Abstract
This study was designed to examine the decision-making process for keeping or cutting the music program in one selected public school district. Lekbery School District, in the Detroit suburb of Lekbery, Michigan, had not made extreme cuts to the music program in over 10 years, nor had it specifically targeted the music program when budgets cuts did occur. Qualitative data collected through interviews and documents indicated that Lekbery Schools District’s administrators had committed to offering a well-rounded education to all of their students and that music education played a large part in that education. For decision making regarding funding and support for music education, decision makers considered (a) their personal values and philosophies of music education, (b) the values and demands of the community, (c) the quality of teaching that Lekbery could afford and provide, (d) the aesthetic and utilitarian purposes of keeping music education in the curriculum, (e) the economic value that music added, and (f) how the program contributed to the overall image of the school district.
Music educators today must fight against shrinking budgets in a tough economy. Since the dot-com bubble of 1995 to 2000, the current real estate slump, and related financial problems, Americans have seen the economy slow significantly. Over the past 10 years, the unemployment rate has more than doubled (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010), lowering state and local tax revenues and increasing local legislators’ difficulty to pass tax levies needed to support school districts. Many states reported limited and diminishing funds for public schools as a result of these problems (Dillon, 2010; Martin, 2010; New Jersey School Boards Association, 2009; Stover, 2009). As the economy declines, school district officials must provide high-quality education with less funding even as the cost of education rises.
Advocates for music education also face challenges stemming from changes in educational policy. In an age of increased accountability and educational standardization accompanied by tighter budgets and fewer funds, core subjects, such as math and reading, receive more funding and instructional time in public schools, while noncore subjects, like music, potentially face reductions or elimination in budgets, programs, and staffing. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 shifted educational priorities toward subjects assessed on standardized achievement tests. These subjects included math, science, English, and history but did not include music or the other arts. Furthermore, the No Child Left Behind Act states that school districts must measure and prove that students make “adequate yearly progress” (Michigan Department of Education, n.d.; No Child Left Behind Act, 2002). This means not only that school districts had to prepare students to pass one set of standardized tests, but they also needed to continue to prepare students to achieve higher scores every year.
To ensure the success and continued growth of every child on these tests, school district decision makers shifted priorities toward education in the subjects covered by the standardized tests, which exerted a negative effect on music education (Abril, 2009; Gerrity, 2007; McMurrer, 2007). Many administrators reported a change in money allocation toward unfunded mandates, which often affected the amount of money given to music education programs (Abril & Gault, 2006, 2008). In addition to monetary changes, these educational shifts resulted in an increased amount of time spent on tested subjects while reducing time for other subjects nationwide (McMurrer, 2007). Because educators did not lengthen the school day also, however, allocating more time to tested subjects decreased the amount of time devoted to other courses of study. National statistics on music education support these findings and show that schools nationwide have decreased the total minutes given to music education during the school day and also have seen declining enrollment in music classes (Lehman, 1990; McMurrer, 2008; Woodworth, Gallagher, & Guha, 2007).
In spite of these changes, Americans—including school administrators and general education teachers—have expressed overwhelming support for music in public education (Abril & Gault, 2006, 2008; Education Commission of the States [ECS], 2006b; Gallup Organization, 2003; Gerrity, 2007; Schultz, 2006). Yet, the U.S. public ranked arts education lower in importance than 18 other tested subjects (Marzano, Kendall, & Cicchinelli, 1999). The conflict between standardized testing and the arts has received more media attention than any other topic in arts education (ECS, 2005). In their reporting, journalists portrayed the arts as a dying subject that soon would disappear from public school curricula altogether (ECS, 2005). In many school districts across the nation, new policy and tighter funding have taken priority over music education. Some schools eliminated K–5 music, while others cut teachers, reduced budgets, or demanded that remaining teachers work overloaded schedules (Gillespie & Hamann, 1998; Music for All Foundation, 2004; Scheib, 2003; Woodworth et al., 2007).
While some schools have made drastic cuts in the music curricula, other schools and even whole school districts have not (Coysh, 2005; Iida, 1991; Pittman, 2003). Examining two Canadian secondary schools, Coysh (2005) defined “thriving program” by the percentage of students enrolled in music. She found that both school programs exhibited common qualities, such as effective leadership, appropriate music repertoire, reliable feeder systems, sufficient funding, adequate community and school support, student enjoyment, high-quality program management, varied concert programs, creative and aggressive scheduling, and educational goals of providing a social education for students. Similarly, upon examining four districtwide music programs, Pittman (2003) found that 10 years after receiving honors by MENC: The National Association for Music Education, each district had maintained its program despite threats of reduced funding. Pittman attributed these successes to competent staff of adequate size, high student enrollment, adequate funding, wide-ranging curriculum, and strong community support. In addition to thriving programs, some schools even started and maintained new programs (Gillespie & Hamann, 2010), modeling success that occurred on many levels.
