Abstract
In this article, we explore the relationship between divisive concept legislation and perceived discretion among teachers as street-level bureaucrats. Specifically, we surveyed K-12 teachers’ perceptions of their decision-making power after the passage of legislation limiting the discussion of divisive topics in the classroom. Previous scholarship suggests that discretion-as-perceived is affected by the degree of powerlessness street-level bureaucrats feel in the implementation of a policy. The results of our study indicate that teachers perceive a significant loss of discretion following the passage of such legislation. Those views are shaped by personal and professional factors like race and specialization.
Introduction
Since 2021, approximately 18 state legislatures
1
in the U.S. have enacted legislative bans on teaching topics related to “divisive concepts”—specifically those relating to race and/or gender - in primary and secondary classrooms (Grossman & Young, 2023; see also Ray & Gibbons, 2021; Woo et al, 2023). The state of Georgia, for example, passed House Bill 1084 (referenced throughout this article as HB 1084) in 2022 which prohibits the “use and reliance upon curricula or training programs” that endorse or advocate “racial scapegoating” or “divisive concepts” (GA H.B. 1084, p. 1). Under the law, divisive concepts are defined as views espousing such concepts: (a) one race is inherently superior to another race; (b) the United States of America is fundamentally racist; (c) an individual, by virtue of his or her race, is inherently racist or consciously racist or oppressive toward individuals of other races; (d) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race; (e) an individual’s moral character is determined by his or her race; (f) an individual, solely by virtue of his or her race, bears individual responsibility for actions committed in the past by other individuals of the same race; (g) an individual, solely by virtue of his or her race, should feel anguish, guilt, or any other form of psychological distress; (h) performance-based advancement or the recognition and appreciation of character traits such as hard work ethic are racist or have been advocated for by individuals of a particular race to oppress individuals of another race; or (i) any other form of race scapegoating or race stereotyping (O.C.G.A § 20-1-11)(a)(1) (2023).
Of note, this definition of divisive concepts does not prohibit discussions related to “the topics of slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, or racial discrimination” if such discussions are had in the classroom “in a professionally and academically appropriate manner and without [the teacher] espousing personal political beliefs” (O.C.G.A. § 20-1-11(d)(7)). However, the law does provide for a “complaint resolution process” that parents may use against teachers who are accused of teaching divisive concepts (O.C.G.A. § 20-1-11(e)(1); Rhym and Butler, 2022).
Laws such as the one enacted in the state of Georgia reflect a mounting conservative and cultural backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and programming implemented in government agencies, corporations, and schools in the wake of the murder of George Floyd in 2020 (Rhym and Butler, 2022). In addition, many state legislatures modeled the language banning divisive concepts on Executive Order 13950, “Combating Race & Stereotypes” (Rhym and Butler, 2022). Executive Order 13950, which was put into effect during the first Trump administration in September 2020, effectively limited the content of diversity and inclusion training programs for federal employees and contractors by banning trainings that “promote[d] race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating in the federal workplace or in the Uniformed Services” (EO 13950, 2020, p. 60685).
According to Stitzlein (2022), divisive concept “laws label certain understandings of or beliefs about race, gender, and sexuality as too divisive or inappropriate for classroom curriculum and instruction, or even for the professional development of teachers” (p. 597). Proponents argue legislative mandates protect against the indoctrination of concepts such as critical race theory (CRT) “and the 1619 project, which centers Black Americans in the historical narrative of the United States” (Stitzlein 2022, p. 596). In addition, proponents argue these laws prioritize transparency in education, the rights of parents to make decisions about what their children learn, and individuality rather than identity politics (Stitzlein, 2022; Woo et al, 2023). Critics, however, contend -+such laws create fear and limit academic expression (Woo et al., 2023).
