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.
BaviskarS. (2019). Who creams? Explaining the classroom cream-skimming behavior of school teachers from a street-level bureaucracy perspective. International Public Management Journal, 22(3), 524–559.
4.
BerkmanM.PlutzerE. (2010). Evolution, creationism, and the battle to control America’s classrooms. Cambridge University Press.
5.
BraunA.MaguireM.HoskinsK. (2011). Taking content seriously: Towards explaining policy enactments in the secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 585–596.
6.
CarsonE.ChungD.EvansT. (2015). Complexities of discretion in social services in the third sector. European Journal of Social Work, 18(2), 167–184.
7.
ChiarelloE. (2015). The war on drugs comes to the pharmacy counter: frontline work in the shadow of discrepant institutional logics. Law & Social Inquiry, 40(1), 86–122.
8.
de BoerN.RaaphorstN. (2023). Automation and discretion: explaining the effect of automation on how street-level bureaucrats enforce. Public Management Review, 25(1), 42–62.
9.
EdlinsM.LarrisonJ. (2020). Street-level bureaucrats and the governance of unaccompanied migrant children. Public Policy and Administration, 35(4), 403–423.
10.
Executive Order 13950, 85 Fed. Reg. 60683 (Sept. 22, 2020).
11.
GarrowE. E.GruskyO. (2013). Institutional logic and street-level discretion: The case of HIV test counseling. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 103–131.
HallM.Hampden-ThompsonG. (2022). The teacher as street-level bureaucrat: science teacher’s discretionary decision-making in a time of reform. International Journal of Science Education, 44(6), 980-999.
17.
HallidayS.BurnsN.HuttonN.McNeillF.TataC. (2009). Street-level bureaucracy, interprofessional relations, and coping mechanisms: A study of criminal justice social workers in the sentencing process. Law & Policy, 31(4), 405–428.
18.
HarritsG. S. (2019). Stereotypes in context: How and when do street-level bureaucrats use class stereotypes?Public Administration Review, 79(1), 93–103.
19.
HoyW. K. (2003). An analysis of enabling and mindful school structures: Some theoretical, research and practical considerations. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(1), 87–109.
20.
HupeP. (2013). Dimensions of discretion: Specifying the object of street-level bureaucracy research. dms–der moderne staat–Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 6(2), 23–24.
21.
IzaguirreA.LiconA. G. (2022, August15), So-called ‘don’t say gay’ law confuses some Florida schools. Associated Press.
KeiserL. R. (2010). Understanding Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Decision Making: Determining Eligibility in the Social Security Disability Program. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 247-275.
24.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. 30th Anniversary Expanded Edition. Russell Sage.
25.
LuckeJ. F. (2005). The α and the ω of congeneric test theory: An extension of reliability and internal consistency to heterogeneous tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29(1), 65–81.
26.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: narratives of street-level judgment. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
27.
Maynard-MoodyS.PortilloS. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy theory. In DurantR.F. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of American bureaucracy (pp. 252–277). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199238958.003.0011.
28.
MetzM. (2024). English Teachers’ experience of critical language teaching in an anti-CRT context. English Education, 56(4), 261–283.
29.
PfaffS.CrabtreeC.KernH. L.HolbeinJ. B. (2020). Do street-level bureaucrats discriminate based on religion? a large-scale correspondence experiment among american public school principals. Public Administration Review, 81(2), 244-259.
30.
PortilloS.RudesD. S. (2014). Construction of justice at the street level. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 10, 321–334.
31.
PughD. L. (1989). Professionalism in public administration: Problems, perspectives, and the role of ASPA. Public Administration Review, 49(1), 1–8.
32.
RaaphorstN.HupeP.BreedveldM. (2022). Nobody’s agent: Discretion as individualistic accountability. In The Politics of the Public Encounter (pp. 107-125). Edward Elgar Publishing.
RhymR.ButlerD. (2022). General Provisions. Ga. St. UL Rev., 39, 49.
36.
SchweizerK. (2011). Some thoughts concerning the recent shift from measures with many items to measures with few items. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.
37.
StitzleinS. M. (2022). Divisive Concepts in Classrooms: A Call to Inquiry. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 41(6), 595-612.
TaylorI. (2007). Discretion and control in education: The teacher as street-level bureaucrat. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(4), 555–572.
40.
ThomannE.van EngenN.TummersL. (2018). The necessity of discretion: A behavioral evaluation of bottom-up implementation theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), 583–601.
41.
TummersL.BekkersV. (2014). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527-547.
WooA.LeeS.TumaA. P.KaufmanJ. H.LawrenceR. A.ReedN. (2023). Walking on Eggshells—Teachers’ Responses to Classroom Limitations on Race- or Gender-Related Topics: Findings from the 2022 American Instructional Resources Survey. RAND Corporation, United States. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA134-16.html.
YeagerS. J. (1981). Fostering the development of professionalism: An exchange theory perspective of the decision to join a professional association. Southern Review of Public Administration, 5(3), 314–338.
47.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
