 |
 |
 |
April 2, 2008 FOCUS ON BUDGET: Reverse Economics – Developing a Fiscal Case for Your Music Program (Part 1 of 2) In this two-part series, you’ll collect and analyze the data that underlies your district’s student enrollment, participation in music programs, and teacher loads, and then learn how to use it to make a strong fiscal case for your music program. To help frame your examination of your district’s situation, consider these potential scenarios and their impact on full student participation in music programs: 1. If the average (district-wide) student loads of secondary music performance teachers are smaller than classroom teachers, you will be in the weakest financial position to preserve or build your program. If you ask why, you’ll often find the solution to saving the program. For example, you may uncover administrative issues that prevent student participation such as guidance counselors who tell students not to take the arts, or a refusal to schedule music performance classes in a way that facilitates student participation. 2. If the average student loads of secondary music performance teachers are the same as those of other classroom teachers, you are financially justified in fighting to take only your fair share of cuts. However, it is strongly recommended that music supervisors, music teachers and advocates assume a posture of “no cuts” ; if cuts are made, administration and school board will be able to blame you for suggesting them. 3. If the average student loads of secondary music performance teachers are normally larger than those of the regular classroom teacher, this is where music programs should be economically most secure. Any cuts in music programs under these circumstances are economically counter-productive. The primary cost factor in education is personnel. The most cost-efficient personnel are those who instruct the largest number of students in a given class period and/or who carry the largest student loads. (See my series of articles on FTE and FTE Value) How do you best demonstrate the positive financial significance of high participation in music performance courses? You start by using the Public School Music Participation Survey to collect data about students enrolled in music programs. (Note: This discussion relates only to curricular music programs (meaning those held during the regular school day) as opposed to co-curricular or extra-curricular programs. The data below includes only band enrollments to simplify the information. Normally, all music performing organizations would be included in the data to provide more complete information.) Editor’s Note: The following is an exercise in analyzing key district data in order to understand your situation and begin to make your case. This information was taken from a recent effort by the author to help a district defend its music program. This chart shows student enrollment in band from grades 5 through 12.
2. District enrollments, by grade, show 5621 students eligible for participation. 3. The percentage of eligible students participating in band, indicated by grade, shows 20% of all eligible students participating. 4. Enrollment disparities, evident in individual schools and in between grades district wide, should be examined for causality. [Districts identified as of qualitative excellence consider 65% of grade 5 students as a minimum target level for participation; and, a maximum of 15% attrition between any two grades.]** 5. If enrollment disparities (as related to attrition) were reduced to a minimum of 15% in all grades, student participation would increase to 1310. Of particular significance are the percentages in grades 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11. 6. If the district achieved the quantitative status of a profile of excellence, there would be 1923 students participating in band. Now, if we combine the band, choir and orchestra enrollment data for the same district with the FTE information gathered from pages 1-3 of the Public School Music Participation survey, we can determine the average FTE value of the music performance teachers. This is summarized in the table below, Average Student Loads (Secondary Example), based on the following information: 1. There are 2,589 students in band, choir and orchestra in all grades. 2. There are 1,714 secondary band, choir and orchestra students. 3. There are 10.2 FTE secondary band, choir and orchestra teachers. 4. The average student load of the secondary music performance teacher is 168: [1,714 students divided by 10.2 FTE teachers]. 5. The average student load of the secondary non-music classroom teacher is 116: [5 classes multiplied by the average class size of 23.2 students]. [Note: The average student load of non-music classroom teachers is inflated by the large number of students in music performance classes.]
* Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Based on the comparison of the average student loads of music performance and non-music classroom teachers illustrated in the table above, the following factors become evident: 1. There are 10.2 FTE positions assigned to the grades 5 through 12 band, choir, and orchestra curriculum. 2. The average student load of the secondary music performance teacher equates to 1.4 FTE value as compared to non-music classroom teachers. 3. The 10.2 FTE secondary music performance teachers total FTE value is equivalent to 14.28 FTE non-music classroom teachers, an excess of 4.08 FTE. Includes the costs for any small group or individual lessons provided to secondary students by the music teachers. Justifies the inclusion of any music classes in the curriculum that m | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