Although the widespread passage of divisive concept laws occurred rapidly over a short period of time, the long-term impact of these laws on teachers and how they choose to interpret, incorporate, and/or shirk the law in this area is largely unknown. In fact, at the time of data collection and writing for this study, limited empirical scholarship existed that explored or explained how these legislative bans affect teacher discretion as granted, used, or perceived (cf., Izaguirre & Licon, 2022; Woo et al., 2023). This study seeks to contribute to the nascent body of literature on divisive concepts by exploring the attitudes of K-12 teachers in the state of Georgia where state legislators banned teaching “divisive concepts.” We also seek to contribute to the well-developed scholarship on street-level bureaucracy theory by exploring the factors that influence how K-12 teachers perceive their discretion in the state because of the law. Studies of “discretion-as-perceived” in street-level bureaucracy literature are growing in importance, and we explore whether law-based bans on divisive concepts limit teacher discretion-as-perceived and the factors that appear to influence this perception. Our findings suggest that Georgia K-12 teachers perceive a loss of discretion in classroom decision-making.
Theoretical Framework
Street-level bureaucracy theory provides a useful framework for understanding which factors might influence how teachers perceive their levels of discretion when faced with mandates outlined in divisive concepts legislation. In this literature review, we first explain why teachers are street-level bureaucrats. We then discuss how discretion-as-perceived differs from discretion-as-granted or discretion-as-used. Finally, we explore our theoretical expectations for the study.
Teachers as Street-Level Bureaucrats
Teachers, much like police officers, are quintessential examples of street-level bureaucrats (Hall & Hampden-Thompson, 2022; Hoy, 2003; Lipsky, 2010). According to Lipsky (2010), a street-level bureaucrat is a front-line, public-facing employee who interacts with the citizen-clients they serve daily and who exercises substantial discretion as a legitimate component of their work duties. In addition, teachers fit the mold of Lipsky’s “sympathetic portrayal of front-line officials” (Halliday et al, 2009, p. 406). They often work in lower-paying jobs despite the skills and education required to do their work, and they have little control over the amount of resources available to do their jobs (Lipsky, 2010).
Moreover, teachers work in typical bureaucratic structures where leadership is hierarchical in nature and constant monitoring and oversight is impossible (Taylor, 2007). Although teachers must follow guidance provided by school principals, system-level administrators, state-wide officials, and the communities they serve, they also perform their jobs away from the watchful eyes of those intended to provide supervision. In addition, the daily interactions teachers have with both children and their families, much like all street-level bureaucrats, require teachers to make oft-improvised ad-hoc decisions about how they will distribute limited resources, interpret rules and regulations, contend with biases and stereotypes, and effectively do their jobs (Baviskar, 2019; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003; Taylor, 2007). As a result, teachers work in high pressure environments that require them to consider their duties and obligations through the lens of competing legal mandates, societal norms, managerial and parental expectations, and their own personal values and beliefs (Taylor, 2007; see also Chiarello, 2015). Indeed, teachers exercise autonomy and discretion in their jobs to “cope” with the limitations of their work and to determine how they will effectively provide face-to-face services to the students they teach on a day-to-day basis. They do so by employing routines and standardized practices that allow them to “ration services, attempt to control uncertainty, husband worker resources, and manage consequences of routines” (Portillo & Rudes, 2014, p. 331).
Types of Discretion
The role of discretion is central to understanding whether teachers align with, reject, or feel constrained by legislative mandates for the classroom. According to Tummers and Bekkers (2014), “discretion can be seen as the extent of freedom [a street-level bureaucrat] can exercise in a specific context” (p. 529). In the case of teachers, discretion is the freedom they have in determining what they can teach and how to teach as well as determining their grading and classroom management procedures (Berkman & Plutzer, 2010; Tummers & Bekkers, 2014). For this reason, this study specifically inquires into common categories of educational decision-making like the selection of course materials and the development of class assessments.
