Volume 65, No. 1

Abstract

This paper is the second in a two-part series conducted by the College Music Society Council on Music Education investigating the recruitment and retention of students from underrepresented populations into undergraduate music teacher education programs in the United States and Canada. Participants (N = 41) sampled from the College Music Society membership completed an online survey that addressed recruitment and retention of a diverse range of candidates; hurdles regarding licensure and certification; and effective strategies for addressing these retention, licensure, and certification barriers. Follow up interviews were conducted with all willing participants (N = 12).

Findings from the online survey and interviews focused on systemic issues regarding Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Access, and Belonging (DEIAB) as well as emergent best practices for improving DEIAB initiatives. A clear concept of the meaning of DEIAB varied between institutions, and institutions with more expansive definitions of DEIAB were reported as being more responsive to students needs in systemically impactful ways. The importance of centralized leadership regarding DEIAB was identified, particularly in regards to addressing potential barriers. Emergent practices included innovations in upstream recruitment; recognition of differing student academic, social, economic, and emotional needs; and inclusive diversification of required curricula.

This study is the second in a two-part inquiry conducted by the College Music Society (CMS) Council on Music Education focused on the retention and recruitment of underrepresented populations in undergraduate music teacher education. This investigation grew out of a series of listening sessions conducted by the CMS Council on Music Education in Fall 2022 regarding Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Access, and Belonging (DEIAB) within undergraduate music teacher education. In these meetings, those in attendance expressed the need for a comprehensive and sustained discussion of the current state of recruitment and retention of underrepresented populations into the music education profession and a desire to identify best practices currently underway at other institutions.

Part I (Hall et al, 2024) was an extended literature review that addressed the existing scholarship on underrepresented populations in music teacher education, including current demographic data; the academic and professional concerns of individuals from underrepresented groups; existing practices for recruitment and retention of more diverse cohorts into music education; and barriers to access to enrollment. This current article, Part II, reports the findings of a study composed of an online survey and subsequent interviews regarding current institutional practices for recruiting and retaining students from underrepresented populations.

This study built upon existing literature as reported in Part I of this series (Hall et al, 2024) that identified significant underrepresentation of several racial and ethnic identities within music education programs and the music education profession (DeAngelis, 2022; Elpus, 2015; Hayes, 2020; Matthews & Koner, 2017). This existing scholarship presented multiple factors that contributed to this underrepresentation, focusing on the lack of recruitment and retention of students from non-White groups into undergraduate programs of music education (Campbell et al., 2016; Confredo et al., 2023; DeLorenzo & Silverman, 2016; Lind & McCoy, 2022). This literature also identified multiple practices intended to address this underrepresentation, including recruitment targeting, social and economic supports, access to educational and musical experiences before and during collegiate study, and accommodation of music programs to the specific needs of a diverse student body.

While the existing literature provided a consistent picture of underrepresentation, few scholars have approached these issues of retention and recruitment systematically with the intention of identifying or developing impactful best practices. This current study sought to investigate a national sample of undergraduate music teacher education programs in the United States and Canada to identify current trends and emergent best practices for the recruitment and retention of traditionally underrepresented populations. The research questions that guided this study included the following:

• What are current standard practices for targeted recruitment and retention of students from underrepresented racial, ethnic, or cultural populations into undergraduate music teacher education programs?
• What are the positive or negative impacts of these current practices on recruitment and retention?
• What emergent practices are institutions using that focus on the recruitment and retention of more diverse student cohorts into undergraduate music teacher education programs?

Method

This survey study was conducted in two phases: an online survey and subsequent virtual interviews (Mills & Gay, 2019). The first phase was a survey sent via email to the entire membership of the CMS in Spring 2023. The online survey focused on a core set of practices derived from existing scholarship regarding the recruitment and retention of underrepresented populations into undergraduate music teacher education programs, with the opportunity to provide open-ended responses detailing institution-specific practices. The second phase involved interviews of interested survey respondents during Summer 2023. The interviews followed a semi-structured interview protocol focused on topics from the survey. Researchers interviewed all participants who expressed a willingness to participate in the second phase at the end of the online survey. Importantly, the researchers intentionally did not define the phrase diverse students within the survey or interview, allowing participants to use their institutions’ definitions of diversity in their responses. While all participants discussed issues of racial identity, with all referencing a binary construct of White versus non-White identity, various participants in both the surveys and the interviews included issues of ability, culture, socio-economics, education, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality within their discussions of diversity.

