String Programs in Low Socioeconomic Level School Districts

String Programs in Low Socioeconomic Level School Districts This study examined string programs in low socioeconomic level school districts where more than twenty-five percent of the children fell below the U.S. Census poverty level. The preliminary findings revealed a 28 percent decrease in the number of such districts that offered strings during the five-year period from 1994 (100) to 1999 (72). Questionnaires were sent to the remaining 72 districts that still had viable string programs with a response rate of 83.3 percent (60). The findings indicated that 90 percent of the districts offered orchestra at the high school level, 85 percent offered strings at the middle school level, and 70 percent offered beginning string classes at the elementary school level. It was also found that as school district size increased, strings were offered primarily in either performing arts or academically gifted schools. Findings related to string program funding indicated that one-third to one-half of the districts with less than 10,000 students or more than 30,000 students used outside funding sources to pay the teachers salaries and provide instruments. Among the outside funding sources identified were 1) private foundation grants, 2) corporate grants, 3) state arts grants, 4) federal government Title I funds, and 5) magnet school desegregation funds. Funding for string programs is an issue that concerns many, including music educators, arts supervisors, and school administrators at all levels. How is it that some schools, in disadvantaged and advantaged areas, are able to offer excellent string programs? Is there a commonality that can be gleaned to assist those not only in other disadvantaged areas, but in socioeconomically middle and upper districts as well? Knowing more about how funding occurs, at any socioeconomic level, can only help everyone involved in seeing how string programs succeed. In recent years, several descriptive research studies have been conducted to gather baseline data about access rates to string instruction in the public schools. Leonard (1991), in an early study, randomly surveyed 1,326 schools in the United States to assess the status of arts education in the public schools. Principals reports regarding their arts programs were used to collect the data. He found that approximately 35% of the elementary schools, 41.9% of large middle schools (more than 500 students), and 36.9% of large high schools (more than 1,000 students) offered string instruction. Leonhard compared his findings with a similar study conducted by the

National Education Association (NEA, 1962) and reported a significant decrease in the number of schools that offered string instruction from 1962 to 1989. Stewart (1991), in an examination of the data in the National Center of Education Statistics Report High School and Beyond: First Year and Follow-up (NCES, 1980), reported that string instruction was offered most often in the northeastern region of the United States (31.4%) and most often in schools ranked at the highest socioeconomic quartile level (31.6%). Horvath (1993), in an investigation of string instruction in Ohio public schools, reported that over 50% of the school districts that offered such instruction were located in suburban areas and that most schools began instruction in the fourth and fifth grades. Abeel (1994), surveyed all the school districts in Virginia to determine the number of public schools that offered string programs and found that 25% of the districts offered strings. It was further found that 67% of the respondents reported an increase in string student enrollment due to increased program support. Bergonzi (1995), examined the high school transcript records that are contained in the 1990 National Assessment of Educational Progress: Basic Math Assessment (NCES, 1994), and reported the following findings for high school orchestra offerings by geographical regions, school locations, and socioeconomic quartile rankings: 1. Geographical regions: (a) northeast 27.0%, (b) south 26.5%, (c) north central 35.5%, and (d) west, 34.8%. 2. School locations: (a) urban 43.5%, (b) suburban 50.0%, (c) rural 18.5%. 3. Socioeconomic quartile rankings: (a) lowest 12.2%, (b) second 34.1%, (c) third 40.5%, and (d) highest 36.6%. Smith (1997), surveyed each of the 14,183 school districts that are listed in the 1994-1995 Market Data Retrieval School Directories (MDR, 1995), and identified a total of 2,268 (16.0%) school districts that offered string instruction. Of these, it was found that 1,620 offered string instruction at the elementary school level, 1,781 at the middle school level, and 1,818 at the high school level. In addition, it was found that string instruction was offered least often in low socioeconomic level school districts (N = 100, 4.4%) and that socioeconomic level and school district location were the most important predictors of access to string instruction.