When considering levels of discretion, scholars generally identify three types of discretion: (a) discretion-as-granted, (b) discretion-as-used, and (c) discretion-as-perceived (de Boer and Raaphorst, 2023). Most street-level bureaucracy scholars tend to focus on discretion-as-used and to a lesser degree on discretion-as granted (de Boer & Raaphorst, 2023; Hupe, 2013; Raaphorst et al, 2022; Tummers & Becker, 2014). This is because street-level bureaucracy scholars apply discretion-as granted and discretion-as-used to explain the “implementation gap—the idea of a gap between policy and implementation in practice” (Carson et al, 2015, p. 167; see also Lipsky, 2010; Thomann et al, 2018). From the standpoint of elected officials and even managers, discretion-as-granted represents the formal authority given to street-level bureaucrats by formal policymakers. Any exercises of discretion not formally granted is “a control problem: discretion should be avoided as it can mean that policy is not implemented as intended” (Thomann et al., 2018, p. 583). Stated differently, when legislators pass laws such as divisive concept legislation, they do so with the express purpose of limiting the discretion exercised by teachers in classrooms.
“Conversely, bottom-up theories [like street-level bureaucracy theory] state that discretion can help policy implementers tailor” rules and regulations in manners they believe best fit the circumstances (Thomann et al., 2018, p. 583). This approach to implementation describes discretion-as-used. Moreover, the core of street-level bureaucracy literature concerns the factors that underscore discretion-as-used (Edlins & Larrison, 2020; Harrits, 2019; Keiser, 2010; Pfaff et al, 2020). How street-level bureaucrats use their discretion often depends on their own personal identities, assessments of client worthiness, personal ideologies, and alignment with agency goals (Garrow and Grusky, 2013; Keiser, 2010). Street-level bureaucracy scholars also argue that the relationships street-level bureaucrats have with others—“with the immediate supervisor, with peers, and with clients and citizens”—impact discretion-as-used (Maynard-Moody & Portillo, 2010, p. 21).
In the specific context of teachers, discretion-as-used demonstrates how teachers respond to “reforms” in the classroom environment and how “students, as the non-voluntary clients or service users, experience[] reforms to education policy through the decisions made by their teachers” (Hall & Hampden-Thompson, 2022, p. 984). Scholars assert that the degree of discretion used by teachers often depends on their years of experience, subject-matter expertise, or level of professionalism (Braun et al., 2011). Furthermore, teachers are also influenced by their individual beliefs on both personal and professional levels and by what they believe is best for their students (Hall & Hampden-Thompson, 2022; Taylor, 2007). In fact, scholars who study street-level bureaucracy theory suggest that where there are “more rules in place, SLBs have greater discretion to determine which rule(s) to apply in a given situation” (Portillo & Rudes 2014, p. 323). In many instances, teachers, like other front-line workers, decide how they will apply rules and policy mandates set by the governing authority to determine how they will teach and/or advocate for their students (Taylor, 2007). Because teachers serve children, it is common for them to try to go beyond what is expected of them.
In comparison to discretion-as-granted and discretion as used, discretion-as-perceived is “the degree to which frontline workers perceive to possess discretion” (Thomann et al, 2018, p. 584). Specifically, Thomann et al (2018) argue that discretion-as-perceived provides an important precursor to how street-level bureaucrats will eventually use discretion. Few contemporary studies explore the factors that influence discretion-as-perceived. Thomann et al (2018) contributed to this area by defining discretion-as-perceived as a form of powerfulness or the extent to which street-level bureaucrats experience powerlessness in the implementation of policy or the application of their jobs. De Boer and Raaphorst (2023) similarly defined discretion-as-perceived in the context of street-level bureaucrats working “with automated decision support systems” (p. 46). They operationalized discretion-as-perceived as a form of operational powerlessness or whether respondents expressed “the intervention policy [felt] like a harness” that constrained their decision-making (p. 50).
Because divisive concept laws are relatively new, and at the time of this study, teachers were just beginning to determine how to best interpret and implement such laws, our focus is on K-12 teachers’ perception of discretion rather than “the formal discretion granted” to them or their discretion as used (de Boer and Raaphorst, 2023, p. 47). More importantly, under some circumstances, “discretion-as-perceived is [also] a better predictor of street-level bureaucrats’ behavior than the formal discretion they have been granted” (p. 48). This is because, as de Boer and Raaphorst (2023) argue, for street-level bureaucrats to exercise discretion, they must first “feel they can interpret or deviate from rules, as they see fit for specific cases” (p. 48).
