Abstract
In this inquiry, we examine P–12 music administrators’ present and future role in the provision, regulation, funding, and improvement of music teacher professional development (PD). We asked: (1) How do P–12 music administrators’ shape PD policies and practices within their school systems? and (2) What might a robust and cohesive suite of PD policies overseen by P–12 music administrators encompass? Using explanatory sequential mixed methods, we first surveyed music administrators from across the United States (n = 54) and then examined in greater depth the situations of five administrators heterogeneously selected from among survey respondents. Integration of quantitative and qualitative data showed that though most music administrators in this study considered PD a formal job responsibility, they tended to manage only “bits and pieces” (in one participant’s words) of a multilayered PD system. We argue in this article that strong PD systems—where access to meaningful, practice-enhancing PD is routine, not exceptional—depend, at least in part, on P–12 music administrators embracing a broader and more proactive conception of their roles as PD policymakers and advocates. Using West and Bautista’s four domains of PD policy action, we propose a set of music administrator-led reforms to standards (ensuring high-quality PD), inducements (motivating genuine teacher engagement in PD), funding (equitable and ample resource support for PD), and accommodations (creating time and space for PD).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 The Music Teacher Profession Initiative was a NAFME task force convened in 2021 to examine barriers to building and maintaining a competent, diverse, and resilient U.S. music teacher workforce. The group issued its final report in June 2023: https://nafme.org/advocacy/music-teacher-profession-initiative/.
2 P–12 public schools in the U.S. are typically administered at the site (school) level by principals and at the system (district) level by superintendents. Working alongside principals and superintendents are a host of other administrators, including, at the school level, vice or assistant principals, guidance counselors, educational diagnosticians, psychologists, and social workers, among others, and at the system or district level, assistant superintendents, assessment coordinators, instructional coaches, curriculum writers, and budget directors, among others. Content specialists like music administrators are usually appointed at the system level, although some may simultaneously carry site-level teaching responsibilities (e.g., Cheyenne, a participant in this study, had a system-level appointment as lead strings teacher in addition to her site-level teaching role as a high school orchestra director).
3 The title “music administrator” encompasses individuals whose positions may be broader (e.g., fine arts director) or narrower in scope (e.g., choral music coordinator). Such individuals are music administrators for our purposes even if they also oversee instruction in other arts disciplines or, alternatively, if their mandates include only a subdiscipline within music.
4 Eastern (CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, DC), North Central (IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, NE, ND, OH, SD, WI), Northwest (AK, ID, MT, OR, WA, WY), Southern (AL, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV), Southwestern (AR, CO, KS, MO, NM, OK, TX), Western (AZ, CA, HI, NV, UT)
5 The fourth domain in West and Bautista (Citation2021) is “noneconomic support.” We opt for the more descriptive term “accommodations” in this paper.
7 See “An International View of Policy and Music Teacher Professional Development,” a recent special issue of Arts Education Policy Review (Stanley, Citation2021). See also “Global Perspectives on Teacher Professional Development: Navigating the Pandemic,” a special issue of the International Journal for Research in Education (West & Bautista, Citation2022).