The sample was drawn from the general membership of the CMS. In March 2023, a link to the survey was emailed to all members via the CMS Announcements. Two reminder emails were sent in early and late April 2023. In total, 41 CMS members completed the entire survey, and each of the eight US-based chapters of CMS were represented in the survey sample. Two participants did not provide their institutional affiliations, and two institutions had multiple faculty members respond. In these cases, the researchers recognized these participants as separate individuals but did not include their individual responses when reporting institutional data. One participant served on faculty at two institutions at the time of the survey, but distinguished the differences between the two institutions in their responses. Institutions ranged in size and type, including community colleges (n = 1) and 4-year institutions offering performers certificates (n = 1), baccalaureate-only programs (n = 2), baccalaureate/masters programs (n = 13), and comprehensive programs (n = 21); private (n = 13) and public (n = 25) institutions; and conservatory (n = 2) and liberal arts (n = 36) programs. Programs ranged in size from 14 to 400 undergraduate music education majors based on participant self-report. Participants served in various roles within their institutions, including members of the music education faculty (n = 17), administration (n = 17), non-music education faculty (n = 5), and a doctoral student (n = 1). Some participants served in multiple roles (n = 11), while others identified themselves only by title, including “instructor,” “lecturer,” and “professor” (n = 9). Throughout this report, institutions and participants have been anonymized by general title, institution type, and chapter location to allow for reporting on sensitive matters.

In addition to demographic questions, the online survey included four sections drawn from discussions that occurred during the listening sessions in Fall 2022 and the literature review provided in Part I (Hall et al, 2024). Each section included a list of strategies presented in existing literature or the listening sessions, as well as a space for open-ended responses to discuss details unique to their institution’s programs. The sections focused on strategies for 1) recruitment of a diverse range of candidates; 2) retention of a diverse range of candidates; 3) hurdles regarding licensure and certification; and 4) effective strategies for addressing retention, licensure, and certification barriers. The survey concluded with an open-ended question to allow participants to provide any other feedback that they felt was pertinent to issues of recruitment and retention of diverse students. The survey was collected in Google Forms.

Once completing the online survey, participants could provide their name and email address if they wished to engage in interviews. A total of 21 participants expressed an interest in being interviewed on the survey, and when contacted, 12 participants agreed to be interviewed. Interviews were conducted via Zoom by one of the members of the CMS Council for Music Education using a semi-structured interview protocol and ranged from 19 to 57 minutes in duration (M = 33.9). Each interview included specific questions based on the participants’ survey responses regarding existing practices and effectiveness of those strategies on recruitment and retention of targeted populations.

Researchers analyzed survey data using descriptive statistics to identify the presence or absence of specific strategies across institutions. It should be noted that participants at the same institutions did not consistently report the use of the same strategies for recruitment and retention at their institutions, so individual responses, rather than institutions, were reflected in this data. Each interview was transcribed and coded by the researcher who conducted the interview and an additional member of the research team. Researchers compared codes on the same interview for agreement and compiled all codes across the 12 interviews to identify common emergent themes across the interviews. Responses to the open-ended portion of the survey were used to further support these themes and triangulate data analyses.

Findings

Survey Findings

A summary of online survey findings can be found in Table 1. No single approach to recruitment was identified as common across all participants. The most reported strategies of one-on-one visits (75%) and special events for diverse students (52.3%) both emphasized the individualized nature of recruitment of students who were underrepresented at individual campuses. Open-ended responses emphasized a frustration with the lack of systemic prioritization of diverse recruitment with statements such as “there is no cohesive, coherent, collaborative recruitment plan—everyone is responsible for recruitment hence whatever plans/events are scattershot.” A few participants noted specific practices such as “examining our application and audition process to remove unnecessary barriers,” “customizing digital marketing to a more diverse applicant pool,” and generally “throwing the net wider,” but none identified specific activities that promoted further engagement with specific populations.

When considering retention of diverse populations, the most commonly reported practices were greater representation in ensembles and coursework (65.9%) and curriculum redesign (55.5%), which emphasized reforms that impacted course activities and requirements. Multiple participants discussed inclusive personnel and curricular practices such as “hiring faculty from underrepresented communities” and “intentionally diverse global and popular musics in music theory and global music history.” Relatively few participants addressed specific needs or support for students from more diverse backgrounds, though one participant discussed “extra supports via theory and aural skills tutoring and Freshmen seminars are required” as ways to provide additional support to students from underrepresented populations. While several participants noted that current efforts are having minimal impact on their music education recruitment, they also noted that these changes are “positively impacting non-major participation in ensembles and courses” as they become more accessible to a broader range of students.

