Influences on Collegiate Students’ Decision To Become a Music Educator

*In 1934, we became Music Educators National Conference (MENC). In 1998, the name changed to MENC: The National Association for Music Education. On September 1, 2011, we became simply National Association for Music Education. Any mention of MENC is this article should now be regarded as NAfME.

Martin J. Bergee, Principal Author; University of Missouri—Columbia

Don D. Coffman; University of Iowa

Steven M. Demorest; University of Washington

Jere T. Humphreys; Arizona State University

Linda P. Thornton; State University of New York at Fredonia

SUMMARY

School music faces an impending teacher shortage. Thus, the recruitment and retention of music teachers soon will become of paramount importance. In response, the National Executive Board (NEB) of MENC: The National Association for Music Education has placed teacher recruitment and retention at the top of its slate of research priorities. At the request of the Music Education Research Council of MENC, we have collected data on those persons, experiences, events, additional factors, and organizations most critical to the decision to teach music.

From the NEB’s overarching question “What are the critical times, events, experiences, and persons that influence young persons’ decision to become a music educator?”, we developed the following sets of more specific questions. We targeted the questions to college-aged students as operationally-defined “young persons” whose decision-making processes presumably are fresh in their minds.

Who has influenced, and who has most influenced, collegiate students’ decision to become a music educator?
Which experiences have influenced, and which have most influenced, collegiate students’ decision to become a music educator?
Which events have influenced, and which have most influenced, collegiate students’ decision to become a music educator?
Which additional factors have influenced, and which have most influenced, collegiate students’ decision to become a music educator?
To what extent were collegiate students during their high school years given the opportunity to conduct, rehearse, teach classes, or mentor/give private lessons to peers or younger students? To what extent did these teaching opportunities influence their decision to become a music educator?
Are collegiate students familiar with Tri-M? Were they members? To what extent did Tri-M membership influence their decision to become a music educator?
To what extent has collegiate students’ Collegiate MENC chapter been a factor in their decision to remain in music education? Which CMENC activities have been of influence?
Have collegiate students attended state or national music educators’ conventions? To what extent have these conventions influenced their decision to remain in music education?

From these questions, we developed and piloted a survey instrument (see Appendix A) intended for collegiate students pursuing a degree or certification in music teaching. Upon obtaining mailing labels for the 13,860 current Collegiate MENC members, 1,537 labels were chosen using a linear systematic selection technique. These 1,537 CMENC members were mailed a copy of the survey, along with a cover letter and business return envelope. A total of 72 envelopes were returned as undeliverable. Of the remaining 1,465, 439 surveys were returned (a 30% return rate), of which 431 were usable. Of the respondents, 30% were male and 70% female. In response to an item asking respondents for their primary area, 55% indicated instrumental only, 31% vocal only, and 11% both vocal and instrumental. (Because some did not respond to every item, percentages may not total to 100). Respondents were overwhelmingly (88%) white.

Most respondents made the decision to become a music teacher while in high school. About 14% made the decision earlier (elementary, middle, or junior high years), and over 20% made the decision while in college. High school music teachers, parents/guardians, and private instructors were the most influential individuals. Elementary music teachers and higher education music faculty members also were frequently indicated.

The most influential experiences and events proved to be school ensemble experiences, honors ensembles, and contest/festival solo and small ensemble events. Less frequently but still often indicated were church and community ensembles, higher education events, and competitions.

Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they were given opportunities to teach while high school students and to indicate the extent to which these teaching opportunities influenced their decision. Half of the respondents (49%) indicated either “no opportunities” or “yes, but not often”. Of the remaining, 24% indicated “yes, sometimes”, 15% “yes, regularly”, and 12% “yes, often”. Of those given opportunities to teach, over half (57%) indicated either a “significant” or “very strong” influence. Of the remaining, 5% indicated “no” influence, 13% a “slight” influence, and 30% “some” influence.

Overwhelmingly (by 98%), respondents chose “love of music” as the most influential other factor. Other strongly indicated other factors were “desire to work with people” (by 73%) and “felt called to teach” (by 68%). Also frequently indicated was “desire to conduct/perform/attain visibility” (by 53%). Remunerative and other benefits (e.g., salary, summer vacation, etc.) were infrequently chosen.

Respondents were asked to indicate the influence of Tri-M Music Honor Society and CMENC on their decision. Tri-M was not a factor. Only 25% of respondents were familiar with the organization, and only 5% were members. Of the 23 individuals indicating membership, only three indicated Tri-M as a “significant” or “strong” influence. Responses to CMENC were mixed. About half the respondents (54%) indicated either “no” or a “small” factor”, whereas the other half (44%) indicated CMENC as “strong”, “significant”, or “somewhat of a factor.” The two most frequently indicated CMENC activities were the bringing in of local music educators or graduate students/professors as special speakers.

Lastly, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which convention attendance had influenced their decision. Responses were very positive. Over two-thirds of the respondents (68%) attended at least one convention. Most of the respondents indicated that conventions either were “somewhat of a” factor (22%), a “significant” factor (22%), or a “very strong” factor (11%).

The report closes with discussion of the outcomes and recommendations. Tables and graphs detailing outcomes are located in a supplement.

Influences on Collegiate Students’ Decision to Become a Music Educator

Newspapers and education periodicals routinely report on a shortage or impending shortage of teachers. Education Week, for example, contained a total of 72 articles on this topic over a fifteen-month period (e.g., “Gov. Bush Aims to Keep Teachers”, 3/14/01; “For Sale: Affordable Housing for Teachers”, 3/7/01; “Reports in Three States Urge Policies to Boost Teacher Supply, Quality”, 1/10/01; “Districts Wooing Teachers with Bonuses , Incentives”, 8/2/00). Reasons given for the shortage include impending retirements, changing demographics, a robust economy, comparatively low salary and professional status associated with teaching, and others.