While each of these situations differs in configuration and definition of quality or thriving, research suggests that school music program successes exist, and they stem from a supportive administration, high-quality teaching, and adequate funding. National statistics from 2008 about music education also support accounts of music achievement, stating that administrators reported that 71% of eighth graders attended schools where music was part of the state or district curriculum (Keiper, Sadene, Persky, & Kuang, 2008). This percentage increased from a prior study conducted in 1997, although the increase was not considered statistically significant (Keiper et al., 2008, p. 12).
These examples offer a contrasting viewpoint to the negative media portrayal of music education and also raise an interesting question. Why do some schools decide to sustain music while others do not? The answer is not simply that some schools have available funding. Fields (1982) showed that there was no significant relationship between budget limitations and the reduction or elimination or instrumental music in California public schools, and those schools with and without budgetary shortfalls both cut and saved music programs.
The answer comes from a more difficult process of deciding how to spend money available. Economic decisions often involved trade-offs (Sowell, 2007), and school districts might be able to keep music programming only by making another sacrifice. Tychsen (1999) examined five school districts whose administrators wanted to increase student achievement. While she found that funds were reallocated in all five districts to achieve this goal, it came at a cost. In some schools, teachers took on more responsibilities or workloads, while other schools cut back on aides or other noncore programs, such as art. If school district leaders can implement programs to improve student achievement and keep music funding, how do they make the decision to keep or cut programs?
Music educators must understand the mechanisms by which successful programs achieved their success and must conduct research that uncovers what music teachers must do to sustain the support necessary for their continuance. By examining current threats to public school music education, music educators learn what problems exist and what solutions are required. The environment for music education does not seem to be improving, and to continue to treat the symptoms of failing music education programs, music educators need to find more effective and efficient ways to address the systemic problem.
Method
The purpose of this study was to examine the decision-making procedures concerning music education in one school district that sustained its music program during a time of tough economic challenge. A crucial component of my research involved analyzing how administrators in a successful program like Lekbery’s arrived at their budgetary decisions and how those decisions consequently affected music education.
During the 2009–2010 school year, the Lekbery School District encompassed seven schools—four elementary schools, one K–8 school, one middle school, one high school, and several off-campus options for specialty programs—in a region 16 miles northwest of Detroit, Michigan (Major, 2010). 1 The NCES reported that the district educated 4,499 students during the 2006–2007 school year, which placed Lekbery’s student population exactly in the median of six neighboring school districts. Also according to NCES, Lekbery spent $10,469 per pupil during the 2006–2007 school year. Compared with the neighboring districts, Lekbery spent and received far less per student. A more detailed district description can be found in Appendix A (see http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental).
I conducted a single case study, examining an information-rich situation “in depth and detail” (Patton, 2002, p. 14). I chose Lekbery School District in the Detroit suburb of Lekbery, Michigan, because it had not experienced extreme budget cuts in music education in over 10 years, nor had administrators targeted the music programs for reduction when budget cuts did occur. Despite state and nationwide economic difficulties, Lekbery had kept its music program, but it had not done so through resources so unique that other school districts would consider Lekbery an anomaly.
By choosing to research only one district with an intense case, I was able to go into depth, finding meanings and relationships among the data. My goal was to examine the procedures and characteristics of the decision makers within this school district. I asked the following research questions: (1) What influenced Lekbery School District decision makers to keep music in the curriculum? (2) What criteria did Lekbery’s school board members and administrators use in deciding the value of music education? (3) What obstacles did Lekbery School District overcome to keep its music program?
To make this research as thorough as possible and to help establish reliability and credibility of information, I collected data from three major sources: interviews, documents, and participant observation. Realizing that interviews would provide the bulk of information for this case study, I conducted 2 in-depth interviews, 1 focus group interview, 13 focused interviews, and 1 informal conversational interview and had several clarification conversations via e-mail. The in-depth interviews occurred with one music teacher and one school upper administrator over several meetings where each interviewee not only responded to questions but also acted as informants who discussed whom else to interview and where to find other sources of information. The focus group for this study had 8 participants who were music teachers in the Lekbery School District. The 13 focused interviews occurred with two current music teachers, one retired music teacher, one building administrator (principal), four current upper administrators (for example, superintendent or deputy superintendent), two former upper administrators who were working in other districts, and three parents. Of these parents, one had children involved in music beyond the elementary level, and the other two were current school board members. For a complete chart of purposefully selected participants, see Appendix B (http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental).
Interviewees received a letter asking for participation on a voluntary basis and signed an institutional review board–approved consent form before participation began. For each interview, I used a guided list of questions, took extensive field notes, and digitally recorded the discussion. A complete list of questions can be found in Appendix C (http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental). I personally transcribed the recorded interview and submitted a copy to each person for a member check. After gaining member approvals, I coded the transcriptions, marked common themes, and looked for regularities. Next, I worked “back and forth between the data and the classification system to verify the meaningfulness and accuracy of the categories and the placement of data into categories” (Patton, 2002, p. 466). In addition to interviews, I collected documentation from public records, administrative documents, and written reports of school events (see Major, 2010, for a full record of data collected). For each document, I carefully read and reread the information, looking for support or discrepancies to each of the themes found in the coding of the interviews.