Regarding licensure or certification, every participant noted some sort of barrier for candidates moving from music education student to music teacher. Some sort of state-sanctioned test (55.5%) or requirement (40.9%) was the most reported hurdle for students from underrepresented communities. The open-ended responses emphasized the significant costs associated with both these requirements and higher education in general, coupled with limited access to financial aid and other support. Difficulties in navigating the bureaucracy of licensure and certification were also listed as frequent barriers for students making the transition into the profession.

While most schools reported collecting data on diverse students (71.4%), the open-ended responses demonstrated that much of this information remains unused within music program decision-making. As stated by one participant, “Our school is big on data mining but small on actual reactions to it.” Numerous participants commented on informal information gathering through alumni networks, campus visits through internships and practicums, and surveys of enrolled students. Participants also reported limited application of this information to influence efforts for increased diversity in recruitment and retention.

Table 1.

Summary of Forced Response Questions Regarding Recruitment and Retention of Diverse Students

Interview Themes

The interviews revealed deep nuances regarding the systemic challenges that exist within undergraduate music teacher education programs regarding the recruitment and retention of diverse student bodies, as well as strategies that could provide models for emergent best practices in reducing the representation gap within music education programs. Regarding systemic barriers, common themes included lack of definition and purpose around issues of DEIAB; varying roles of leadership in DEIAB discussions; and structural barriers that prevented meaningful change. Regarding emergent best practices, common themes included recognition of differing college experiences, flexibility in curricular structures, and alternative recruitment strategies. Specifically, several participants described upstream recruitment practices that made early and frequent contact with targeted communities to develop relationships with individuals prior to formal recruitment activities. Of the 12 interview participants, two described their institutions as completely ineffective in addressing issues of DEIAB. The other ten participants recognized both accomplishments and failures in how DEIAB issues were addressed at their institutions.

Systemic Issues—Definitions and Purposes of DEIAB

When the initial survey was distributed, diversity was left intentionally undefined based on the listening sessions, which demonstrated that DEIAB was dramatically different in its definition and function at different institutions. For nearly all participants, their experiences with diversity on their campuses started with a dichotomous condition: being White or being not White. As stated by a music education professor at a land-grant university in the Southern Chapter, “I’ve found that a lot of times diversity, when it comes to race or ethnicity, is often a code term for everything that is not White. I’m trying to break down that by saying ‘No, there are different things that can be associated with different groups.’ It’s worthy of attention and just further centers Whiteness by saying everything else is diversity.” For some institutions, this was as far as discussions of DEIAB progressed, emphasizing that recruitment and retention efforts were solely focused on increasing the percentages of non-White students with little attention to any other identities, factors, or justifications or regionally critical identities.

Participants who felt that their campuses centered attention on DEIAB as a philosophy rather than a mandate saw diversity in a more nuanced manner. At one private, urban university in the Great Lakes Chapter, the music department chair discussed social, economic, cultural, ethnic, and racial identities in their community, and the efforts of their university and department to meet the varying needs of various groups, both as an act of recruitment as well as a service to their urban community neighbors. They recognized that the musical culture in these communities often did not include the same practices as were present in traditional music programs, so they sought collaborations to align institutional and community offerings and priorities. At another private, urban, research university in the Northeast Chapter, a music education professor described their institution’s attention in DEIAB through the complex backgrounds of students that included their nations of origin, family educational experiences, and abilities. In general, when participants stated that their institutions were driven by DEIAB principles, their definitions of more diverse student bodies were more inclusive of a broader range of identities and experiences that reached beyond Whiteness or non-Whiteness and connected DEIAB initiatives to decided actions for inclusive practices rather than recruitment and retention quotas.

Systemic Issues—Leadership Responses to DEIAB

Across participants, one factor was discussed more than any other in determining whether institutions were meaningfully addressing the recruitment and retention of diverse students: clear, focused leadership intent on driving DEIAB initiatives. “DEI needs to be The Issue [capitalization emphasized with a hand gesture by the participant], not an issue, if real change is to be made” was stated by one frustrated music education coordinator at a land-grant institution in the Great Lakes Chapter. They continued by deploring their university’s leadership and stating that their institution had marginalized discussions of DEIAB to committees with no power and that they had “been counseled [by leadership] not to take on the workload of the DEI committee as it was not looked upon positively for tenure review.” This sentiment was expressed by several participants who felt their institutions were not doing enough.