School music is experiencing signs of a corresponding teacher shortage. Recent music education literature abounds articles dealing with this shortage and its impact on the profession (e.g., Asmus, 1999; Bennett, 2000; Gifford, 2000; Kimball, 2000; Krueger, 2000). MENC: The National Association for Music Education has responded by, among other things, developing advocacy materials addressing the recruitment and retention of music teachers (e.g., MENC, 2000). Recruitment and retention seems to be a special concern of the current MENC president (e.g., “New MENC Prez Focuses on Teacher Retention, Music for All”, 2000; Clayton, 2001).

The National Executive Board (NEB) of MENC has placed music teacher recruitment and retention at the top of its list of eight research priorities. Reflecting the strength of the NEB’s concern, teacher recruitment and retention has been placed ahead of such important issues as teacher attrition, evaluating student learning, availability of music instruction for young children, and use of technology in music instruction.

This report is an outgrowth of the NEB’s concern. At its request, we have collected data on those influences critical to collegiate music educators’ decision to pursue music teaching as a career. We have focused data collection on identifying the critical persons, experiences, events, additional factors, and organizations influencing collegiate music educators’ decision to teach music. Such data may help the profession to develop an effective plan for the recruiting and retaining of music teachers.

Method

Development of Survey Instrument

Using the NEB’s overarching question “What are the critical times, events, experiences, and persons that influence young persons’ decision to become a music educator?” as a guide, we developed sets of more specific questions. We developed these sets of questions after consulting with music education graduate and undergraduate students, practicing music educators, and university faculty members in music education. We thought that collegiate students majoring in music education might represent a group whose decision-making processes are still fresh in their minds; thus, we formulated our questions with them in mind. These questions are as follows:

Who has influenced, and who has most influenced, collegiate students’ decision to become a music educator?
Which experiences have influenced, and which have most influenced, collegiate students’ decision to become a music educator?
Which events have influenced, and which have most influenced, collegiate students’ decision to become a music educator?
Which additional factors have influenced, and which have most influenced, collegiate students’ decision to become a music educator?
To what extent were collegiate students during their high school years given the opportunity to conduct, rehearse, teach classes, or mentor/give private lessons to peers or younger students? To what extent did these teaching opportunities influence their decision to become a music educator?
Are collegiate students familiar with Tri-M? Were they members? To what extent did Tri-M membership influence their decision to become a music educator?
To what extent has collegiate students’ Collegiate MENC chapter been a factor in their decision to remain in music education? Which CMENC activities have been of influence?
Have collegiate students attended state or national music educators’ conventions? To what extent have these conventions influenced their decision to remain in music education?

From these questions, we developed a survey and piloted it with 25 undergraduate music education students at the University of Missouri—Columbia. Based on feedback from these students, some minor changes were made in the form. The final form of the survey is attached as Appendix A. It contains items asking respondents to choose from among a number of options or response categories, and on occasion it requests anecdotal comments.

Survey Respondents

As it was our goal to collect data on a national scale, the principal author contacted officials of MENC and requested a set of mailing labels for all current Collegiate MENC (CMENC) members. CMENC members represent a large, national corpus of students, almost all of whom are pursuing a degree in music education or taking courses toward certification to teach music. MENC officials honored our request and sent us mailing labels for the 13,860 current CMENC members.

Funds dedicated to this project allowed for mailing a survey form to one-ninth of the total membership of CMENC. Therefore, we used a linear systematic selection technique involving the random choice of a number between one and nine (in this case, one) and then selecting every ninth label beginning with the first. The labels were sent in zip code order; thus, any systematic bias in the order was highly unlikely.

Ultimately, 1,537 forms were mailed. Table 1 (all tables and figures are in Supplementary Tables and Figures, located at the end of the report) presents a breakdown of survey recipients by their MENC division. Rather than ask recipients to indicate their MENC division—something they may not have known—we color-coded forms by the six MENC divisions.

Each of the selected survey respondents was mailed a copy of the survey, a cover letter explaining the project, and a No. 9 business reply envelope. The cover letter provided explanations and instructions. It further specified that all responses were confidential and asked recipients not to place their name or the name of their institution on the form. It stated that there would be no follow-up requests for responses and strongly encouraged recipients to complete and return the survey.

A total of 72 envelopes (4.7%) were returned by the postal service as undeliverable (Table 1, third column). Presumably, most of the remainder reached recipients’ mailing addresses. At the date established for beginning the data analysis, we had received a total of 439 completed surveys, of which we were able to use all but eight. Those eight respondents indicated that they were not pursuing a music education degree or certification to teach music. Including the eight non-majors, returns represented 30% of the initial mailing not returned by the postal service. The remaining 431 forms were used for data analysis (see Table 1, fourth column, for breakdown by division). Return percentages by division were more or less proportional to initial mailing percentages (Table 1, columns six and seven).

Demographic Profile of Respondents

Of the 431 respondents, 130 (30.2%) were male and 297 (68.9%) female. Four (.9%) did not indicate a gender. A total of 73 (16.9%) indicated that they were freshman/first year students, 86 (20%) indicated sophomore/second year, 103 (23.9%) junior/third year, 93 (21.6%) senior/fourth year, and 39 (9%) senior/fifth or fifth-plus year. An additional 27 (6.3%) indicated graduate student, and 7 (1.6%) were pursuing certification only. Three did not respond to this item. (See Figure 1 for a graphic representation of respondents’ year in school.)

With regard to primary area, 238 (55.2%) responded Instrumental, 133 (30.9%) Vocal, and 47 (10.9%) Instrumental and Vocal. Thirteen did not respond. Respondents also were asked to indicate their racial/ethnic classification. A total of 7 (1.6%) indicated African American, 9 (2.1%) Asian American, 9 (2.1%) Hispanic/Latino, 3 (.7%) Native American, 378 (87.7%) White, and 7 (1.6%) “Other”. A total of 18 (4.2%) did not respond (see Figure 2 for graphic illustration).

Respondents did not indicate their MENC division. As mentioned above, respondents were sent the forms on paper color-keyed to their divisions. Of the respondents, 99 (23%) hailed from the Eastern division, 79 (18.3%) from the Southern division, 149 (34.6%) from the North Central division, 67 (15.5%) from the Southwestern division, 22 (5.1%) from the Western division, and 15 (3.5%) from the Northwest division (see Table 1).

