Divisive concepts laws and music education: PK-20 music educators’ perceptions and discourses

Abstract

Divisive Concepts Laws (DCL) are legislative acts and state and local policies that restrict teaching, learning, and professional development in PK– 20 education regarding race, gender, sexuality, and history. In November 2022, we surveyed NAfME members to ascertain the perceived impacts of DCL on music educators, music teacher educators, and music education. Respondents (N = 318) held mixed views. Many described restricted curriculum, self-censorship, inconsistent interpretations and implementation processes, fear about their own identities becoming an issue, and challenges with student relationships. In contrast, about half reported no impacts from DCL, for reasons including living in a place that does not have them, agreeing with the laws, or refusing to acquiesce to the laws. Respondents also demonstrated resistance to the survey and stances we coded as homophobic and/or transphobic. We focused our discussion of these findings on analyzing discourses evident in survey responses, which included use of euphemisms, anti-political rhetoric, de facto DCL, cognitive dissonance, and anti-queer discourses. DCL affect music students, educators and teacher educators across the United States, and they need better information, language, and strategies for managing DCL impacts.

Keywords:

• Discourse analysis
• divisive concepts laws
• music education
• survey

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Although some scholars classify other laws–such as those targeting gender affirming care–as DCL, in this paper, we focused specifically on DCL in education. The following seventeen states had enacted laws Pen America defined as “Educational Gag Orders:” AZ, AR, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KY, MS, NH, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT. Seven states had state-level executive orders or policies: AL, AR, FL, MT, SD, UT, VA. Throughout the paper, we use the term “DCL” to encompass laws, executive orders, and policies at state and local levels.

2 We had not closed the survey form and three more people responded after we analyzed data for the NAfME report. We decided to include those additional responses in this article.

3 The National Center for Educational Statistics data Elpus (2016) used only offered male and female as options.

4 We included divergent responses here to provide a complete description of how participants represented themselves demographically. Later in the article, we analyzed divergent responses as data because they indicated resistance to the survey and invoked homophobic and transphobic discourses.

5 Hexidecimal code for peach.

6 There is continuous debate about using the term “queer” as an umbrella for the LGBTQIA + community (Jagose, 1996), due to its history as a slur (McKee, 2023) and despite efforts to reclaim it (Kumashiro, 2002). In this paper, when we use “queer” to refer to members of the LGBTQIA + community, we do not intend to diminish the pain that may exist for some in using the word. Though some may identify as queer, we recognize that many within the community may not because of its potential for sidelining other intersectional identities (Cohen, 2019).

7 Winters et al. (2022) defined child grooming as “the process used by sexual abusers to facilitate sexual contact with a minor while simultaneously avoiding detection.” This process often involves developing “trust with the minor and often their guardians…to desensitize [them] to sexual and physical contact.” (p. 933). In current political discourse, people also use “grooming” to imply that people (often teachers) are preparing students to become LGBTQ+ (Anti-Defamation League, 2022).

8 We calculated this number using the respondents’ states.

9 The survey invitation read: “Divisive Concepts Laws are legislation, state policies, and executive orders that limit PK-12 and university educator speech. As of September 9, 2022, fifteen states have laws and another four have policies or executive orders that affect teachers by banning discussion of certain topics at school (generally related to race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality). Eight other states currently have proposed legislation. We are asking you to participate in a survey to share the impacts of these laws on music education and music educators in PK-12 and higher education.

The question participants answered was: “In a few sentences, please outline how the divisive concepts laws/policies in your state or district are affecting you and your music teaching.” Participants could (and did) write “they are not affecting my teaching.” The term Divisive Concepts derives from Executive Order 13950 (2020), in which President Trump prohibited a list of “divisive concepts” in training for federal employees and contractors. Legislatures and school districts across the country have adopted portions of that executive order. Therefore, in media, scholarship, and legal discourse, “Divisive Concepts Laws” is a common term for these laws and policies. Participants who bristled that we used the term “divisive” may have been unaware.

10 The term academic freedom encompasses a teacher’s right to research material, teach, and engage in creative expression at school, without interference from political figures. Academic freedom also protects a teacher’s right “to speak freely when participating in institutional governance, as well as to speak freely as a citizen.” (American Association of University Professors, n. d., n. p.). While more commonly associated with professors working at colleges or universities, academic freedom can also apply to music educators in PK-12 schools, particularly as it pertains to the freedom to select appropriate materials and methods for teaching and learning based on the curriculum and the music educators’ specialized expertise. Academic freedom also applies to a PK-12 music educator’s right to free speech without professional disadvantage outside of school and in school governance. To students’ rights to study and learn without interference can also be considered academic freedom.

11 Inflammatory rhetoric was present on both sides of political polarization. It was more frequent among those who supported DCL. Inflammatory rhetoric from the Left was usually directed at adults lodging DCL-related complaints (as in this quote), whereas discourses from those on the Right were more likely to contain homophobic or transphobic rhetoric that might affect students, teachers, and the general public.