By contrast, at institutions where progress was being made around DEIAB, participants attributed that progress to an upper-level administrator who served as the driver for these initiatives. These people, including chairs, directors, deans, and presidents, were capable of broad-reaching institutional change. The attention of these administrators was multifaceted, recognizing that progress toward diversity does not occur due to one action, but through multiple actions occurring throughout the ecosystem of the institution. Engagement with local communities, consideration of financial and scheduling barriers; curriculum offerings; ensemble requirements; audition proficiencies; faculty ethnic, racial, and gender identities; alternative academic supports; career mentoring; and skill-focused advising were all issues addressed by leadership simultaneously in institutions that were seen by participants as successful in recruiting and retaining diverse students. Effective leadership included intentional reflection through deep discussions at all levels with all faculty, staff, and students on how institutions were systemically excluding students. In order to make meaningfully impactful changes, leaders needed to be given “full control to change everything,” as stated by one Professor at a land-grant university in the Great Lakes Chapter. Participants discussed the need to alter audition processes, funding allocations, degree plans, faculty staffing, curricular offerings, and other institutional functions in order to meaningfully address DEIAB initiatives.

Systemic Issues—Intentionality in Overcoming Barriers

All participants identified barriers that inhibited the development of a diverse student cohort in music teacher education. The dean of the school of music at a private university in the Central Chapter stated the most common barrier bluntly: “Materials [for auditions and coursework] presume a White, middle-class background, language, experience, and expectations. When that [suggestions for change] happens, we get push back from White men on committees.” Institutional policies and governance structures were seen by many as hindrances to significant changes toward DEIAB initiatives, as power was placed in maintaining traditional practices and was controlled by those who had the least ambition for change. Several participants described their institutions’ DEIAB efforts as “self-serving,” “performative activism,” and “non-responsive,” emphasizing that while reforms were being implemented, they were not done to address systemic issues or to meaningfully impact students’ needs. Others at public institutions in states instituting divisive-concepts legislation described the challenges of intentional diversification of their student cohorts due to recent legislation that limited open, transparent discussions around DEIAB that left leaders apprehensive and with few resources to meaningfully address diversity needs.

Financial barriers were at the forefront of many participants’ discussions, coupled with a perceived lack of generational knowledge about the nuances of higher education generally and music education specifically among students from underrepresented backgrounds. One assistant professor at a private college in the Northeast Chapter explained how he has persuaded some students to not attend his institution because of the heightened financial burden: “Your undergraduate degree is a gateway degree into the profession. You don’t need to pay for this one. You can get a similar degree at the school down the road and look for graduate work in a different venue. That’s a realistic conversation we [potential students and I] have had.” Many participants explained that specific institutional financial grants provided resources for students from under-represented groups, but noted that these funds often came with additional requirements that made the rigor of the music education degree more difficult due to additional expectations of coursework, non-curricular meetings, or other requirements.

At the three institutions where participants felt DEIAB initiatives were being effectively executed, participants noted that there were coordinated efforts at all levels of the institution to meet DEIAB standards. Importantly, as previously mentioned, DEIAB was not a thing, but “The Thing” being done across the institution that was allowing all decisions to be made with consideration to the impact of institutional diversity and access. In some cases, this meant that long held traditions of the institution needed to be significantly changed or eliminated.

For example, at one private, urban university with a strong religious choral tradition in the Great Lakes Chapter, the chair of the music department described how they realized that their program with “largely White, Protestant music roots with a focus on conservatory-like practices” was inhibiting members of the local community from being a part of their music program, as the institution’s definition of musicianship did not match that of their community. They made changes to the audition process by emphasizing a “bring what you have” approach, rather than a fixed repertoire expectation, and by including instruments and practices that are outside of traditional collegiate study. Additionally, they integrated group improvisation and music production into required coursework for all music degrees and moved their performances from campus facilities to community locations to build connections with potential students in those communities. At the same time, significant financial changes were made by the institution to move from merit-based to need-based financial support, and curriculum, scheduling, and programming were done to accommodate students from non-traditional backgrounds with non-traditional college schedules and needs. As they stated, at all levels of the institution, “there has to be a reality check and a commitment to serve society.”