Outcomes

Item 1: When Decision Was Made

Responses to this item (Appendix A Item 1) more or less normally distributed themselves around the junior year in high school (see Figure 3). Of the respondents, 15 (3.5%) indicated that they made their decision in their elementary school years, 46 (10.7%) in their middle school/junior high years, 36 (8.4%) in the ninth grade/freshman year of high school, 55 (12.8%) in the sophomore year, 91 (21.1%) in the junior year, 83 (19.3%) the senior year, 44 (10.2%) the first year of college, 28 (6.5%) in the second year, 8 (1.9%) the third year, and 17 (3.9%) in the fourth or beyond year. An additional 7 (1.6%) indicated that they didn’t know or weren’t sure, and one (.2%) did not respond.

Item 2: Influential Persons

Respondents were asked to indicate those individuals most influential in their decision (see Appendix A Item 2). They were asked to choose as many from the available options (which included “other”) as applied; percentages thus total to more than 100. Table 2 presents respondents’ choices. Reporting in Table 2 order, a total of 225 (52.4% of all respondents) chose parents/guardian(s), 40 (9.3% of all) chose siblings, 49 (11.4% of all) chose other relatives (a variety was identified, usually grandparents, aunts, or uncles). Eighty-one (18.9% of all) of the respondents indicated their elementary general music teacher (in virtually equal numbers by “instrumental only” and “vocal only”, 37 to 33), 73 (17% of all) their middle school band director (if different from their high school band director), 65 (15.2% of all) their middle school choral director (if different, etc.) , 16 (3.7% of all) their middle school orchestra director, 235 (54.8% of all) their high school band director, 178 (41.5% of all) their high school choral director, and 54 (12.6% of all) their high school orchestra director.

In addition, 71 respondents (16.6% of all) selected other teachers, 20 (4.7% of all) a guidance counselor, 245 (57.1% of all) their private instructor, 116 (27% of all) peers/friends, 34 (7.9% of all) a significant other/boyfriend/girlfriend, 54 (12.6% of all) community musicians, 137 (31.9% of all) music faculty members in higher education, 66 (15.4% of all) college music major acquaintances, and 68 (13.3% of all) professional musicians. A total of 68 (15.9% of all) chose “other”, often specifying a minister or music minister. Two respondents did not select any of the options.

Most Influential Person

In addition to choosing all appropriate persons, respondents also indicated those individuals who most influenced their decision. Respondents were asked to place a 1, 2, and 3 next to the individuals who were most, second most, and third most influential respectively. Figure 4 and Tables 3 and 4 report outcomes for most influential person. As this item exhibited statistically significant differences by primary area¹, Table 4 reports cross-tabulated responses, and Figure 4 stacks responses by primary area. As the tables and figures corroborate, respondents’ high school music teachers were the most influential persons. Wind and percussion instrumentalists tended to choose their band director, stringed instrumentalists their orchestra director, and vocalists their choral director. Some “crossover” is in evidence, however. In additional, parent(s)/guardian(s) were frequently choice (54; 12.5%), as was respondents’ private music teacher (44; 10.2%). Others chosen by a substantial number of respondents (more than 30) were higher education music professors (33; 7.7%—especially prevalent among those who made the decision during their college years) and “other” (36; 8.4%), encompassing a wide variety of individuals. Nine respondents (2.1%) did not make a choice.

Second Most Influential Person

As this item also exhibited a statistically significant difference by primary area², tables reporting both combined responses (Table 5) and cross-tabulations (Table 6) are included. Figure 5 graphs outcomes stacked by primary area. Respondents indicated their private music instructors most often (86; 20%), followed by parent(s)/guardian(s) (60; 13.9%), high school band director (58; 13.5%), high school choral director (56; 13%), and higher education music professors (24; 5.6%). Ten respondents (2.3%) chose “other”, and an additional 18 (4.2%) did not make a choice. The remaining options were infrequently chosen.

Third Most Influential Person

Also showing statistically significant differences by primary area³, this item does not show a clear pattern distinguishable from most influential and second most influential choices. Table 7 reports combined data, while Table 8 cross-tabulates by primary area and Figure 6 graphs outcomes stacked by primary area.

The most frequently chosen response was parent(s)/guardian(s) (58; 13.5%), followed by private music teacher (46; 10.7%) and “none indicated” (45; 10.4%). Occasionally selected were peers/friends (38; 8.8%), high school band director (37; 8.6%), music professors in higher education (34; 7.9%), and high school choral director (33; 7.7%). Other options were infrequently indicated.

Item 3: Influential Experiences and Events

Influential Experiences

Respondents were then asked to identify those experiences and events most influential in their decision-making. With regard to most influential experiences, respondents selected from a number of options (Appendix A Item 3a) and selected as many as applied. Table 9 reports respondents’ choices. A total of 273 (63.9% of all respondents—percentages total to more than 100) chose their school band experience, 230 (53.9% of all) school choir, and 71 (16.6% of all) school orchestra. One hundred seventy-seven (41.5% of all) chose the honors instrumental ensemble experience, 134 (31.4% of all) the honors choral ensemble experience, and 28 (6.6% of all) the honors string ensemble experience.

Over one-third of the respondents (154; 36.1%) identified church ensembles, and almost one-quarter (100; 23.4%) community ensembles (e.g., community band, regional youth orchestra, etc.). About a third (32.6%) of the respondents chose “other”, specifying a wide range of experiences. Four did not respond to this item.

Most Influential Experience

In addition to indicating all influential experiences, respondents identified which experience was most influential. Table 10 reports outcomes. As this item showed statistically significant differences by primary area⁴, Table 11 cross-tabulates by primary area, and Figure 7 graphs outcomes stacked by primary area.

Selected most often was school band (143; 33.2%), followed by school choir (72; 16.7%) and “other” (68; 15.8%—a wide variety of experiences were specified). Selected less often were honors instrumental ensemble (40; 9.3%), church ensemble (21; 4.9%), school orchestra (19; 4.4%), community ensemble (15; 3.5%), and honors string ensemble (5; 1.2%). Sixteen respondents (3.7%) did not indicate a most influential experience. Instrumentalists tended to favor instrumental experiences, while vocalists tended to favor choral experiences (see Figure 7).

