple, J. & VanWeelden, K. (2012). Educational supports for students with special needs: Preservice music educators' perceptions. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 30(2), 32-45. DOI: 10.1177/8755123312436987 Williams, D. G., & Land, R. R. (2006). Special focus: The legitimation of Black subordination: The impact of color-blind ideology on African American education. The Journal of Negro Education, 75, 579–588.

MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL JUSTICE Appendix A

44

Insert Survey

Default Question Block

Dear Music Teacher Educator, We invite you to participate in this anonymous, voluntary survey regarding social justice in music teacher education. Some of the questions might be thought-provoking or broach uncomfortable topics.

We’d like you to view the survey as an opportunity to comment on issues we are beginning to more openly discuss within our profession. Please be ready to take notes. If you want to share something about a question, or say something that the survey constrains you from saying, please write it down. You will have an opportunity at the end of the survey to share these thoughts.

This survey should take approximately 10-20 minutes to complete. Clicking the button will be considered an indication of your consent to participate. If you have any questions, please contact the researchers: Jacki Kelly-McHale, PhD DePaul University jkellymc@depaul.edu Karen Salvador, PhD University of Michigan, Flint ksalvado@umflint.edu Note: For the purposes of this survey, “music teacher educator” describes a person in higher education who primarily teaches undergraduate music education majors, and/or who teaches music education coursework. This study focuses on full-time tenured and tenure track faculty.

The University of Michigan Flint Institutional Review Board has determined that this study is exempt from IRB oversight. If you have questions about your rights as a participant, please contact the UM Flint Institutional Review Board, 303 E Kearsley, 4204 William S White Bldg., Flint, MI 48502-1950, (810) 7623384, irb-flint@umflint.edu and reference: Music Teacher Educator Perspectives on Social Justice eResearch ID HUM00086003.

Block 2

The following questions are about you.

What is your gender?

Male Female Transgender

With which race / ethnic group do you place yourself?

American Indian / Native American Asian Black / African American Hispanic / Latino White / Caucasian Pacific Islander Mixed Race Not listed please describe below

How would you describe your socio-economic class growing up?

Lower third Middle third Upper third

What is the highest level of education that you have completed?

Bachelors Masters Doctorate

How many years of teaching experience do you have in pk-12 settings?

1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years 21+ No pk-12 teaching experience

Block 3

This set of questions is related to your university / college teaching experience.

How long have you been teaching music teacher candidates/ pre-service music educators (including previous positions and graduate school, if applicable)?

0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21+ years

Please list the undergraduate music education courses that you typically teach. Check all that apply: Introduction to Music Education Instrumental methods classes Choral methods classes General music methods classes Student teaching seminar and/or supervision Music curriculum and/or assessment classes Other music education courses not listed above

Please describe your current college or university setting. Choose ONE from each column: Rural

Public

Suburban

Private without affiliation

Urban

Religiously Affiliated

In what settings do your teacher candidates primarily student teach? Please choose ONE from each column: Rural

Public

Suburban

Private without affiliation

Urban

Religiously Affiliated

Approximately how many pre-service music education students are currently in your program?

1-20 21-50 51-100 100+

Do your music education majors have similar demographic characteristics to the populations in the public schools around your institution?

Yes No

Block 4

How do you define social justice?

The following statements are designed to explore how you feel about diversity and social justice issues in education. Please move the slider to the point on the continuum for each statement that reflects your level of disagreement/agreement.

You must move the slider in order for your response to register. If the statement reflects something that you have not previously thought about or considered please check the box at the end of the continuum. (Please note formatting below does not match the visual of the survey online) Strongly Disagree 1

2

Strongly Agree

Neutral 3

4

Not Applicable

5

Teachers should always create a learning environment that allows for alternative styles of learning.

Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds typically have the same educational opportunities as their middle and upper class peers.

I would prefer to have more time to explore and discuss music education as a subject than spend time on social justice issues.

Teacher education programs should encourage students to reflect on the ways in which they are advantaged and/or disadvantaged because of their class, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation etc.

Social inequalities, like those based on class, gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality etc. are inevitable.

I am confident in my ability to adapt teaching methods to the needs of learners from diverse backgrounds.

People can try to change things in society, but it will not work and things will not change.

My students already know how to deal with issues of gender and sexuality in the music classroom.

My role as a music teacher educator involves teaching about social injustices, but not necessarily trying to change these injustices.

Teachers should not be expected to adjust the way they teach to accommodate the needs of all children.

I am confident in my ability to teach issues related to social justice.

Teaching and learning about inequality in society has little to do with teaching music.

Issues of violence and poverty in low-income communities are mainly the result of problems like family structure, lack of education, drug use, etc.

The current curriculum offers pk-12 teachers sufficient opportunities to incorporate social justice into music classrooms.

It is none of my business if my students are gay It is a good idea to encourage English language learners to speak English, as opposed to their native language, in schools.

Schools and curricula should be altered so that they privilege the views of those who are most marginalized in society, like those from working class backgrounds, ethnic minorities etc...

A more equal world is possible.

Educational equity is a moral imperative.

Learning should always be enjoyable for students, regardless of the topic or subject being taught.

Teaching about social justice issues should, when necessary, make students feel uncomfortable about the views they hold about others and themselves.

What schools do has little effect on the quality of life of people in low- income communities.

Racism is an inevitable feature of society The presence of racial- ethnic minorities in the United States has caused problems in recent years.

Making societies better is the responsibility of pk-12 schools and universities.

People who engage in social activism usually hold extreme views about things.

Music teacher educators should strive to help their students to both understand social injustices and encourage them to transform society.

I intentionally recruit students from marginalized groups into our teacher education program.

Block 5 What are the current impediments to social justice in pk -12 music education settings?

Are you satisfied with your current coverage of this topic in your instruction of pre-service music educators?

Yes No

What, if anything, would you like to do that you are not currently doing with regard to issues of social justice?

What, if anything, do you think is your most effective means of communicating about social justice to your students?

What, if anything, is holding you back from doing more? (Check all that apply): Lack of time Lack of knowledge Lack of interest It is not my job to teach about social justice I am concerned about tenure Nothing is holding me back

If you would like to elaborate on your response to the previous question please use the space below.

Now we would like to ask you a few questions about your institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commitment, actions and efforts regarding the issue of social justice. Please move the slider to the point on the continuum for each statement that reflects ho you would rate your institutions efforts. You must move the slider in order for your response to register.

Very weak effort 1

Very strong effort 2

3

4

How would you rate your institution with regard to its stated commitment to social justice?

How would you rate your institution with regard to its actual efforts to serve students from a variety of backgrounds?

How would you rate your institution with regard to its actions in creating a more just world?

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey research. If you have any other comments or thoughts that you wish to share, feel free to do so below. Please remember that Qualtrics removes identifiers and your responses are anonymous:

5