Finally, I used my role as participant-observer to collect data. Yin (2009) stated that “Such a perspective is invaluable in producing an ‘accurate’ portrayal of case study phenomenon” (p. 112). Because I worked in the Lekbery School District from 2002 to 2007, I felt this district would provide a wealth of information regarding the decision-making process for educational programming. I knew that my work in the district would give me access to information unavailable to an outsider, and my tenure at Lekbery would establish a rapport with the teachers and administrators. I kept track of my thoughts through journaling and compared my personal experiences with the themes found through the interviews and data collection.
No matter how objectively I approached this research, limitations of observations include the possibility that “the selective perception of the observer may distort that data” (Patton, 2002, p. 306). Another bias may have occurred in the overlap of interests from the interviewees. The building principal and both school board members also had children attending the district, resulting in overlap as parents. Also, two of the current upper administrators had served as building administrators in the Lekbery School District. With the exception of the two school board members, both of whom were parents of students uninvolved in music beyond the elementary level, the interviewees primarily answered questions regarding the decisions they made in their current position. However, answers did overlap, as some interviewees found it impossible to separate the role of each position held in the decision-making process or referred to experiences in their prior position as examples. The two former upper administrators spoke only in regard to the time they spent, and the decisions they made, while working in the district.
To avoid potential biases, I collected interview data from different populations: parents, school board members, music teachers, upper administrators, and building administrators. Using these different populations, I created triangulation through examining “the consistency of different data sources within the same method” (Patton, 2002, p. 556). Within these different populations, I used four data collection methods: informal observations, focus groups, interviews, and document analysis. Triangulation was achieved through “the consistency of findings generated by different data collection methods” (Patton, 2002, p. 556). Themes appeared to the point of redundancy among the interviewees, the data collected from different documents, the focus groups, and the informal observations.
Findings
Theme 1: District’s Educational Philosophy and Music
Lekbery School District’s educational philosophy set the parameters for a curriculum in which music education played an important role. The district’s mission statement held that “student achievement and success are at the center of all we do. Our mission is to guide, encourage, and support each and every learner in the quest to realize his or her full potential” (source available from the author). Former upper administrator Corinne stated that this full potential reflected “what should make up the life of a well-rounded student.” All administrators interviewed expressed the sentiment that they sought to build a district where people wanted to raise families, and school board member Andrew furthered this idea by stating that Lekbery was a place where children received a “quality education, with a broad range of programs.”
Lekbery’s philosophy of education placed strong value on music. Interviewees all viewed music as integral to a total educational package capable of developing each child’s full potential by providing as many educational opportunities and experiences possible. The district valued music’s aesthetic and utilitarian functions, recognizing that by learning the lifelong skill of appreciation and by instilling crossover skills for other subjects, a music program helps each individual student achieve overarching educational goals.
Interviewees provided a variety of responses to the question, “What does it mean to value music education?” In the focus group, music educators unanimously said that financial support indicated value. Administrators reported that value included having an appreciation for music, supporting it financially, personally attending events, prioritizing it in scheduling, and finally, sustaining it over time. In response to the question of whether, according to the definition they supplied, Lekbery valued its music program, all interviewees overwhelmingly responded yes but indicated that each group played distinctive roles and exerted differing degrees of influence.
Influence of Synergistic Relationships
I sought to determine the roles each group of individuals play in determining the value of music education. Responses showed that a synergy between music teachers, administrators, parents, community members, and students sustained the infrastructure of a strongly supported music program. Building administrator Nathaniel commented that over time, this network of energy, time, and commitment had made Lekbery’s music program a “sacred cow” that no one wanted “to see go to the wayside, for any reason, financial or otherwise.”
Teacher role
Many interviewees stated that these intertwining relationships originated in the perceived quality of the music created by the teachers. Building administrator Nathaniel explained that teacher influence started years ago with “some people who really helped [the music program] grow.” At the time of this study, Lekbery’s music teachers continued producing a program that administrators viewed as thriving and high quality. Showing the importance of this perceived excellence, upper administrator Anthony said, “If our music programs weren’t very good I think it would be easier to cut them because there wouldn’t be that value.”
Administrator role: Value from the top
Some interviewees saw school building– specific principals as playing the largest role in determining the value of music programs. Former upper administrator Corinne thought this was because they “are very good speakers and promoters of the [music] program because of having the face time with the actual parents and other colleagues.” Conversely, some interviewees thought that the upper administration played a larger role because their constituents view them as leaders. Former upper administrator Gloria thought these upper administrators had the most “influence on their communities.”