Second Most Influential Experience

Respondents also indicated their second most influential experience. Outcomes were similar to outcomes for most influential experience, except that honors ensembles become more prevalent (see Table 12). This item, too, resulted in statistically significant differences by primary area⁵; thus, Table 13 reports by cross-tabulation, and the graph illustrating responses (Figure 8) is stacked by primary area.

Chosen most often were honors instrumental ensemble (75; 17.4%), school choir (75; 17.4%), school band (69; 16%), and honors choral ensemble (44; 10.2%). Additionally, 34 respondents (7.9%) selected church ensemble, 27 (6.3%) community ensemble, 15 (3.5%) school orchestra, and 12 (2.8%) honors string ensemble. Thirty-nine (9%) selected “other”, specifying a variety of experiences. An additional 41 (9.5%) did not respond. As Figure 8 illustrates, instrumentalists tended to favor instrumental experiences, while vocalists tended to favor choral experiences.

Third Most Influential Experience

As “none indicated” was the most frequently chosen option (by one-third of the respondents), and given that an additional 23 (5.3%) identified a wide variety of “other” experiences, this category did not seem to yield meaningful new information. Table 14 shows outcomes, and Figure 9 illustrates data stacked by primary area, as differences were statistically significant⁶.

Besides “none indicated” and “other”, respondents occasionally selected church ensemble (61; 14.2%), school choir (50; 11.6%), school band (43; 10%), and honors instrumental ensemble (31; 7.2%). Infrequently chosen were community ensemble (29; 6.7%), honors choral ensemble (26; 6%), school orchestra (20; 4.6%), and honors string ensemble (8; 1.9%).

Influential Events

Identifying those events that most influenced their decision, respondents chose from among a number of options, checking as many as applied (see Appendix A, Item 3b). Table 15 reports outcomes. The most frequently chosen event was participation in solo/small ensemble festival events (281; 68.5% of all respondents—percentages total to more than 100), followed by participation in All-State and/or All-District ensembles (243; 59.3% of all) and participation in music camps (178; 43.4% of all). Respondents also chose (in descending order) higher education events (128; 31.2% of all), competitions (126; 30.7% of all), performances at conventions (105; 25.6% of all), television programs or films (64; 15.6% of all), and “other” (73; 17.8% of all). Twenty-one (4.9% of all) did not respond to this item.

Most Influential Event

In addition to indicating all influential events, respondents were asked to identify their most influential, second most influential, and third most influential event. Table 16 and Figure 10 display outcomes for most influential event. Most frequently chosen was participation in All-District/All-State ensembles (102; 23.7%), followed by contest/festival solo and ensemble events (89; 20.6%). Sixty-one respondents (14.2%) chose music camps, 33 (7.7%) competitions, 23 (5.3%) higher education events, 20 (4.6%) convention performances, and 14 (3.2%) television/film programs. An additional 40 (9.3%) indicated “other”, writing in a wide variety of experiences. Forty-nine (11.4%) did not respond to this item.

Second Most Influential Event

Almost a quarter of the respondents (103; 23.9%) did not indicate a second most influential event. Of those who did, 85 (19.7%) indicated contest/festival solo/small ensemble events, 74 (17.2%) All-District/All-State events, 46 (10.7%) music camps, and 43 (10%) higher education events. Less frequently indicated were convention performances (27; 6.3%), competitions (24; 5.6%), “other” (18; 4.2%), and television programs/films (11; 2.6%). Table 17 and Figure 11 display outcomes.

Third Most Influential Event

Almost half of the respondents (181; 42%) did not indicate a third most influential event. Of those who did, the most frequently chosen option was contest/festival solo/small ensemble events (58; 13.5%). The remaining options were in single-digit percentages. Table 18 and Figure 12 display outcomes.

Item 4: Teaching—Opportunities and Influences

Opportunities to Teach

Next, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they were given opportunities as high school students to conduct, rehearse, teach classes, or mentor/give private lessons to peers or younger students. Respondents chose from among five options in a Likert-type format (Appendix A Item 4a). Two (.5%) did not respond to this item. Of the remaining, 96 (22.4%) indicated “No opportunities”, 116 (27%) “Yes, but not often”, 102 (23.8%) “Yes, sometimes”, 63 (14.7%) “Yes, regularly”, and 52 (12.1%) “Yes, often”. Table 19 and Figure 13 report these data.

Extent to Which Teaching Opportunities Influenced Decision

Respondents who indicated “yes” to being given opportunities to teach were then asked to indicate the extent to which these teaching opportunities influenced their decision. Respondents chose from among five options in a Likert-type format (Appendix A Item 4b). Ninety-nine (23%) did not respond to this item, in correspondence to the number who indicated “no opportunities” to teach.

Of those who did respond, 15 (4.5%) indicated “no influence”, 43 (13%) a “slight influence”, 87 (26.2%) “some influence”, 100 (30.1%) a “significant influence”, and 87 (26.2%) a “very strong influence”. Table 20 and Figure 14 display these outcomes. Perusal of the two graphs dealing with teaching (Figures 13 and 14) suggests that teaching influenced respondents’ decision disproportionately to the number of opportunities allowed. Furthermore, the relationship between the two sets of responses was statistically significant and positive, suggesting that the more opportunities respondents were afforded, the stronger the influence on their decision.⁷

Item 5: Other Influential Factors

Other Influential Factors

Respondents then were asked to identify other factors that influenced their decision. They selected as many as applied (Appendix A Item 5). Table 21 reports outcomes. Overwhelmingly, respondents chose “love of music” (420; 98.4% of all respondents—percentages total to more than 100). Other strongly indicated factors were “desire to work with people” (311; 72.8% of all) and “felt called to teach” (290; 67.9% of all). Over half of the respondents (227; 53.2% of all) chose “desire to conduct/perform/attain visibility”.

In addition, 94 (22% of all) respondents indicated “summer vacation”, 87 (20.4% of all) indicated “was awarded a scholarship”, 50 (11.7% of all) “teachers’ benefits”, and 22 (5.2% of all) “anticipated salary”. Sixty-three (14.8% of all) chose “other”, specifying a wide range of factors (frequently “love of children”), and four did not respond.

