Focus on Budget: FTE & Staffing: How to Save a Music Program (Even If a Staff Position is Eliminated)

November 7, 2005

S.O.S. From a Band Director!

I received an urgent telephone call from a band director late one evening and the conversation went something like this:

"Our district is going through a time of budget crisis. The administration published a list of cuts. None of the music programs were on the list, so I went personally and checked with the superintendent. I was told the entire elementary band program was being eliminated, primarily because of the recommendation of the elementary band teacher. What can we do to save the elementary band program!?"

As we talked, I realized the district planned to eliminate the elementary band position under a hidden cut, or one that didn?t specifically include the word "music," such in as the generic budget line description, "Eliminate 1.0 FTE Elementary Position."

I also learned that some personal issues had clouded the decision making process.

Reminder: FTE = Programs and Positions

Before we get into this particular situation, please remember what you learned in the first article in this series. FTE (full-time equivalent) can be used to refer to both programs (elementary band) and positions (band teacher). Understanding the distinction between the two makes all the difference in the world to students eager to participate in music making.

OK, so let's take this situation apart and see how things actually worked out to benefit the students who wanted to be in the elementary school band.

The elementary band teacher (Teacher #5 in the table below) was a personal friend of the superintendent. He had been granted the position despite the unanimous protest of the band staff. Since hiring of Teacher #5, nearly 90% of students enrolled in elementary band had dropped out. This teacher's recommendation to eliminate the program was an act of revenge against the other band instructors.

As a music advocate trying to save this elementary band program, the first, and most important step is to find out HOW teachers are spending their time each day. That's where the <Music Participation Survey> comes into play.

When the teachers completed the Music Participation Survey, some very interesting and significant data was revealed. Careful analysis of the data led to a relatively easy solution in which everyone came out as a winner. By analyzing the FTE, as it relates to both positions and programs, a real-life happy ending was created.

Look Closely at These Actual FTE Numbers

The class load for each of the 5.0 FTE "band" instructors is listed below. One full-time teaching position - Teacher #5 - was targeted by the administration for elimination. But, you might be asking, if this elementary band teaching position is eliminated, how can this elementary band program possibly be saved?
 

 The proposal called for the elimination of 1.0 FTE position specified as Teacher #5 (the elementary band teacher). On the surface, since there were five full-time teachers, it seems reasonable to assume that each teacher represented 20% of the band staff, doesn't it? If you eliminate one position or teacher, that was perceived as a 20% reduction of the band staff.

However, upon further examination, it becomes clear that Teachers 1-4 are not teaching band 100% of their time. When you total the percentage of FTE position time each of them spends on study hall/lunchroom supervision, you can clearly see how much of each full-time music teacher?s time is allocated for non-band activities:

Study Hall/Lunchroom Supervision ? FTE Analysis

**In addition, Teacher #2 was also assigned .4 non-band other music assignments (music theory and choir accompaniment). This brought the total of non-band music assignments among Teachers 1-4 to 1.6 FTE.

The Solution is in the Numbers

In this situation, the district assumed that 5 full-time positions (5.0 FTE) were dedicated to band instruction. But, in reality, if you subtract the 1.6 FTE non-band assignments from the total 5.0 FTE teaching positions, the district actually had only 3.4 FTE band positions. This means that eliminating a 1.0 FTE teaching position reduced the available time to teach band by nearly 30% - NOT just 20% (or 1 of 5 teachers) as might appear to be true with only a surface analysis.

Furthermore, as an advocate of music education programs for young people, it's totally unjustifiable from either a philosophical or financial perspective, to assign 1.2 FTE of the load of Teachers 1-4 to study hall or lunchroom supervision.

Happy Endings for All, Especially for Students

By working together and keeping the needs of the elementary school band students foremost in mind, music education advocates and the district used REAL numbers to avert the crisis. Here?s what happened:

- The elementary band program was saved for the students AND the district was able to resolve the budget crisis. The district converted all study hall and lunchroom supervision (the equivalent of 1.2 FTE) from Teachers 1-4 to elementary band instruction. This re-distribution allowed the district to save the 1.0 FTE elementary band program by having Teachers 1-4 share the teaching of band in nine elementary schools. In the process, the district was still able to eliminate 1.0 FTE position.

- Teacher #5 was allowed to maintain a (non-band) position within the district by going back to a regular teaching position. This teacher was no longer able to negatively affect students interested in elementary band.

- Four dedicated and effective music teachers now spend 100% their time teaching music, not supervising study hall or lunchroom.

There are additional layers to FTE - such as "average" FTE value and various ratio calculations- that pose equally important issues as you evaluate class and student loads of teachers. In the next articles in this multiple-part FTE series, I'll dig deeper into the various ways FTE is used to develop your district budget.

Until Next Time,

John Benham