Theoretical Expectations
To gain a better understanding of discretion-as-perceived, we ask the following question: “How does a change in legislation impact perceived discretion in K-12 classrooms?” To address this inquiry, we analyze teachers’ reports of discretion before and after the passage of HB 1084. Our goal is to determine if street-level bureaucrats’ perceptions change after the passage of divisive concept legislation. We explore two hypotheses. First, we hypothesize that teachers perceive a loss of discretion in the classroom after the enactment of HB 1084. Like previous studies on perceived discretion, we operationalize it as a form of powerlessness or the extent to which teachers believe they can no longer control specific aspects of instruction. Second, we hypothesize that professionalization, teacher specialization, and political party identification are factors that will be related to teachers’ perceptions of discretion. Here, we measure professionalization by years of service, education level, and professional association membership (Figure 1).
Hypotheses.
Admittedly, not as much is known about the factors that influence strret-level bureaucrats’ discretion-as-perceived compared to associations with discretion-as-used. Our research is largely exploratory in nature but rooted in factors identified in street-level bureaucracy literature that affect forms of discretion. Tummers and Bekkers (2014), for example, argue perceived discretion may differ as a result of: (a) a street-level bureaucrat’s “knowledge on loopholes in the rules,” (b) how a street-level bureaucrat’s managing institution conceptualizes or interprets the policy, (c) whether the street-level bureaucrat is given permission by direct supervisor or managers to make adjustments to policy, and (d) whether the individual street-level bureaucrat “is more rule-following or rebellious” (p. 530). Moreover, individual characteristics shape how different street-level bureaucrats perceive their discretion even when applying the same policy. In comparison, de Boer and Raaphorst (2023) argue that the degree of discretion-as-perceived depends on whether street-level bureaucrats believe they have “leeway” in how they interpret rules (p. 47).
Methodology
To test our hypotheses, we used a cross-sectional survey design to gather opinions from the target population (public school teachers). We utilized a single-stage cluster sample method. Single-stage cluster sampling was deemed the most appropriate method of sampling due to the size of the target population and the feasibility of single-stage data collection. Specifically, Georgia has over 120,000 teachers across 219 public schools (GOSA, 2022). For this study, a simple random sample would have been impractical. Given that public school systems in Georgia are clustered into 14 U.S. House districts, we randomly selected one county school system from each of the districts to assure representativeness across the target population instead. 2 Congressional districts frequently reflect regional interests and similarities among populations in each state. For this reason, we wanted to ensure that each region was represented in data collection. In this study, the term “school district” refers to those 14 congressional regions, rather than to more convntional local school districts (GSBA, 2023). We refer to the collective of schools within a county as a county school system.
Georgia: A Critical Case for Analysis
We focus on a single state: Georgia. Scholarship in research methodology supports the use of a critical case in instances where distinctive circumstances exist in one case that may not be present in other cases. When a single case is selected, examining it as a criticl case provides an opportunity to assess the focal phenomena’s impact in a way that other cases would not allow (Yin, 2009). We deemed this to be the most appropriate approach for a few reasons. First, a single-state analysis was most feasible for the study’s scope, given the resources available for data collection, analysis, and reporting in an emerging policy area. Second, limiting the observations to a single state allows for control of state-level effects. Put another way, certain extraneous factors are eliminated as noise in our models when other states are not included. Third, we wanted to be able to narrowly focus on the experiences of a subset of street-level bureaucrats to gain a deeper understanding of the specific political and social context during this window of time.
Of the 18 states with divisive concept legislation, Georgia represents a critical case in divisive concept legislation because of its distinctive socio-political context. In 2020, Georgia emerged as one of the country’s more demographically and politically diverse states. During the data collection period for this study, Georgia was largely known as a swing state having selected democratic candidates for senate and president while maintaining republican control in the state legislature and governor’s office (Wong, 2020). Specific to education, the Georgia Department of Education was also headed by a republican superintendent who has taken a supportive position on divisive concepts bans in K-12 education (Jacobson, 2022; Allen,2022). 3 These factors demonstrate Georgia’s political diversity and the potential for ideological differences between administrators and elected officials.