Most Influential Other Factor

Respondents also indicated their most influential, second most influential, and third most influential other factors. Outcomes for most influential other factor are found in Table 22 and Figure 15. The most frequently chosen most influential other factor (by 252, 58.5%) was “love of music”. An additional 80 (18.6%) chose “felt called to teach”. Fewer than 10% of respondents chose the other available options; 42 (9.7%) “desire to work with people”, 22 (5.1%) “other”, 15 (3.5%) “desire to conduct/perform/attain visibility”, and 2 (.5%) “teachers’ benefits”. Other options were not selected. Eighteen (4.2%) did not respond.

Second Most Influential Other Factor

Table 23 and Figure 16 report outcomes for second most influential factor. Most frequently selecte d was “love of music” (125; 29%), followed by “felt called to teach” (92; 21.3%), “desire to work with people” (91, 21.1%), and “desire to conduct/perform/attain visibility” (66; 15.3%). Other factors were chosen infrequently; nine (2.1%) selected “awarded a scholarship”, three (.7%) “anticipated salary”, two (.5%) “summer vacation”, and two (.5%) “teachers’ benefits”. Eighteen (4.2%) selected “other”, and 23 (5.3%) did not respond.

Third Most Influential Other Factor

Table 24 reports pooled outcomes. As these outcomes were statistically significant by gender⁸, Table 25 reports a cross-tabulation of outcomes, and Figure 17 stacks data by gender. Most frequently chosen was “desire to work with people” (122; 28.3%), followed by “desire to conduct/perform/attain visibility” (82; 19%), and “felt called to teach” (79; 18.3%). Chosen by fewer than 10% of respondents were “love of music” (27; 6.3%), “summer vacation” (26; 6%), “awarded a scholarship” (17; 3.9%), “anticipated salary” (6; 1.4%), and “teachers’ benefits” (4; .9%). Twelve (2.8%) indicated “other”, and 56 (13%) did not respond. The main source of the statistically significant difference seemed to be “desire to conduct/perform/attain visibility”. All respondents were 68.9% female and 30.2% male, whereas choices for this item were 53% female and 47% male (43 to 38).

Item 6: Influence of Tri-M Music Honor Society

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they were familiar with Tri-M and if they were members (Appendix A Item 6). A total of 108 (25.1%) of the respondents indicated that they were familiar with Tri-M, while 321 (74.5%) indicated that they were not. Two (.5%) did not respond. Of the 431 respondents, 23 (5.3%) indicated membership in Tri-M, while the other 94.7% either indicted that they were not members (124; 28.8%) or did not respond (284, 65.9%) as per instructions (see Appendix A, Item 6a).

Influence of Tri-M on Decision

As per survey instructions (Items 6a and 6b), the great majority (408; 94.7%) did not respond to this item (6c). (Respondents were asked to skip 6c if they answered “no” to 6a or 6b.) Respondents answering 6a or 6b in the affirmative chose from among five options in a Likert-type format. Of these respondents (the 23 who indicated membership in Tri-M), 12 (2.8% of all respondents) indicated “not an influence”, five (1.2% of all) “a small influence”, three (.7% of all) “somewhat of an influence”, one (.2% of all) “a significant influence”, and 2 (.5% of all) “a strong influence”. Figure 18 graphs data (for the 23 Tri-M members only).

Item 7: Influences of CMENC and CMENC Activities on Decision

Influence of CMENC on Decision

For Item 7a (Appendix A), respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which their collegiate MENC chapter had been a factor in their decision to remain in music education. Respondents chose from among five options in a Likert-type format. A total of 136 (31.6%) of the respondents indicated “not a factor”, 99 (23%) a “small factor”, 104 (24.1%) “somewhat of a factor”, 53 (12.3%) a “significant factor”, and 31 (7.2%) a “very strong factor”. Eight (1.9%) did not respond. Figure 19 graphs outcomes.

CMENC Activities Influencing Decision

Those who responded in the affirmative to 7a (extent to which CMENC influenced decision) were asked to identify CMENC activities positively influencing their continuing to pursue a music education degree. Several choices were offered to respondents, who indicated as many as applied (7b). The two most frequently chosen were “special speaker—local music educator” (by 157; 24.2% of all who responded to this item—percentages total to more than 100) and “special speaker—graduate student or professor” (by 142; 21.8% of all who responded). Some (104; 16% of all) chose “other”, often specifying the opportunity to attend a music educators convention

Other choices in descending order were “special speaker – performing musician” (77; 11.8%), “panel/roundtable discussions” (64; 9.8%), “seminar on music education research topic” (58; 8.9%), and “community service project” (48; 7.4%). One hundred fifty-seven did not respond, presumably including the 136 who indicated “not a factor” to the preceding item (7a, influence of CMENC on decision). Table 26 displays outcomes.

Item 8: Attendance at Music Educators Conventions and Extent of Influence on Decision

Lastly, respondents were asked whether they had attended one or more state or national music educators conventions (Appendix A Item 8a Part 1), how many they had attended (8a Part 2), and the extent to which the conventions were a factor in their continuing to pursue a degree in music education (8b). Of the 431 respondents, 68.4% (295) indicated that they had attended at least one conference, and 31.1% (134) that they had not. Two (.5%) did not respond. The “if so, how many?” prompt generated responses ranging from one to “10+”.

Concerning the extent to which the conventions influenced their decision to remain in the major, individuals who responded in the affirmative to Item 8a responded to a Likert-type, 5-option scale ranging from “not a factor” to “a very strong factor” (8b). A total of 4.6% of the respondents indicated “not a factor”, 45 (10.4%) a “small factor”, 100 (23.2%) “somewhat of a factor”, 93 (21.6%) a “significant factor”, and 47 (10.9%) a “very strong factor”. Corresponding to the 134 indicating “no” to Item 8a (attendance at conventions), 126 (29.2%) did not respond to this item. Table 27 and Figure 20 display outcomes for Item 8b.