Emergent Best Practices—Upstream Recruitment

Changing processes for recruitment were discussed in every interview for a range of reasons, including the moral imperative to increase campus diversity alongside other factors such as increased expenditures, the impending population cliff, and public higher education policies. Several participants discussed how recruitment had changed recently, moving from models where “students just came here because they did” or where a small number of high schools received targeted recruitment to models that sought to broaden recruitment across a more eclectic range of schools and programs. As a professor at a private, urban university in the Northeast Chapter stated when asked how recruiting has changed, “Simple. Outreach. Outreach. Outreach.” This sentiment was echoed by several participants, who noted that community service and community collaborations have become a backbone of recruitment efforts, especially for institutions in or near urban centers. Their discussions emphasized the need for providing awareness of and resources within the institution for traditionally underrepresented communities before future students could consider attending the institution or majoring in music. By forming community connections in places that represented the sort of diversity that the institution hoped to embrace, participants described bridge-building and trust-forming relationships that served as a preliminary step to active recruitment.

Targeted recruitment was specifically discussed, both on an individual and a community basis. One private university in the Southern Chapter has developed a highly individualized system of pairing prospective students with specific music faculty with similar backgrounds and interests. Prior to submitting applications, prospective students were invited to a curated list of events that targeted their specific musical interests and student needs. On a community level, several institutions strategically built service-based partnerships with high schools and community colleges whose students were historically underrepresented at their institutions. Through these partnerships, faculty members made numerous visits for clinics and workshops so prospective students could build familiarity with faculty and programs prior to making the decision to apply for an undergraduate degree. As stated by one department chair at an urban university in the Great Lakes Chapter, “we create extensive service development for high schools with a focus on listening to what students and public school music departments need.” These relationships included support in navigating careers in music in general without specifically focusing on recruiting for the individual institution.

Finally, audition processes were changed to provide greater access for students with less traditional musical backgrounds. As described by a music education professor at a public research university in the Great Lakes Chapter, “There are students with very strong musicality that are not expressed at solo/ensemble festival or All-State. There are a great number of students that are musical in other ways than [my school] is recruiting.”

One private, urban university in the Great Lakes Chapter served as an exemplar for this alternative approach to auditioning. They have revamped their auditions to include improvisation activities and an open admission process without specific prescribed expectations, including the removal of pre-determined instrument studios. The audition process allowed any musical students, as opposed to students who performed music in specific traditional ways or on specific traditional instruments, to be a part of the music education program. As stated by the program’s department chair, “The underlying question is ‘Can this student be a successful musician?’ as opposed to ‘Is this student a successful musician?’” This reimagined audition process was not punitive and served as a recommendation to the students about the likelihood of their success and character of their experience across the undergraduate degree, as opposed to serving as a gatekeeper to the program and degree. Similarly, the degree plans at this institution provided licensure and non-licensure options for music education, so that students who did not intend to meet state licensure requirements but wished to engage in community-based music education had an outlet for their education. Within their coursework, music theory and history were restructured to allow for student choice and included a broader range of musical traditions with an emphasis on partnerships with local musicians outside of Western traditions to serve as studio teachers. This institution’s model was the most innovative example of de-centering the Western classical, conservatory-based approach to music education in favor of a model that was more inclusive of a broader range of students, backgrounds, and community.

Emergent Best Practices—Recognition of Differing Experiences

Whether they saw their institutions as successful or unsuccessful in addressing DEIAB issues, every participant emphasized that a more diverse student body required that the culture and character of their institutions needed to change to accommodate the unique needs of traditionally underrepresented students. Importantly, even for participants who defined diversity as a matter of race only, they discussed the intersectional challenges that students from underrepresented groups faced coming into programs of higher education, including first-generation concerns, socio-economic factors, microaggressions, prior educational experiences, and a lack of welcoming physical and social spaces within the school.

As described by an assistant professor of music education at a land-grant university in the Southern Chapter, suburban, middle-class, White students are coming into the profession and just getting into the teacher language. It reminds me of students who are not from White communities who are going into predominantly White spaces and who are learning new material, but have to understand how it is communicated, when it is communicated, and how it is expressed differently than it is done in their home communities. The foundational knowledge everyone is moving from is different from what they have experienced.

Faculty who described their institutions as being effective at addressing diversity noted explicit efforts to supplement the educational experiences of students before they entered the institution and as they moved through the music education program. One private, research university in the South Central Chapter created affinity groups based around racial, ethnic, and socio-economic groups that started before the students matriculated, which continued into collegiate studies and paired students of underrepresented groups with targeted mentorship from both a faculty member and a student. These groups and similar programs at other institutions provided guidance for life skills, general academic practices, career preparation, and support in other areas that were often taken for granted for students coming from traditional collegiate backgrounds. These services were in addition to typically provided resources such as course-specific tutoring, writing centers, and student support services.