Gillespie and Hamann (1998), surveyed 1,345 schools that offered orchestra instruction to gather baseline data that could be used to determine effective means of assisting string programs. Orchestra teachers were asked to describe themselves, their schools, and their orchestra s curriculum, students, and music. Findings indicated (1) a continued enrollment increase in school orchestras in the 1990s, (2) larger schools were more apt to offer orchestra, (3) the majority of orchestra students and teachers were white, and 4) 20% of the orchestra students were in the upper 10% of their graduating class. Jensen (1992), in a study of federal arts education policy, reported that the Education Consolidation Act of 1981 resulted in a twenty-five percent reduction in federal aid to arts education. This legislation had a direct impact on urban school districts where there were large numbers of economically and culturally disadvantaged students because many of the arts programs were eliminated. The Senate Hearing Report on Arts Education and Magnet Schools (1999) indicated that the trend in urban districts during the 1980s and 1990s was toward providing arts education in magnet schools rather than in traditional K-12 schools. This occurred primarily because federal grants were provided to school districts through the Magnet School Assistance Program to develop such schools. This limiting of arts education to special schools further exacerbated the problem of access to string instruction for low socioeconomic level students because such instruction was only offered in a few schools within each district. The studies by Bergonzi, Smith, and Stewart indicated that access to string instruction in the public schools was closely linked to socioeconomic level with strings offered most often in districts that were ranked in the upper socioeconomic quartiles. Horvath and Bergonzi also pointed out that strings were offered most often in suburban school districts. The Smith findings further indicated that socioeconomic level and school district location were strongly, positively related to each other. While the previously cited studies focused primarily on gathering data about the number of school districts that offered string instruction, none of them examined the types of string programs that were offered in low socioeconomic level school districts or how such programs were funded. The purposes of the current study were to 1) gather data about the types of string programs that were offered in low socioeconomic level school districts where more than twenty-five percent of the children fell below the U.S. Census poverty level, and 2) to determine how such programs were funded. Such information could

then be used to determine how string programs might be implemented in similar districts where string instruction is not currently offered. Procedure A questionnaire similar to the one used in the Smith study was designed to collect the data. Input from three string researchers was used to guide the development of the questions that were related specifically to funding sources for string programs. The final version of the survey instrument contained forty-eight questions that were divided into three main sections. Section one dealt with high school orchestra programs and contained questions that covered the following topics: 1. The number, type, and size of high schools that offered orchestra. 2. The time of day when the orchestra classes were held, how often they met, and the length of the class sessions. 3. The types of teachers who taught the orchestra classes and how their salaries were funded. 4. The funding sources that were used to provide string instruments, music, and other supplies such as rosin and strings. Section two dealt with string instruction at the middle school level and contained questions that were similar to those in section one. Additional questions were included that covered the following topics: 1. The grade levels at which beginning string classes were offered. 2. The grade levels at which string orchestra was offered. Section three dealt with string instruction at the elementary school level and contained questions that were similar to those in sections one and two. Questions were also included that covered the following topics: 1. The grade level at which beginning string class instruction was first offered. 2. The type of string class groupings that were utilized. The 100 low socioeconomic level school districts that had been identified in the Smith study as offering string instruction were contacted to determine if they still had viable string programs. Of these, it was found that 72 districts offered strings during the 1999-2000 academic year and 28 had eliminated their programs due to budget constraints. The districts that offered strings were grouped into size categories by total student enrollment as follows: 1) 3,500 to 9,999 students (23 districts), 2) 10,000 to 19,999 students (16

districts), 3) 20,000 to 29,999 students (10 districts), 4) 30,000 to 49,999 students (11 districts), and 5) 50,000 to 225,000 students (12 districts). Questionnaires were then mailed to all 72 districts. Results A total of 60 (83.3%) completed questionnaires were returned, broken down as follows: 1) Category 1 20 districts (87%), 2) Category 2 11 districts (69%), 3) Category 3 9 districts (90%), 4) Category 4 9 districts (82%), and 5) Category 5 11 districts (92%). The findings for the individual districts are presented in Table 1. It was found that the percentage of schools that offered strings in the districts ranged from a low of one percent to a high of 100 percent. The findings also indicated that districts with less than 10,000 students offered strings in the largest percentage of schools. With some exceptions, the number of schools that offered strings tended to decrease as district size increased.

The findings for district location by size are presented in Table 2. It was found that most districts with less than 10,000 students were located in rural areas. All districts in the other size categories were located in urban areas. The findings for high school orchestra offerings by district size and school type are presented in Table 3. It was found that 90 percent of the districts offered orchestra at this level. In addition, it was found that as district size increased orchestra was offered more frequently in either performing arts or academically gifted schools rather than in traditional grade nine through twelve high schools. Fisher s exact test comparisons indicated that school type differences among the size categories were statistically significant at this educational level. Orchestra classes met daily during regular school hours in all districts for either fifty-minute (37 districts) or ninety-minute (17 districts) class sessions. The findings for middle school string offerings are presented in Table 4. It was found that 85 percent of the districts offered strings at this level. The findings were similar to those obtained for the high school

level in that larger districts with more than 30,000 students also tended to offer strings more frequently in performing arts and academically gifted schools. Fisher s exact test comparisons indicated that school type differences among the sizes categories were also statistically significant at the middle school level. String classes met during regular school hours in all districts either five days a week (33 districts) or three days a week (18 districts). Class session length ranged from forty minutes in 23 districts to fifty minutes in 28 districts. In addition, it was found that string orchestra was offered at all grade levels in 43 districts and in grades seven and eight in the remaining eight districts. Beginning string classes used heterogeneous grouping and were offered in sixth grade in most districts. The findings for elementary school string programs are presented in Table 5. It was found that 70 percent of the districts offered string instruction at this level. Although larger districts also tended to offer strings more frequently in performing arts and academically gifted schools at this level, school type differences among the size categories were not found to be statistically significant. Classes met during regular school hours as follows: 1) once a week (12 districts), 2) twice a week (21 districts), 3) three times a week (5 districts), and 4) four times a week (4 districts). Class session length ranged from thirty minutes in 27 districts to forty minutes in 15 districts. Beginning string classes were offered at the following grade levels: 1) grade two (5 districts), 2) grade three (19 districts), and 3) grades four and five (18 districts). Heterogeneous grouping was used most often (31 districts) followed by homogeneous grouping (11 districts).