Additionally, Georgia is one of the top five states in the country to see population increases in the decennial census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021). Over 30% of Georgia’s population identifies as Black or African American (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). This statistic suggests that the state possesses a population that may find the legislation culturally significant. Mississippi is the only other state in the United States with a higher percentage of Blacks or African Americans. While Mississippi is also one of the 18 states with divisive concepts legislation, it is far more politically homogenous than Georgia. Mississippi has been a republican stronghold for over 50 years across all the highest political offices. As such, we would expect less nuance in perspectives even if the state has a large minority population. We decided that this state is not well suited to serve as a critical case of inquiry. Since divisive concept legislation is often directed at the discussion of racism and historic forms of oppression, this topic should be of special concern to administrators in a state with a large black population and experiencing major demographic and political shifts.
For these reasons, we consider Georgia as a critical case of involving divisive concept legislation. Studying this state should present an opportunity to capture a snapshot in time where macro-politics, education, and social factors intersect in a distinctive setting.
Data Collection
In June 2022, the preliminary survey instrument was constructed and piloted prior to official data collection. We piloted the survey instrument with higher education faculty; these participants were not included in the sample. The pilot respondents provided feedback on the structure and flow of the instrument and the clarity of the survey items. The pilot demonstrated a need for additional questions and more specific language on some items. The pilot study resulted in several revisions of the survey items and the addition of an open-response section for participants. This item allowed participants to share any thoughts they might have about the legislative change. We also added sample-specific demographic questions. The final survey instrument was composed of 40 items, with closed and open-ended questions. 4 We collected responses from December 2022 to March 2023 using Qualtrics Software.
To gain participants, we recruited K-12 teachers using individual email invitations from one county school system in each congressional district in the state. Each county school system included multiple elementary, middle, and high schools. In total, we invited 22,793 teachers to participate in the study via email; 9654 opened the email (representing a contact rate of 42.3%); 585 started the survey, with 469 completing it (representing an overall response rate of 3%). As an incentive, we conducted a $50 Amazon gift card drawing (participation in the survey was not required for entry in the drawing). We also provided two follow-up reminders. Although greater participation would have been desirable, our expectations for responses were modest due to the political climate surrounding the topic. Statistical analysis shows that the sample size provides adequate power to tap the attitudes of Georgia teachers.
Sample
The survey participants’ demographics were analyzed for its representativeness of the target population of teachers (see Table 1). The descriptive statistics indicate that overall, the sample is representative of teachers in the state in many ways. We compared the respondents to the 2022 teacher demographics outlined in the Georgia Office of Student Achievement Report (GOSA, 2022). For example, the sample includes respondents from several racial backgrounds. 5 Close to one-quarter of the responents (24.5%) identified as Black or African American; 60.6% identified as White only, 2.3% reporting Asian, and 12.6% indicating two or more races. Racially, the sample closely aligns with state statistics on teacher race. The study sample also includes respondents who report Hispanic origins; 4.5% of those included in the study identify as Hispanic. Statewide, 2.6% of teachers are categorized as Hispanic. GOSA (2022) indicates that over 67% of teachers report White as their race while 26.5% report Black. The sample is slightly under-representative of women, including 69.3% who identify as women (compared to the state report of 79.5% of women teachers. Meanwhile, 43.5% of the sample have obtained a master’s degree or higher, which is about 10% higher than Georgia teachers overall. Only about 3% of teachers in the state do not have permanent certification status; in the sample 1.5% reported being uncertified at the time of the study. The state report does not include information on age or party affiliation. In the sample, slightly over 40% of the respondents identify as Democrats, and 18.1% consider themselves Republicans. Most teachers report being between 35-49 years old, with 50 to 64-year-olds being the next largest group of respondents at 32.4%. Few participants were over 65 (1.1%). About 25% of the sample were under 34 years old. Taken together, the demographics characteristics of the participants generally align with those of the teaching population in the state. Coupled with statistical power, this suggests that the sample is broadly representative of the population of teachers in Georgia and serves as an appropriate sample to use for statistical inference.