Both levels of administration felt they could detrimentally affect the music program. Upper administrator Daniel said, “The buck stops here. . . . If we didn’t have the same type of commitment to support the teachers and the community, we could easily be the demise of that program.” Other administrators saw music’s value in its educational importance and because they recalled positive experiences both with music at Lekbery and in their own lives.
Administrators at Lekbery supported music education in a number of ways. Building administrator Nathaniel said that music “drives the whole master schedule.” At least one administrator attended each event or concert. Finally, Lekbery’s administrators funded the staff and program as a curricular subject instead of offering music as an extracurricular program, which could save money on teacher salaries and benefits.
Parents and the community
Lekbery music teachers, some current administrators, and school board and community members believed that parent and community support exerted the largest influence on the district’s valuing its music program, although none could identify why the community clearly and strongly supported music education. Data revealed that parents and community members attended events, enrolled their students in music courses, and actively participated in children’s music education. As upper administrator Arlene acknowledged, the value for music education came from students who enjoy music “along with the parents who value it and make a priority of it in their children’s lives.”
The school board—composed of elected community members—strongly supported music education. Board member Andrew said, “It would be very difficult to ever support a cut of the music program.” Both interviewed board members agreed that music programs were off the table when it came to discussing cuts, and each year, the board approved a budget that funded music education.
Student role
Students influenced the district’s commitment by taking the classes offered. At each grade level, the curriculum offered more choices, and upper administrator Arlene noted that students “can’t do everything.” Music students often sacrificed other interests, such as taking choir instead of an additional Advanced Placement (AP) class. Without this student commitment, music would not exist as strongly in Lekbery.
Theme 2: Balancing Educational Considerations With Other Influences
Many important considerations and influences determine what types of programs receive funding and in what amounts. Schools try to offer a good product, satisfy constituents, and operate efficiently. Monetary, political, and educational considerations play a role in creating, sustaining, and funding programs. Like any school district, Lekbery had to balance the community’s wants with obligations to low-income students and to provide core courses needed to grant a diploma. Furthermore, Lekbery needed to achieve this balance with finite funding.
Political considerations
Lekbery carefully constructed, maintained, and modified its image. A district creates an image through its heritage, physical spaces, test scores, college acceptance rates, programs offered, and the community’s perception and opinion of these variables. A positive image kept Lekbery families satisfied and helped attract new families to the district. Lekbery administrators satisfied this last concern by looking at how its programs distinguished Lekbery from other districts.
All of those interviewed agreed that music set Lekbery apart and contributed to the district’s positive image. The school board supported this image. Board member Andrew commented, “When I got elected to the board, one of the first things that an outgoing board member said to me was, ‘Change anything you want in the curriculum, but don’t mess around with the music program.’” Specifically, Lekbery administrators believed they accomplished a good image by offering a strings program starting in the fifth grade. Almost every administrator interviewed mentioned this unique program, and upper administrator Scott even commented that he would not interview in school districts that “did not have an orchestra program.”
Fiscal considerations
Under Michigan’s system of funding schools, losing students meant less money, and administrators feared student flight. Because Lekbery’s limited budget prohibited programming that met the needs and wants of every family, many administrators explained the finances of education as trying to find the best “bang for the buck.” (Four administrators and three music teachers used this phrase at least once.) Music fits this approach by providing a learning environment where over 100 students can participate at once.
Enrollment numbers also can determine a program’s fate. With few exceptions (such as the AP courses), the secondary schools would not continue an elective course unless a minimum number of students enrolled. While administrators clearly stated that they did not put students in music simply to fill classes, at the secondary level (where music is an elective), upper administrator Anthony reflected on his time spent as a building administrator and said, “Students vote with their feet.” As such, the district supported music by encouraging students to enroll in these courses, attempting to boost enrollment to a sustainable level.
Educational considerations
A program’s educational worth also affects how the district creates and funds new programming. When upper administrator Anthony was a building administrator, he said that Lekbery High School ran on block scheduling, and administrators considered switching to trimesters as “an attempt to reduce the budget” because trimesters require fewer teachers. But according to him, the community questioned the long-term educational value of the program and argued that block scheduling’s educational benefits mattered more than the monetary savings. Ultimately, the board and administration decided not to switch to trimesters.
Similarly, the district’s decision makers evaluated the educational structure of music. Lekbery’s music curriculum built in a spiral method from kindergarten to 12th grade. This model builds on what the students know each year; removing any piece potentially could fragment or damage the program as a whole. For that reason, Lekbery administrators found it better to support the entire program instead of just a part.
Theme 3: Making Decisions
Administrators, teachers and community members testified to the value of a well-rounded education for all students and the belief that music education should have a secure place in the curriculum. But valuing music education alone does not ensure its survival. Although Lekbery had made cuts and concessions over the past 10 years, former upper administrator Gloria said, and other administrators agreed, that their number one priority was “to protect programs from reductions and eliminations.” While the music program had never faced downsizing over financial concerns, as financial situations continued to worsen, music staff feared reductions.