Importantly, participants at institutions that were described as successful in retaining diverse students recognized that retention is everyone’s job at every level of the institution. For example, a public research university in the Southwest Chapter approached diverse students through “a multi-tiered system of support that ensures that each candidate is in a peer study group and has mentorship and support from clinical faculty as well as a recent graduate currently teaching in a K-12 setting.” A private university in the Great Lakes Chapter required community gatherings with all faculty, staff, and students in the fine arts college each semester to openly discuss issues related to DEIAB through moderated small group discussions to identify and correct inequities that isolated members or groups within the program. Other participants described how strong leaders regularly reiterated that retaining diverse students and creating a culture that is supportive of that diversity rests on the shoulders of individuals in every corner of the institution, including administration, faculty, staff, students, and alumni.

Emergent Best Practices—Flexible and Inclusive Curriculum Requirements

Across all participants, conversations investigated the diversity and inclusivity present within curricular requirements. Similar to the survey, several participants described curriculum changes that made efforts to address DEIAB issues, most often through the addition of new courses or new course content. A common trend was described by an assistant professor at a private university in the Southern Chapter: “Curriculum change has happened through addition, not replacement, and through separate, not integrated, curriculum.” This faculty member described additions that did not integrate with existing course material, creating a clear line between existing Eurocentric materials and “diverse” materials that suggested hierarchical or supplemental importance. Similarly, when introducing new courses on topics related to diversity, most participants noted that more diverse topics were made elective courses, separate from the required coursework which centered on Eurocentric traditions. In the survey and in interviews, participants reported course additions that were a step in a more diverse direction but continued to marginalize underrepresented content and practices by creating clear lines between content from underrepresented groups and more traditional materials.

Some participants reported approaches which replaced, rather than supplemented, traditional materials with a broader range of experiences and content. At one private university in the Northeast Chapter, concert and recital attendance requirements by guest artists were designed to present an intentionally broad range of musical styles and cultures, notably from performers outside European traditions. Multiple schools described revisions to required coursework in music theory and history that embedded global and vernacular music alongside traditional materials, allowing for the first introductions of new concepts to occur with music representative of a broader range of cultures and practices. Similarly, one private university in the Great Lakes Chapter changed their studio model to include students on any instrument in any background. Rather than having predetermined studios, they hired adjuncts from throughout their metropolitan area who specialized in the instruments and traditions their students represented. While the majority of studios at this institution still studied traditional Western instrumental and vocal practices, this shift has opened space for hip hop artists, electronic musicians, and vernacular instruments and practices to be studied, which in turn provided all students with greater exposure to a broader range of approaches through the inclusion of peers and faculty in non-Western practices. These practices have also led to a diversification of new faculty as a change of faculty expertise was needed to be able to address music outside the Western canon. This faculty diversification has helped improve representation and community for students from underrepresented communities during recruitment, further helping to draw a more diverse cohort into the institution.

Discussion

Across these interviews, participants were clear that increasing diversity within undergraduate music education requires a multi-faceted and intentional approach, similar to recent policy proposals for revisions from the CMS Manifesto (Campbell et al., 2016) and NAfME Blueprint (Confredo et al., 2023). The participants who were most positive about the efforts at their institutions also described the most complex and multi-tiered innovations that considered how students were first introduced to the institution; were recruited; were selected for admission; were supported once on campus; and were connected with the music education profession. This multi-faceted approach echoed personal narratives previously reported by students from underrepresented populations in collegiate programs (DeLorenzo & Silverman, 2016; Draves & Vargas, 2022; McCall, 2017). Importantly, faculty sought solutions that did not seek to preserve existing systems that no longer met student or community needs but rather interrogated every aspect of the program and institution to identify potential barriers to access and inclusion. Once barriers were identified, leadership assumed the responsibility to align all parts of their curriculum and institution to better serve and support the broadest range of students and musical practices.