Sample Demographics.
Key Variables
Our key independent variables are professionalization and specialization. This study aimed to understand how those factors would be related to the dependent variable, discretion-as perceived. We operationalized professionalization using a combination of different measures. Professionalization here refers to key indicators of commitment and engagement in the profession that public administration scholarship emphasizes (see Pugh, 1989; Yeager, 1981). Those factors include years of experience, level of education, number of professional memberships, Georgia certification status, and level of reported autonomy in the position. We created the professionalization variable by combining the participants’ responses on these items. The value then was then used as an indicator of overall professionalism. The items were combined to give each respondent a professionalization score. Professionalism scores ranged from 0 to 13, with higher values tapping greater professionalism. We expect more professionalized street-level bureaucrats to perceive the new legislation as infringing upon their discretion.
We defined specialization as teaching a specialized subject area. Here, we define specialization as instructing a single subject area rather than providing general education across subjects. For example, a third-grade science teacher would be considered specialized whereas a third-grade teacher who instructs all subjects would not be deemed as specialized. Teachers who reported instructing a single subject area were categorized as specialists, and those who taught across subjects were categorized as generalists. We expect specialized teachers to perceive a loss in discretion.
Our dependent variable, discretion-as-perceived, is measured using a combination of items on the survey. First, we asked respondents to indicate their level of discretion across multiple course instruction areas on a 3-point scale (No Control [1], Some Control [2], Complete Control [3]) before the passage of HB 1084 (Georgia House of Representatives, HB 1094, 2022). Respondents were asked about their decision-making abilities in selecting course materials, creating lesson content, developing writing assignments, and creating class projects. Those areas were combined to create a composite score for discretion-as-perceived. Later, the respondents were asked to report their discretion across the same areas after the legislative change. Since we are interested in how HB 1084 affected decision-making and teachers’ opinions on decision-making regarding divisive concepts, we deemed these variables to be the key outcome variables for the study. We opted for a shorter scale to make clearer distinctions between the levels of perceived discretion. We deemed a scale with one clear midpoint and two extreme positions as the best indicator of reported overall change in an ever-emerging policy area. Additionally, scholarship in survey design also has indicated that shorter scales provide greater homogeneity in items and constructs (Schweizer, 2011; Lucke, 2005).
Reliability
To create a uniform measure of perceived discretion before and after H.B. 1084, we developed an index consisting of six survey items asking respondents to indicate their level of decision-making across six areas in classroom instruction. First, we conducted a principal factor analysis (PCA) to determine if more than one factor could be identified in the index. The analysis indicated the presence of only one factor. We then took the mean rating for the items as the overall index score. The perceived discretion index created for the study was examined for reliability. Cronbach’s Alpha indicates the internal consistency and reliability of a scale. The Cronbach’s Alpha scores for the “Before Legislative Change” and “After Legislative Change” index are .853 and .897, respectively. Since scores exceeding .70 are considered acceptable, these scores indicate that both indices are internally consistent and reliable measures of discretion-as-perceived.
Descriptive Statistics
To analyze the data, we examined the descriptive statistics, conducted a means test, and performed regression analysis. The descriptive statistics provide demographic information on the respondents and percentages of differences in perceived discretion. The means test allows us to determine if there is a statistical difference in perceived discretion before and after the passage of Georgia HB 1084 among surveyed teachers. Finally, the regression analysis allows us to identify key predictors of attitudes toward perceived discretion following the legislative change. These estimates analysis permitted us to examine whether professionalization, specialization, and demographics are key predictors of perceived discretion after legislative initiatives targeting classroom instruction. Since these survey items are scored on an ordinal scale, ordinal logistic regression is the most appropriate tool of analysis.