Lekbery’s goals included staying out of debt while offering a variety of programs that could attract and keep residents. Administrator Scott said that for Lekbery, this meant utilizing “unconventional solutions” to avoid a downward spiral of cuts that lead to flight, which would result in a reduced budget and future cuts. Lekbery tried to avoid conventional thinking because, as administrator Scott put it, “when everybody’s going in one direction there is opportunity in doing something different.” That “something different” included looking for new sources of revenue.
Finding new sources of revenue
Michigan public schools received a large percentage of funding from the state as a per-pupil amount. One of the best ways for schools to generate new revenue was to attract and retain students. Lekbery actively pursued a number of ways to bring in new students. According to different administrators, these methods included sustaining current programming and implementing new and creative programming, advertising, and other expenditures. Upper administrator Scott explained that these approaches took “a whole bunch of calculated attempts to bolster our income.”
Lekbery spent money to make money. Some expenditures included periodically redesigning the website and advertising in targeted newspapers and on radio. Lekbery also participated with realtors in a home improvement fair designed to convince current residents to upgrade or improve their home rather than move out of district. Lekbery school district also rented out its facilities to local organizations and individuals, generating revenue and exposing groups to the spaces and resources the district provided for students.
Lekbery also generated funds by participating in share-time partnerships with area private schools. These programs placed a licensed public school teacher into a private school to provide instruction in non-state-required courses, such as music, art, language, physical education, and library. Private schools could thereby offer programs without using tuition dollars; Lekbery benefited because state regulations counted the students as part of their full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment, which determined state funding. Former upper administrator Corinne explained, “The teacher wins because we pay better than the private schools. We get a portion of the foundation grant so we make money, and the private school itself makes money because it’s still collecting the same tuition.” Most importantly, the money from these schools was residual and enabled Lekbery to count over 70 private school students toward its FTE.
Lekbery’s alternative education contributed to its FTE by offering a second-chance education to 16- to 19-year-olds seeking a high school diploma. Upper administrator Daniel explained how Lekbery educated “about 225 kids . . . that would maybe be on the streets. . . . We get some revenue for it . . . more than what it costs us.” Lekbery generated even more revenue if a student chose to attend the district full-time. Under the 1996 Michigan Choice Schools Program, Lekbery could enroll nonresident students. Each year, Lekbery carefully decided on the number of these students. Upper administrator Arlene quickly added, We don’t just say that we’ll admit “40 kids in the third grade and we’re going to open two new classrooms.” Instead, Lekbery decided, “Well, some of the numbers in this one graduating group of 2017 are small. We could afford more per section in classes.”
Upper administrators also invented ideas for programs that might attract new students, such as the AP Scholars Program and collaboration with a local Jewish day school (a full, detailed description of these programs ideas may be found in Major, 2010).
Collaborative programs
Lekbery saved money by participating in three programs with other districts: The Center for Advanced Study in the Arts (CASA), the International Academy (IA; to which they contributed their own funds), and the Oakland School Technical Campus Southeast, funded by separate tax dollars. Both CASA and the IA offered full benefits to Lekbery students at only a fraction of the cost. Lekbery could not find a better “bang for the buck” than to get 100% of the benefit in student programming by splitting the cost with other districts while also counting these students toward Lekbery’s FTE.
Trimming the periphery
In addition to these collaborations, Lekbery also saved money by trimming and consolidating programs and offerings within the district. As former upper administrator Gloria said, “reducing is better than eliminating.” To avoid eliminating a program, Lekbery’s administrators looked for ways to make it more efficient at the periphery. This process included examining the core elements needed to keep the program in place and then working outward through support staff and unnecessary expenditures to find items that could be cut without negatively affecting the program’s ability to function properly. While all of the former and current upper administrators acknowledged the difficulty of reducing employees, they all prioritized educational principles over staff reductions that did not affect academic programming directly.
Lekbery also outsourced its substitute teachers, eliminating pension and health care costs. The custodial staff avoided outsourcing by agreeing to wage restructuring. Admittedly, condensing or eliminating positions causes residual effects. As administrator Nathaniel noted, “When we cut half a secretary . . . it does affect how we operate.” Lekbery trimmed services, such as bussing to CASA’s campus or student field trips. The district also reduced costs by providing transportation to athletic games but requiring parents to provide transportation home.
Consolidations and attrition
Lekbery administrators tried to achieve cost efficiency in teacher positions. Upper administrator Daniel reported that “five or six teachers . . . retire or move each year. So, we . . . try to be more efficient with a little less staff” while keeping the programs that the community regards as strong. Lekbery also consolidated at the administrative level and then expanded the job duties of retained positions. In 2008, the district consolidated administrative positions, giving everyone a raise and increased duties. Upper administrator Arlene points out that now, “titles are longer and obligations are greater—responsibilities are more intense.”