As institutional leaders seek to diversify their student bodies, they must take care to approach reforms with intentionality in ways that are holistic and multipronged. Recognizing that many capable high school and non-traditional students from underrepresented backgrounds do not even consider collegiate study in music education (Fitzpatrick et al., 2014; Gerrard, 2021), these efforts need to begin well before collegiate recruitment. Participants in this current study pointed to community engagement and collaboration as institutional service as the entry point for recruiting students from underrepresented groups. As cautioned by DeLorenzo and Silverman (2016), these engagements within local communities must begin by listening to the stakeholders in those communities to understand what they need and desire from the institution, as opposed to starting with institutional initiatives and priorities. Only once a relationship of trust and mutual understanding is established can or should recruitment progress forward. This forward momentum can include partnerships with university faculty and potential students (Rickels et al., 2010), with attention given to not just musical mentoring but active support throughout the college selection process (Hamann & Walker, 1993; Robison et al., 2021) to aid in navigating application processes, securing financial aid, and understanding implications of decisions.

This multipronged process for recruitment also identifies ways that various students are othered or excluded by curricula, processes, and campus culture. Participants from several institutions discussed revisions to audition requirements to include a broader range of potential repertoire and musical practices, processes of creativity, and revised expectations for prior student experiences, in line with the calls made by Koza (2009) and Palmer (2011). A particular point to note is that expectations for pre-collegiate, extracurricular engagements such as honor bands, private lessons, and other activities may be prohibitive to students who are traditionally not part of collegiate music, as noted previously by Abramo and Natale-Abramo (2020) and by one of our participants: This exclusion continues when repertoire in ensembles and courses is exclusive of students’ lived experiences and cultures and faculty do not share cultural identities or familiarity with the places and communities from which their students are drawn.

Finally, in retaining students on campus, care must be taken to make sure that student needs are meaningfully addressed. Students from underrepresented populations have additional and unique stresses placed upon them (Bryant, 2022), both in terms of being expected to be the sole representative of minoritized groups and in lacking access to services that are unique to their experiences. Again, participants in our study emphasized how they needed to come to see their students from underrepresented populations as capable and positioned, meaning that the academic and social support that they needed may differ from students from traditionally represented groups, though not necessarily better or worse. As suggested by Kinzer et al. (2014), the community of the music program must be considered to ensure that students experience belonging, acceptance, and inclusion, allowing themselves to both be seen and to be integrated into the broader community.

Recommendations

For programs seeking to increase the diversity of their student cohorts through targeted recruitment and retention, numerous steps need to be taken based upon our participants’ experiences. First, institutional leaders, faculty, staff, students, and community need to agree what DEIAB means and how it is systemically integrated across the music program. Seen in both extant scholarship and our research, commitment to DEIAB needs to be serious, multi-faceted, and all-encompassing at all levels of the institution, including but not limited to curriculum, student services, human resources, financial support, social opportunities, admissions, recruiting, and community outreach. Small cosmetic changes to single elements of the program will not result in meaningful, systemic change. While many participants reported performative DEIAB initiatives, those that were described as successful engaged in DEIAB work as the core precept of their missions in ways that spread across all facets of their institutions and involved stakeholders at all levels.

In programs that were described by their faculty as successful in recruitment and retention, communities outside of the institutions were embraced as part of the functional change. Efforts to engage a broad range of different communities provided input to the institutions about how to best serve various stakeholders; introduced the institution to frequently marginalized groups; and opened spaces for student learning through embedded partnerships and collaborations. Participants emphasized that the traditional recruitment practices were not welcoming or accessible to students from underrepresented populations, forcing faculty to look at how they positioned their institutions within communities with whom they typically had little presence or familiarity.

Across programs described in interviews, there was limited empirical measurement of how these efforts for recruitment and retention are impacting students. While several campuses stated that data was being collected, none reported the use of that data to make targeted decisions about practices, though numerous participants noted that this was their recommended next step to more impactful recruitment and retention initiatives. Greater attention by program leaders to collect and analyze data for efficacy of recruitment and retention efforts and application of that data could help to identify which specific strategies or practices are most impacting change in student demographics. Further research into how specific initiatives impact student retention and recruitment from underrepresented groups could further our profession’s understanding of how to demonstrably change current trends.

Conclusion

As music teacher educators look forward and consider how to broaden the reach and impact of music education, they must consider the many ways in which their programs support or marginalize students from underrepresented communities. While performative gestures of change such as the inclusion of more diverse repertoire in classes and ensembles and open statements about commitment to DEIAB are starting points, meaningful change must be significant, intentional, and systemic. Programs that were identified as successfully addressing diversification of their retention and recruitment emphasized that all levels of their institutions are engaged in DEIAB work and that significant alterations have been made to the ways in which their institutions function in view of this work. All facets of institutions need to be considered for how they invite or dissuade individuals from underrepresented populations from engaging and remaining engaged with the institution and the profession, and changes need to be made that become critically embedded elements in the ecosystem of the institution to ensure a long-term impact on recruitment and retention toward a more diverse field of music education.