Discussion and Recommendations

These findings may have some limitations for generalization. Even though return percentages by division corresponded to percentages in the initial mailing, the 431 respondents may or may not adequately represent all 13,860 CMENC members. CMENC members’ backgrounds, values, and experiences may not reflect collegiate music educators’ as a whole. Respondents’ gender ratio of two to one (female to male) is interesting; it may or may not represent the gender ratio of all CMENC members. On the other hand, the data were collected thoroughly and systematically and thus should provide a reliable foundation on which recommendations may be made.

Demographic Profile

A need for more ethnic minority representation. If the ethnic profile for this sample indeed represents the ethnic profile of all collegiate music educators, then we must initiate intensive recruitment into music teaching of ethnic minorities and members of historically underrepresented groups. This recruiting process might begin by examining enrollment patterns in middle and high school music courses. Addressing such issues as costs of participation and the difficulty of continuing in music and other elective areas might bring a more diverse constituency into music programs. Teamed with greater effort on the part of higher education institutions and MENC to recruit and retain minority students, a more diverse group ultimately may become interested in teaching music.

When Decision Was Made

Not only a high schooler’s decision. Although the majority (62%) of respondents indicated that their decision to become a music teacher was made in high school, almost one-quarter made their decision while in college, and an additional 14% as early as their elementary years. Recruitment should not be seen as the sole responsibility of high school music teachers. Elementary music teachers, for example, should recognize their potential for influence. According to one respondent, “. . .my elementary tea cher was such a strong influence that I never lost sight of my original goal.” Higher education music faculty also influence students’ decision-making, especially in the college years. A respondent who made the decision her freshmen year wrote, “These people, my theory teacher, choir director, and piano instructor, have been my driving force and my inspiration.”

Later years of college as a potential recruitment point. Although not a large number, several respondents pointed to the final undergraduate year as their time of decision. An opportunity for gainful employment, school music teaching may attract some students about to complete a BM or BA degree in music. Higher education and state department of education requirements, however, tend to inhibit college graduates from pursuing initial certification to teach music. A future music teacher aspiring to certification often must plan on a minimum of a year and a half to two years of additional course work. Perhaps MENC, higher education institutions, NASM, and state departments of education, working together, can explore creative avenues to certification. These avenues, however, must not compromise the quality and effectiveness of beginning teachers. In the interim, music education faculty members and CMENC chapters might consider sessions and materials that share information about certification to teach music.

Influential Persons

Not surprisingly, high school ensemble directors and parents were indicated as highly influential. The total picture, however, is more complex. For example, the influence of private music teachers was quite high, as was the influence ascribed to professional musicians. Higher education music faculty members were most influential to those making the decision in the collegiate years.

Recommendations involving high school music teachers. According to one respondent, “The music educator at my former high school was a remarkable person and helped me and many others to develop a true love and appreciation of music.” High school music teachers need to be aware of the influence they have on their students’ decision-making. High school teachers should discuss with promising students and their parents/guardians the advantages of considering music teaching for a career. Articles in professional journals (e.g., Music Educators Journal, Teaching Music, The Instrumentalist, ACDA Journal, etc.), recommending ways to speak with young people about considering music teaching as a career may be effective.

Recommendations involving parents. Over half (52%) of the respondents cited parents/guardians as influential, with 12.5% of the respondents indicating parents/guardians as the most influential person or persons. Parents or guardians are intimately involved in the daily lives of successful music students, facilitating private instruction, purchasing instruments, music, and supplies, and attending musical events. Materials targeted to parents or guardians might greatly enhance teacher recruitment. Parents might be located at honors musical events and information made available to them. (For example, family members purchased most of the 1,600 tickets for the 2000 All-State concerts in New York.) These materials could focus on parents’/guardians’ career choice concerns for their son or daughter—salaries, likelihood for employment, quality of life (vacations, retirement benefits, etc.), and so forth. Materials made available at local concert events or at solo/small ensemble festivals also might reach a large number of parents or guardians.

Recommendations involving private instructors, professional musicians, and community ensembles. The strength of private instructors’ influence is not surprising. Instructor-student interaction is intense; outside of private music instruction, students rarely encounter teachers in such intimate, focused, personalized environments. Many, perhaps most, relationships are built over a period of years, leading to strong bonds of trust and friendship. Respondents’ indications of the influence of “professional musicians” interacts with private instructors’ influence, as they are often the same person. In addition, almost one-third of the respondents (32%) indicated community musicians as influential. We recommend that MENC explore establishing relationships with other organizations similar to its relationship with the Music Industry Council. Such organizations might include the AF of M, MTNA and its state-level affiliates, and organizations dedicated to the development and sustenance of community ensembles.

Recommendations involving higher education faculty. About 20% of the respondents cited a higher education faculty member as influential. (This also interacts with private instruction, as many private teachers are faculty members.) In addition to private instruction and recruitment activity, music faculty interact with secondary schools students at honors ensemble events, higher education events, summer music camps (43% of respondents indicated camps as an influential experience), and conventions.

We should not assume that college music faculty are aware of the present need for music teachers, nor should we assume that they are aware of their potential to influence students’ decision to teach music. We also should not assume that music faculty see school music teaching as a secure and viable profession. Music education faculty should take initiative both formally (speaking at faculty meetings, disseminating information, etc.) and informally (hallway conversations, coffee breaks, etc.), speaking with colleagues about the current need for music teachers and the viability of music teaching as a career.

Guidance counselors and other school professionals are conspicuously absent. Guidance counselors were rarely indicated as influencing respondents’ decision-making. (Other school personnel, e.g., other teachers, administrators, etc., also were not often indicated.) As guidance counselors provide information to high school students about appropriate career possibilities, MENC might develop materials to share with guidance counselors, other educators, and school administrators about the possibilities involved in music teaching as a career.

A social aspect. Many respondents indicated that friends, peers, acquaintances, and significant others were important influences. Opportunities for young students to come together and interact socially about their interest in music teaching may assist recruitment and retention. Tri-M and CMENC chapters may help meet this need by sponsoring a variety of social activities, especially ones that bring CMENC members together with interested high school students.

Influential Experiences and Events

Although the respondents taken together indicated a wide range of influential experiences, findings were relatively straightforward. Respondents consistently pointed to the same experiences and events.