While administrative consolidation shows Lekbery’s commitment to keeping programs intact, it raises concerns about the remaining administrators’ ability to make informed decisions outside their expertise. When questioned about this potential issue, former upper administrator Gloria responded, What I think good leaders do is really depend on experts in the area. . . . And so, even though you might not have a director of research and assessment, at least . . . [administrators] could call and get advice about really important decisions on things like software for assessment.
Lekbery also has consolidated its facilities. Gloria explained these consolidations by saying, “In 2009, Lekbery eliminated an entire elementary school and then we redesigned and made a K–8 international baccalaureate program.” This closure eliminated administrative and support costs, and the sale of the land netted the district $1.8 million. This school’s community opposed putting kindergarten students in the same building as eighth graders. Lekbery responded by calling the process “restructuring for success” and convinced residents that the benefit of consolidating offset their concerns.
The economic concept of “creative destruction” explains how cuts in one area can result in newer, more efficient ways of offering an even better product. When interviewed, many of Lekbery’s administrators expressed this need to create something better while—and because of—saving money through cuts or eliminations of facilities. Gloria reflected on the school closing by stating, I think what happens when people try to be more efficient is they get stuck on the numbers and trying to save X amount of dollars. So, they end up closing an elementary school and a middle school, but they never spend time saying, “Could we create something even better by closing down?” I think that was the success in Lekbery because we created something even better and something new.
Concessions
Lekbery also had saved money via teacher concessions made during contract negotiations. In the past, teachers received more benefits. Upper administrator Arlene recalled, “When I was a teacher in the ’80s and ’90s, part of your compensation package was full coverage in benefits. Well, now we do things like copay and monthly deductions from your paycheck.” Upper administrator Daniel mentioned that he can “see that number going a lot higher than $30 a month.”
Trimming programs
When Lekbery administrators decided to trim a program, they based their decision on educational quality first. For example, Lekbery offered an introductory fourth-grade string class to complement the existing fifth-grade string program until 2005. Then, administrators and music staff agreed to discontinue the program because it did not meet desired expectations. They also decided that these students would learn and retain more information if string instruction began in a more intense fifth-grade program. While cutting the fourth-grade program may have saved the districts a few dollars in the end, all music teachers kept their full-time positions and the students still received a high-quality music education.
Discussion and Implementation
By investigating and answering my research questions, I found that Lekbery administrators engaged in a difficult and, by their own admission, agonizing process by which they attempted to make the best educational decisions for all students. For just one program, such as music education, administrators considered (a) their personal values and philosophies of music education, (b) the values and demands of the community, (c) the quality of teaching that Lekbery could afford and provide, (d) the aesthetic and utilitarian purposes of keeping music education in the curriculum, (e) the economic value that music added, and (f) how the program contributed to the overall image of the school district.
In their weighing of these factors and use of a complex decision-making process, Lekbery administrators had implemented many creative solutions to past and ongoing budgetary issues and also had made a number of cuts and concessions to the budget outside of music education. Even with the tremendous support music education received from all stakeholders in the Lekbery School District, changing conditions continued to show that Lekbery’s music program was not immune from trickle-down negative effects from larger budgetary cuts and concessions.
Research has shown that Americans say they value music education (Gallup Organization, 2003), and during interviews, music teachers, administrators, and school board members all agreed that music plays an important part in the education of students, and that perception influenced decisions makers to keep music in the curriculum. The interviewees did not agree, however, on the significance of each group’s influence on music education.
A study conducted in 1982 found that of all possible influences, only the administrator values exerted significant control over whether districts in California kept or cut instrumental music (Fields, 1982). My study only partially supported those findings. Administrator values in Lekbery School District did exert a large influence on keeping music in the curriculum, and no matter what the community or teachers wanted, ultimately, the administrators decided what programs a district offered. However, administrators also respond heavily to political influences, and final votes for approval of changes to school curriculum came from the school board. It would be naive to say that the Lekbery School District community did not exert a similarly large influence over sustaining the music program. Music teachers overwhelming agreed that the community played the largest role because the community possessed the loudest voice.
The logical question that follows would then be, “Who and/or what influences the community?” Similarly to the administrators, a variety of influences affected community members, including personal experiences. However, community members also looked to the schoolteachers and administrators to know what they should value. By creating and sustaining programs viewed as high quality, Lekbery’s music teachers influenced the community in favor of music education. When parents see the high-quality output of a program, they are more likely to support its continuance.
This relationship promotes a supportive and reinforcing synergy that can spiral upward with a program’s success. When teachers create high-quality programs, the community wants its children to experience those programs’ value and to participate in their success, and administrators then ensure that the district offers (or can offer) those programs. This model had worked well for Lekbery and reflects the pattern of other schools that have achieved similar success (Coysh, 2005; Pittman, 2003). The program received financial support as students continued to enroll, and the teachers provided a program that pleased both the administration and the community.