Results
To test hypothesis 1, we conducted a dependent samples t-test of perceived discretion scores before and after the legislative change (see Table 2). The dependent samples t-test determines whether there is a statistically significant difference between two means within a single sample. Given that our items ask one group of respondents to gauge their perceived discretion under two different sets of circumstances, this test is an appropriate measure of difference in means for the study. The results suggest a notable difference in discretion between the two points of inquiry. Specifically, respondents on average report their perceived discretion as 2.21 on a 3-point scale, where 3 represents complete discretion and 1 represents no discretion. Following the legislative change, respondents perceived lower discretion at 2.03. This is an average change of .18284 in perceived discretion in instructional decision-making. This finding represents a statistically significant change in perceived discretion (p < .001) surrounding course instruction. Hypothesis 1 is supported. In short, the difference between teachers’ perceived discretion before and after the passage of O.C.G.A § 20-1-11 is statistically significant .
Dependent Samples Test of Perceived Discretion.
To explore hypothesis 2, we conducted an ordinal logistic regression of the factors associated with perceived discretion following the legislative change. Since the responses to the discretion items are ordinal in nature, the ordinal model is appropriate in determining predictors of this phenomenon. The test indicates that professional and demographic factors – specialization, race, and gender – are key predictors of perceived discretion. We find partial support for hypothesis 2. Party ID was not a statistically significant predictor of these attitudes. The professionalization measure did not reach the conventional .05 level of statistical significance but was statisticaly significant at p<.1. Female respondents perceived their discretion to be .504 lower than their male counterparts following the legislative change. Similarly, Black and Asian teachers indicate lower perceived discretion in instructional decision-making. Compared to their White counterparts, Black teachers score their discretion .548 lower. Asian and Native American teachers reported the biggest shift in perception. On average, Asian teachers rate their discretion 1.071 lower than White teachers. Native American teachers rated their perceived discretion 1.722 higher when compared to their white colleagues.While professionalization was not a significant predictor, specialization was a key factor in perceived discretion. Specialized teachers report higher perceived discretion than generalist teachers, rating levels of discretion .564 points higher than generalist teachers. It appears that those teachers focusing on specific subject areas view the legislative change as having less impact on their instructional decision-making than those who teach across subjects. The estimates in the model suggest, then, that some personal and professional characteristics are key predictors of perceived discretion in classroom instruction (Table 3).
Predictors of Discretion-as-Perceived.
p <.05. **p <. 01. ***p > .001.
Discussion
This study yields important results that contribute to understanding of discretion-as-perceived as a key form of discretion. First, we explored whether K-12 teachers in the state of Georgia perceived a loss of discretion in the classroom after the enactment of HB 1084. Overall, our findings indicate that teachers in Georgia do perceive a loss of discretion or a lack of control over specific aspects of instruction. This is not surprising when considering some of the survey comments respondents provided. Of the 469 survey participants, more than half provided remarks in the section at the end of the survey. Although we did not examine the comments as part of our data analysis, a supplemental review of the comments section indicates that the majority of the open-ended comments expressed concerns about or criticism of the law. One respondent stated, for example: “Educators need to be making the decisions about what to teach in the classroom, not legislators.” Nevertheless, a few comments indicated support for the legislature’s attempt to establish uniform standards for these topics. One participant wrote, “I think that professionally teachers have an obligation to teach the standards that are laid out by the state DOE. . .” Additionally, another group of comments presented a more neutral view of legislative action. For instance: “I understand why, because many teachers are not properly trained on how to leave their personal feelings, values, and biasness out of the classroom. However, I think instead of banning it altogether, the legislature should create appropriate teaching material that satisfies both ’opposing’ parties to use in the classroom at each grade level.” Together these comments support the notion that decision-making power over what is taught in the K-12 classroom is an emerging issue.
Second, we also explored whether professionalization, teacher specialization, and teachers’ demographic characteristics were related to perceptions of discretion. Perhaps surprisingly, although specialization, race, and gender are key factors that influence teachers’ perceptions of discretion, professionalization – measured by years of service, education level, and professional association membership - and political party identification are not. Despite the evident lack of association of these latter factors with how K-12 teachers describe their discretion in response to the law, our findings provide important theoretical implications for scholarship on discretion-as-perceived. From this study, it is clear that discretion-as-perceived has certain moderating factors shaping street-level bureaucrats’ experiences as decision-makers.