School experiences are most influential, with honors events/experiences a close second. Not surprisingly, respondents chose school experiences as most influential. But honors experiences—often ensembles involving some kind of competitive selection—also emerged as a strong influence. As these honors experiences often take place over an extended period of time, conductors or organizers might consider discussing with interested students the possibility of teaching music as a career. Perhaps the experiences themselves are the key and nothing need be said. But young musicians are often successful in many areas, and other, perhaps more lucrative, careers compete for their interest.

Critical experiences and events often take place away from school. A high number of respondents indicated experiences (and persons) outside of the school setting as in fluential. Career decision-making processes involve people from all walks of a young person’s life. Perhaps the best approach at informing such a diverse group is to continue efforts to advertise music education’s advantages in print and electronic media. Such advertisements reach large numbers of people and might serve as effective recruitment vehicles, provided that they are tastefully done and that correct information is conveyed.

Participation in solo and small ensemble events should be encouraged. In addition to its obvious educational benefits, solo/small ensemble event participation apparently, and somewhat unexpectedly, served as a strong influence for considering music teaching. (The influence of competitions likewise was unexpected.) An obvious recommendation is to encourage promising students to engage in solo and chamber music activity. Such encouragement can come from a number of sources—teachers at school, private instructors, and musicians in community environments.

Music camps and higher education events are also influential. Another somewhat unexpected outcome was the extent to which music camps and events sponsored by higher education influenced respondents’ decision-making. As these events take place over extended periods, time might be set aside to discuss with interested students the career possibilities open to them.

Opportunities to Teach and Influence of Teaching Opportunities

In spite of their infrequency, opportunities to teach were a powerful influence. Over half of the respondents (51%) indicated either no or few opportunities to teach while in high school. Only about a quarter (27%) indicated “regularly” or “often”. In spite of this, over half (56%) of those who had taught indicated that these opportunities were either a “significant” or “very strong” influence. One respondent wrote that “The single greatest influence in my choosing music education as a career was my being given many opportunities in high school to teach and direct my peers and younger students. . . .By working as an assistant to conductors, teachers, and directors, I was given a model and a basis for forming my own teaching style. If I had never been put in teaching roles, I would never have known that I had talent and desire for this field.”

Responding to the demands of a rigorous performing schedule, high school music teachers understandably protect their large ensemble “podium time”. This survey, however, asked respondents to indicate any opportunity to teach—sectionals, small groups, drum majoring, one-on-one tutoring, and so forth. This trend toward a dearth of teaching opportunity is in serious need of attention. Given the strong and positive influence of teaching, students considering music teaching as a career should be given frequent and ongoing opportunities to teach, from individual and small-group lessons to large-ensemble rehearsals. Furthermore, their teaching should be mentored so that successful experiences are encouraged. MENC might address this issue through publication of articles in its most widely read professional journals (i.e., MEJ/Teaching Music) suggesting ways to develop teaching skills in interested and talented young musicians. Such teaching need not compromise student learning. Properly mentored, it capably supplements the work of the regular teacher.

Students teaching students. Music teachers might consider a students-teaching-students program built on before- or after-school activities, in which older students teach younger students in one-on-one or small-group situations. The more experienced students could receive credit toward their grade or, of increasing importance, toward community service.

Additionally, informational materials or articles about young musicians initiating and sustaining a private lesson studio could be developed or published in appropriate outlets. These materials might include suggestions for recruiting students, teaching private and group lessons, charging appropriate fees, setting up an appropriate location, and working with parents.

Other Influential Factors

A deep devotion to music. Respondents overwhelmingly indicated a love of music as one of their primary motivating factors. “Music is all I ever wanted to be involved in”, wrote one respondent. Successful music programs encourage students to love music deeply. Many such individuals also have a need to serve and to work with people. According to another respondent, “I have always known I was called to teach.” Such individuals are likely to be successful music teachers and to enjoy their work. High school teachers, private instructors, parents, guidance counselors, and other individuals who influence young persons’ career decisions should strongly encourage young people with this orientation to consider music teaching as a career. Relatedly, over half of the respondents look forward to the limelight music teaching has to offer. Music teachers at all levels are highly visible and well-regarded members of their communities.

Remunerative benefits. Respondents did not indicate the remunerative benefits of music teaching. Not surprisingly, this item generated some negative anecdotal comments (e.g., “hah”, “you’ve gotta be kidding”, “yeah, right”). Music teachers can and do make comfortable, if not lucrative, livings, however. In discussions with young musicians, we should counter some of the persistent negative media attention directed at teaching and music teaching. Many young people interested in music teaching feel a sense of devotion and commitment and are not overly concerned with these messages. Others, however, clearly are. In spite of what young people often hear, the demand for music teachers is increasing, not decreasing. Improved salary schedules, increased extra duty pay, and competitive signing bonuses correspondingly are becoming more common. In addition, teachers are relatively immune from “downsizing”, have time off in summers if they choose to take it, and have relatively early retirement available to them. Most enjoy free or greatly reduced medical benefits packages, and school districts often have good supplemental annuity programs.

Influence of Tri-M

Tri-M is not a factor. The findings suggest no influence on the part of Tri-M. The majority of respondents (75%) were not familiar with the organization, and only 23 of the 431 indicated membership. If MENC is to continue to support Tri-M, then Tri-M’s role needs to be re-examined. Tri-M potentially plays a critical part in encouraging talented young musicians to enter teaching; however, such a mission should be made explicit and incentives to pursue it should be built into Tri-M’s organizational structure.

CMENC

Influence of CMENC is mixed. Collegiate MENC chapters were cited by about half of the respondents as influential in the decision to be a music teacher. In general, it appears that the more active the chapter the stronger its influence. Several respondents expressed frustration over their local chapter. One expressed “regret” at the lack of activity, another that the meetings were “boring”, and a third that her chapter was “unorganized”. Others, however, wrote positively. Although she wished that her chapter “did more”, one respondent “always feel[s] rejuvenated after leaving a chapter meeting. . . .MENC meetings are a reminder to me of why I am doing this.” Another expressed his appreciation of the “wonderful extent of resources” MENC has made available to him through CMENC. Active CMENC chapters are powerful potential tools for recruiting and retaining students. One means of increasing activity and supporting recruitment could involve the development o f ongoing relationships among CMENC chapters and area high school music programs, especially those with Tri-M chapters. Sessions can be sponsored that speak directly to young persons’ interests in and concerns about teaching music.