Unfortunately, it would appear that the removal of any one part of this model would cause the entire system to crumble. Some of Lekbery’s administrators even stated as much by referencing the burden of responsibility shared equally by administrators, parents, and community and how easily administrators could cut music if parents did not support it or music teachers did not provide a high-quality program. Other interviewees realized that all parts are not equal and should not be seen as equal. They stated that the administrators valuing the program and supporting it should play a greater role than that of the other two components. This belief does not devalue the importance of the other two, but it elucidates the administrators’ primary role in overseeing the development and maintenance of this synergistic relationship.
While the community influence in Lekbery favored music education, it could have worked as easily against it. Research has indicated that the public does not value music more than it values other subjects (Marzano et al., 1999). In a political climate where students feel more and more pressure to meet standards and earn acceptances into favored colleges and universities, parents simply want whatever gives their child a competitive edge (Marzano et al., 1999).
Most parents are not educators and might not know what their child needs to get that competitive edge. More importantly, the current model of public education requires that school districts meet the educational needs of all students enrolled. By contrast, parents might see only what would best suit their individual child and might not understand the educational system as a whole. While the community will (and perhaps should) always voice its opinions, “it is important to note that the K-12 curriculum produced if one relies solely on the opinions of the general public would have some strong, unintended, negative consequences” (Marzano et al., 1999, p. 34).
Fortunately, Lekbery administrators dampen this potential obstacle by giving the community limited power. Members of the Lekbery School Board—the group of parents who can exert the most influence over curriculum—undergo an educational process. This training, provided by the state of Michigan, enabled them to see the wider educational picture and has taught them to consider the recommendations of the superintendent before any final vote on changes to the budget. Although the community at large can exercise its preferences by voting for potential school board members, the training provided to the school board members once elected helps mediate any potential mob mentality or lack of coherent direction.
Similarly, the success and continuance of an entire music program should not rest on an already established high-quality program. If that were a required ingredient, then schools that do not have music programs could never hope to get them. Gillespie and Hamann (2010) showed that schools across the nation were able to implement new strings programs, verifying that districts could create programs in a department that previously lacked them. While Gillespie and Hamann demonstrated that parent support, high-quality teachers, and administrative support were all key ingredients for the start-up, a program does not need to rely on prior successes to succeed.
The question for other school districts, especially those lacking a strong music program, then becomes, “How can we engender community support without a quality program?” Supporting Gillespie and Hamann’s (2010) findings, I must acknowledge two things: (a) Lekbery has long benefited by sustaining the groundswell created by an initial group of music faculty who decided that Lekbery would have a strong music department, and (b) this nucleus formed in a district that lacked a strong music department, and the vision of those music educators and their success show that a district can overcome inertia resulting from lack of a strong program.
When setting a value on Lekbery’s music program, school board members and administrators primarily talked about the program’s educational value as a primary influence. For these administrators, music education possesses great educational value that stems mostly from its utilitarian benefits. Those interviewed stated that music education facilitates excellent camaraderie, contributes to the school’s image, allows students to learn a lifelong skill, develops abilities transferrable to other subjects, and offers monetary value to the school district.
Overall, administrator responses agreed with the advocacy literature that still supports the “music-makes-you-smarter” viewpoint (Foster, 2002; Ruppert, 2006; Wallick, 1998). Administrators and educators who use these reasons to justify the continuance of music education now create a dilemma for music educators because more current research has indicated these claims may be exaggerated (Fitzpatrick, 2006; Kinney, 2008). If potentially misleading information plays a large role in keeping music education in public schools, should music educators and advocates feel ethically or morally responsible to correct the misrepresentations?
Although Lekbery officials cited utilitarian benefits as criteria used for keeping music in the curriculum, through this study, I found that numbers constituted one of the largest factors in setting the value of all programming in the district, including music. On the simplest level, numbers means the headcount of students enrolled in a program. Numbers can also include assessing how many families would leave the district if a program were cut or how many people will come to the district because of the program offerings. Finally, numbers include the statistics that increase for students involved in the program, such as test scores, college admissions, and awards and honors.
Some might argue that it is unfair to judge music education’s value by the numbers it produces, especially in smaller districts where class sizes are generally smaller. I do not propose to defend the validity of that argument, but rather, I point out that fair or not, music education faces this scrutiny. In interviews, Lekbery administrators made it clear that in addition to music, they judge other courses, including AP, business, and foreign language classes, by the same criteria. Understanding that administrators need to be educationally and economically resourceful in course programming can allow music educators an advantage, as they can advocate for a music program that offers both educational and economic advantages.