Limitations
Although this study undoubtedly contributes to the literature on street-level bureaucracy theory, its findings could be examined further to provide more clarity and depth of understanding. First, the response rate to the survey was unexceptional. While we did receive enough responses to reach adequate statistical power, more responses may have provided more robust results for the means test and regression analysis. To achieve a high response rate, we incentivized participation and extended our data collection window, but other measures may be more successful in future research. Second, survey research of this nature during a highly politicized debate over divisive concepts in education could have impacted who responded to the survey. While the survey was open to all teachers within each county school system selected, those most aware of the topic may have been the respondents opting to participate in the study. This raises questions about self-selection bias. Undoubtedly, self-selection bias is always a concern in survey research,and it is possible that the results may have been influenced by the salience of the topic. In that same regard, there is concern for the reliability of opinion data collected surrounding controversial topics. A social desirability effect can occur when discussing views on racialized topics. Finally, because this study involves a single state at a particular point in time as a critical case study, the generalizability of the findings beyond the state of Georgia and to future dynamics in the state may be limited.
Next Steps
Beyond the clear applicability to Georgia educators, the findings suggest that divisive concept legislation could have a broader impact on perceived discretion in lawmaking. HB 1084 provides a broad framework guiding divisive concept instruction that could be interpreted in several ways. Future research should investigate how bureaucrats interpret and implement policies, whether and how policy adoption and implementation diffuses across states and regions, and how changes in discretion shape administrative behavior for street-level bureaucrats. The next iteration of research in this area also should employ qualitative methods to examine the impact and perceptions of the law. This project was limited to finding statistical patterns in perceptions and predictors. Although it was beyond the scope of this study, much insight can be gained from in-depth discussions with K-12 educators on how divisive concept legislation has impacted classroom decision-making and how street-level bureaucrats perceive the change (see e.g., Metz, 2024).
Moreover, this study focused on discretion-as-perceived, the least explored form of discretion in the literature. While we explored an under-investigated area needing deeper understanding, it would also be beneficial to gauge whether and how discretion-as-used and discretion-as-granted have been impacted by the passage of divisive concept legislation. Future research should seek to understand the institutional and professional factors shaping implementation, attitudes, and bureaucratic behavior.
In general, the results of this study contribute to our understanding of street-level bureaucracy and administrative discretion scholarship in two ways. First, the findings demonstrate a connection between the decision-making of elected officials and the perceptions of street-level bureaucrats. Specifically, we were able to capture how teachers’ views of their perceived discretion changed soon after the enactment of divisive concept legislation. Second, the data suggest that the nature of work and the identities of bureaucrats influence how diverse groups perceive their ability to make decisions. It is unclear if this also holds for other street-level bureaucrats, however. Additional research on changes to laws affecting healthcare, law enforcement, and social work should be explored to determine if comparable results emerge. Overall, this study serves as a starting point for future analyses probing discretion-as-perceived among street-level bureaucrats working in salient and often contentious policy areas.
Conclusion
This study seeks to understand how discretion-as-perceived is impacted by legislative changes in spaces where discretion has been prevalent and longstanding. We specifically explored how divisive concept legislation in a single U.S. state affected teachers as street-level bureaucrats. Divisive concept legislation is an emerging policy area impacting K-12 schools. Our findings suggest these street-level bureaucrats, K-12 public school teachers, perceive a change in their ability to make decisions about classroom instruction. These perceptions evidently are influenced by professional and demographic factors like specialization, gender, and race. Put simply, the findings indicate that some teachers believe that they have less discretion in classroom instruction following the passage of divisive concept legislation.
Footnotes
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the 2022-2023 RCHSS Scholarship Support Funding award, which was awarded by the Radow College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Kennesaw State University.
Notes
Author Biographies
Drs. Grayer and Barnes recently co-authored an article in Public Personnel Management titled “Does Language Matter? Perceptions of the Use of Diversity Training in the Public Sector Workforce” where they explored attitudes toward the use of politically charged language in public sector training.