Conventions

Conventions were a strong influence. The majority of respondents (68.4%) had attended at least one convention, and these conventions seemed to be a strong factor in motivating them to remain in the major. Respondents wrote positively about the conventions they had attended, using such adjectives as “wonderful”, “vital”, “helpful”, “refreshing”, and “rejuvenating”. Conventions seemed to provide respondents, in their own words, a “renewed sense of purpose” and an “insight into teaching music.” Several respondents also commented positively on the national biennial convention, calling it a “great event” and expressing appreciation for “so many materials!” Higher education faculty and CMENC chapters should encourage students to attend conventions by providing discounts on registration and housing and sponsoring sessions devoted to the needs of future music teachers.

Conclusion

Music educators come from all walks of life. An accurate assessment of influences on their decision to teach music must paint a complex picture. But one overriding factor emerged strongly from this study: the respondents’ deep love for and devotion to music. One respondent, for example, expressed that she “could be here for a week writing down my life story about how I chose the major. I have always excelled in music and had a calling to it.” Another wrote, “If I wasn’t in music, I don’t know where my life would be headed. I love what I do and can’t wait to make beautiful music with my students. . . .” A third respondent will teach “. . .because I have to—I love it and it makes me feel whole. It’s just like music—I do it because I have to; I cannot survive without it.” Given these sentiments, perhaps the strongest influence on recruiting future music teachers is to encourage quality music making and music learning in all educational environments—not only schools and colleges, but day care centers, churches, communities, families, and many, many others.

References

Asmus, E. (1999). The increasing demand for music teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 8(2), 5-6.

Bennett, V. (2000). The shortage of music teachers: The response of a concerned profession. Iowa Music Educator, 53(2), 16-17.

Clayton, M. (2001). Reflections: Future colleagues? Teaching Music, 8(4), 8-9.

Gifford, R. (2000). Music teacher shortage an imminent crisis. Missouri School Music Magazine, 54(3), 12.

Kimball, M. C. (2000). Recruiting potential music teachers. Teaching Music, 7(5), 42-43.

Krueger, P.J. (2000). Beginning music teachers: Will they leave the profession? Update, 19(1), 22-26.

MENC. (2000). Promoting the profession: Recruiting and retaining music teachers. Teaching Music, 8(3), 47-50.

“New MENC prez focuses on teacher retention, music for all”. (2000). Band and Orchestra Product News, 3(9), 1, 34.

End Notes

1: Chi-square (df=40) = 151.8, p < .001. Alpha set at .01 for all statistical tests.

2: Chi-square (df=38) = 76.7, p < .001.

3: Chi-square (df=40) = 71.3, p < .01.

4: Chi-square (df=18) = 221, p < .001.

5: Chi-square (df=18) = 137.5, p < .001.

6: Chi-square (df=18) = 65.2, p < .001.

7: Opportunities to Teach M = 2.67 (sd = 1.3); Extent Teaching Influenced Decision M = 61 (sd = 1.14); Pearsonian r = .541, p < .01 (one-tailed).

8: Chi-square (df=9) = 21.69, p < .01.

Supplementary Tables And Graphs

Table 1 – Survey Forms Sent and Returned by NAfME Division
Figure 1 – Respondents’ Year in School
Figure 2 – Respondents’ Racial/Ethnic Classification
Figure 3 – When Decision Was Made
Table 2 – Respondents’ Choices for Influential Persons
Figure 4 – Most Influential Person Stacked by Primary Area
Table 3 – Most Influential Person
Table 4 – Most Influential Person Crosstabulated by Primary Area
Table 5 – Second Most Influential Person
Figure 5 – Second Most Influential Person Stacked by Primary Area
Table 6 – Second Most Influential Person Crosstabulated by Primary Area
Table 7 – Third Most Influential Person
Table 8 – Third Most Influential Person Crosstabulated by Primary Area
Figure 6 – Third Most Influential Person Stacked by Primary Area
Table 9 – Respondents’ Choices for Influential Experiences
Table 10 – Most Influential Experience
Table 11 – Most Influential Experience Crosstabulated by Primary Area
Figure 7 – Most Influential Experience Stacked by Primary Area
Table 12 – Second Most Influential Experience
Table 13 – Second Most Influential Experience Crosstabulated by Primary Area
Figure 8 – Second Most Influential Experience Stacked by Primary Area
Table 14 – Third Most Influential Experience
Figure 9 – Third Most Influential Experience Stacked by Primary Area
Table 15 – Respondents’ Choices for Influential Events
Table 16 – Most Influential Event
Figure 10 – Most Influential Event
Table 17 – Second Most Influential Event
Figure 11 – Second Most Influential Event
Table 18 – Third Most Influential Event
Figure 12 – Third Most Influential Event
Table 19 – Respondents’ Indications of Opportunities to Teach
Figure 13 – Opportunities to Teach
Table 20 – Respondents’ Indications of the Extent to Which Teaching Opportunities Influenced Their Decision
Figure 14 – Extent Teaching Opportunities Influenced Decision
Table 21 – Respondents’ Choices of Other Influential Factors
Table 22 – Most Influential Other Factor
Figure 15 – Most Influential Other Factor
Table 23 – Second Most Influential Other Factor
Figure 16 – Second Most Influential Other Factor
Table 24 – Third Most Influential Other Factor
Table 25 – Third Most Influential Other Factor Crosstabulated by Gender
Figure 17 – Third Most Influential Other Factor Stacked by Gender
Figure 18 – Influence of Tri-M on Decision
Figure 19 – Influence of CMENC on Decision
Table 26 – Respondents’ Choices for CMENC Activities
Table 27 – Respondents’ Indication of Influence of Convention Attendance
Figure 20 – Influence of Convention Attendance on Decision