References

Abramo, J. M., & Natale-Abramo, M. (2020). Reexamining “gifted and talented” in music education. Music Educators Journal, 106(3), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432119895304

Bryant, R. L. (2022). Experiences of preservice music teachers at Minority Serving Institutions. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 31(3), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837211068016

Campbell, P. S., Myers, D. E., & Sarath, E. (2016). Transforming music study from its foundations: A manifesto for progressive change in the undergraduate preparation of music majors. College Music Society. https://www.music.org/cms-reports/transforming-music-study-from-its-foundations-a-manifesto-for-progressive-change-in-the-undergraduate-preparation-of-music-majors-2016.html

Confredo, D. A., Abril, C. R., & Adderley, C. L. (2023). A blueprint for strengthening the music teacher profession. Music Teacher Profession Initiative. https://nafme.org/resource/a-blueprint-for-strengthening-the-music-teacher-profession/

DeAngelis, D. R. (2022). Recent college graduates with bachelor’s degrees in music education: A demographic profile. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 32(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837221100577

DeLorenzo, L. C., & Silverman, M. (2016). From the margins: The underrepresentation of Black and Latino students/teachers in music education. Visions of Research in Music Education, 27. https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/vrme/vol27/iss1/3

Draves, T. J., & Vargas, J. E. (2022). “I made myself fit in”: Johny’s story. Journal of Research in Music Education, 70(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224294211001876

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

Fitzpatrick, K. R., Henninger, J. C., & Taylor, D. M. (2014). Access and retention of marginalized populations within undergraduate music education degree programs. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(2), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429414530760

Gerrard, C. L. (2021). “It’s more than playing music”: Exploring band in a predominantly Latinx community. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 227, 66–85. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.227.0066

Hamann, D. L., & Walker, L. M. (1993). Music teachers as role models for African-American students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41(4), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345506

Hall, S., Brooks, A., Bryant, B., Doutt, K., Smith, R., & Weidner, B. N. (2024). Retention and recruitment of students of underrepresented populations in music teacher education: Part I. College Music Symposium, 64(2). https://www.jstor.org/stable/48797095

Hayes, E. M. (2020). Equity for Latinx students and faculty in music in higher education. Journal of Performance Arts Leadership in Higher Education, 11, 35–43. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/equity-latinx-students-faculty-music-higher/docview/2533415170/se-2

Kinzer, J., Aarons, D., Anderson, C., Aung, N. M., Haynes, M., Kowalski-Holien, C., LaPorte, K., Moon, J., Prajapahti, S., Viharlahti, J., & Campbell, P. S. (2014). Students speak: Diversity in the pedagogical practices of music in higher education. College Music Symposium, 54. https://symposium.music.org/index.php/54/item/10642-students-speak-diversity-in-the-pedagogical-practices-of-music-in-higher-education

Koza, J. E. (2009). Listening for Whiteness: Hearing racial politics in undergraduate school music. In T. A. Regelski (Ed.), Music education for changing times: Guiding visions for practice (Vol. 7, pp. 85–95). Springer.

Lind, V. L., & Mccoy, C. P. (2022). Culturally responsive teaching in music education: From understanding to application. Taylor & Francis.

Matthews, W. K., & Koner, K. (2017). A survey of elementary and secondary music educators’ professional background, teaching responsibilities, and job satisfaction in the United States. Research and Issues in Music Education, 13(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000069

McCall, J. (2017). Speak no evil: Talking race as an African American in music education. In B. C. Talbot (Ed.), Marginalized voices in music education (pp. 13–27). Routledge.

Mills, G. E., & Gay, L. R. (2019). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Pearson.

Palmer, C. M. (2011). Challenges of access to post-secondary music education programs for people of color. Visions of Research in Music Education, 18. https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/vrme/vol18/iss1/7/

Rickels, D. A., Councill, K. H., Fredrickson, W. E., Hairston, M. J., Porter, A. M., & Schmidt, M. (2010). Influences on career choice among music education audition candidates: A pilot study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57(4), 292–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429409350779

Robison, T., Edgar, S. N., Eros, J., Councill, K. H., Fredrickson, W. E., Helmick, J., Hoffman, E. C., Melago, K. A., & Williams, B. A. (2021). Inspiring the next generation of music educators: A multiple case study of high school music experiences and career choice. Journal of Research in Music Education, 69(2), 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429420975787