Teachers in districts with struggling programs or teachers trying to establish new programs also can learn from the criteria that Lekbery administrators utilized in decision making. These educators, when seeking funds or support, can point to the value that an improved music department would offer the district in terms of the numbers it would yield. Of course, in both cases, teachers must take care not to focus on numbers alone. They also must produce a high-quality program to avoid the pitfalls of providing another elective or extracurricular activity that, if failing to attract support for its own value, would face cuts once again.
Like every school district, Lekbery operated on a finite amount of funding that required it to make decisions, and in Lekbery’s particular case, state regulations prohibited it from raising tax levies to acquire additional revenue. In order to keep music and other programs, Lekbery faced two options when it came to funding: (a) make existing funds work or (b) create new revenue without raising taxes. The interviews revealed that Lekbery has pursued both of these options aggressively.
Lekbery administrators created new revenue by admitting new students into the school. However, the desire to attract new students can create problems. As Sowell (2007) explained through economies and diseconomies of scale, “there comes a point, in every business, beyond which the cost of producing a unit of output no longer declines as the amount of production increases” (p. 120). In other words, any organization involved in the production of a good or service will reach a point where an increase in a source of revenue no longer helps lower the costs associated with acquiring additional revenue. For Lekbery administrators looking for new funding strictly from student enrollment, this method—get more students into Lekbery, receive more funding from the state—seems essential. But at what point will Lekbery, or any district following a similar revenue-building strategy, pull in so many students that it can no longer maintain the high quality of its educational output, the very tool it used to bring people to the district in the first place? One upper administrator commented on this potential problem by saying that Lekbery maximized enrollment in a way that did not alter the teacher-to-student ratio or require hiring more staff to accommodate rising numbers of students.
While these precautions against enrolling more students than the district can manage kept Lekbery operating efficiently, the district ran on a bare-bones administrative system. If Lekbery accepts new students as a way to offset rising operating costs and state budget cuts, and continues to find ways to do more with less staff, it may soon find that its already stretched staff cannot handle the workload or the expectation to uphold Lekbery’s standards. This problem would plague any district following Lekbery’s revenue-raising strategies, because any increase in the student population alters the workload demanded of teachers, administrators, and support staff. Although each student brings revenue in state dollars, each student imposes hidden costs in the form of diminished staff effectiveness and efficiency.
Through all of the influences of supportive staff and community members, high-quality programs, and available funding, Lekbery has created and sustained its music program. This support self-perpetuates in an upward spiral and will continue, provided that the district continues to fund it, teachers continue to provide high-quality instruction, and parents continue to insist that their children enroll. This spiral continues because of the positive image music offers the district and the aesthetic and utilitarian benefits the students receive through music education.
But the real question is, What confluence of events or influences would cause the district and board to suddenly alter or abandon their support for the music program? Those interviewed expressed the exact kind of stated verbal support that the research indicates. Yet as extant research also shows, stated values and actions often differ greatly (Abril, 2009). If push came to shove, would Lekbery cut music? Everybody interviewed continually expressed a firm “no.” And in the first round of cuts made during the 2008–2009 school year, music was not even mentioned. What if the district simply could not afford to keep all of its programming? Something would have to go. Would it be music?
Conclusion and Recommendations
Arts advocate Paul Lehman (1992) said that our “nation’s school system’s gradually being divided into two groups with respect to music—the have and the have-nots” (para. 5). Much of the related literature (both anecdotal and research based) focuses on the “have-nots” and the downtrodden status of music education in America’s public schools. Other research celebrates successful programs but does not offer a perspective on how programs can achieve or sustain this status. In an effort to understand some of the influences that affect the decision-making process regarding programming, I examined one public school district that had kept its music program for the past 10 years.
Other school districts nationwide might look at Lekbery School District as a model, taking positive strategies that apply to their particular situations and also seeing in Lekbery a warning for potentially negative side effects stemming from decisions made during changing conditions. In addition, music teachers and music advocates can hone their tactics by understanding what arguments and influences have the most impact on school decision makers and thereby offer more effective advocacy methods for the survival or incarnation of a program. The results of this study demonstrated that it is not enough to advocate for what music educators believe music offers. Music advocacy must also attack the problem at the root, offering administrators solutions for the difficult dilemmas they must solve regarding public policy and a finite budget. By approaching advocacy from this angle, music education might be saved not only today but in the future as well.
To further unravel the complicated decision-making system behind a district’s programming that cannot be understood completely in the scope of one study, future research might examine individually each element affecting administrators’ decisions. These categories include administrators’ values, community support, and high-quality teaching. Also, comparative research could show similar and/or different characteristics of other districts that have saved their music programs or determine the criteria that led some districts to make cuts. This would prove useful in solidifying understanding of those influences and characteristics that have the greatest control in situations of public school programming.
Footnotes
Author’s Note
This article is based on the author’s doctoral dissertation, “How They Decide: A Case Study Examining the Decision Making Process for Keeping or Cutting Music in a Selected K-12 Public School,” completed at The Ohio State University in 2010.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
Author Biography
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
