Included in his book, Music Advocacy: Moving from Survival to Vision (2011), is a case study by Dr. John L. Benham, Music Cuts and Reverse Economics. The following explainer is from my 2015 doctoral treatise, Competencies of the Central Office Music Administrator, Texas Music Administrators Perspectives.
Many do not realize that strengthening in-school music programs can save money (Benham, 2011). This is another example of a disconnect between what science knows and what institutions do. Due to high potential student/teacher ratios, cutting music programs and/or Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) at the beginning level, which is often the first quick-fix step to alleviating a budget shortfall, actually has longitudinally negative cost implications (Benham, 2011).
Although there are initial cost savings with music cuts, districts must add additional FTEs as students who would have otherwise taken music classes matriculate into the upper grades and engage in electives with lower student-teacher ratios, as demonstrated in Figure 4. “Any circumstance that causes a decline in student enrollment or prevents students from participation will have a negative cost effect on the district budget” (Benham, 2011, p. 95). Figure 4, adapted from Benham (2011), demonstrates that “by year five (of cutting 5.2 music FTEs)…the district would have needed to hire 12.6 cumulative classroom FTEs for sixty-three classes for former instrumental music students at a cost of $378,000. Added to the anticipated savings of $156,000, this would have amounted to an annual budget miscalculation—reverse economic effect—of $534,000” (Benham, 2011, p. 156).
Eliminate 5.2 FTE: Projected Savings—$156,000—adapted (Benham, 2011)
To put the facts above more positively — Music Expansion = Enhanced Economics.
Comments