The lower percentage of districts that offered strings in the elementary grades most likely can be attributed to the limited funds that were budgeted for music programs at this educational level. While high schools and middle schools are generally large enough to justify the employment of separate instrumental and choral music specialists, most elementary schools are too small to employ more than one music specialist. The lack of significance for school type at this level can be explained by the decreased number of districts that offered strings in magnet arts and academically gifted schools in relation to the number that offered strings in traditional K 5 schools. This was found to be especially true in districts with less than 30,000 students. The findings for teacher type are presented in Table 6. It was found that larger districts used more nonstring specialists to teach strings, particularly at the high school and middle school levels. Fisher s exact test comparisons for all three levels indicated that teacher type differences among the size categories were not statistically significant.

The findings for the funding sources for the teachers salaries are presented in Table 7. It was found that 1) almost half the districts with less than 10,000 students used outside funding sources to pay the teachers; and 2) approximately one-third of the districts with more than 30,000 students used alternate funding sources. Fisher s exact test comparisons revealed no significant differences among the size categories for this funding variable.

The findings for the funding sources for instruments are presented in Table 8. It was found that approximately one-third of the districts with less than 10,000 students and those with 30,000 to 50,000 students used alternate funding sources to provide string instruments at the high school, middle school, and elementary school levels. Fisher s exact test comparisons also revealed nonsignificant differences among the size categories for this funding variable. The findings for the funding for music and supplies are presented in Table 9. It was found that forty percent of the districts with less than 10,000 students and forty-five percent of the districts with 30,000 to 50,000 students did not provide any funds for music or other supplies. The amount provided in the other districts ranged from a low of $3,166.00 per district to a high of $7,360.00 per district. Fisher s exact test comparisons further revealed no significant differences among the size categories for this funding variable.

Discussion and Conclusions Perhaps the most important findings of this study are those related to the funding of string programs in low socioeconomic level school districts. Among the alternate funding sources identified were: 1. Federal Government Magnet School Desegregation Funds 2. Federal Government Title I Funds 3. VH1 Save the Music Foundation 4. Mister Holland s Opus Foundation 5. National Association of Recording Artists Foundation 6. Annenberg Foundation 7. American String Teachers Association Grants 8. Individual State Arts Grants 9. Local Symphony Outreach Grants 10. State Talent Education Grants 11. State Gifted Education Grants As was pointed out earlier, Bergonzi, Smith, and Stewart all found that access to string instruction in the public schools was closely linked to school district socioeconomic level and location. Gillespie and Hamann s results together with those of the present study further support this connection. While their findings revealed a continued enrollment increase in orchestra programs in suburban schools during the 1990s, this investigator found that 1) the number of low socioeconomic level school districts that offered strings decreased from 100 in 1994 to 72 in 1999; and 2) many of the districts that still offered strings had to use outside sources to fund their programs. The reliance on outside funding sources to support public school string programs is fraught with many pitfalls. What will happen to such programs when these funding sources are removed? Will they be eliminated from the school curriculum or will they be incorporated into existing arts programs? As Jensen found, many arts programs in urban school districts were eliminated when federal aid to education was reduced in the early 1980s.

This study also pointed out that there appears to be a trend toward providing arts education in magnet schools in large, urban school districts. Although such schools provide limited access to string instruction, many culturally and economically disadvantaged students are being denied access to such instruction because it is not offered in other schools in these districts. Can string education for a select few at the expense of the larger school population be condoned in the public schools? The findings of this study in regard to teacher type were consistent with Gillespie and Hamann s and suggest that many low socioeconomic level school districts need to rely on band and choral teachers to provide string instruction because they do not have the financial resources to hire separate string specialists. This situation makes it imperative that undergraduate nonstring education majors be adequately prepared to teach strings in the public schools. Finally, the issue of access to string instruction in low socioeconomic level school districts needs to be addressed by the string education profession. It is suggested that a task force be appointed by the American String Teachers Association to develop funding models that can be used to implement string programs in urban school districts that do not currently offer such instruction. References Abeel, M. (1994). The status of strings in Virginia: 1994. Unpublished master s thesis. George Mason University, Farifax, VA. Bergonzi, L. (1995). The national standards in music education: A call for comprehensive music education for all children. In G. Hotchkiss (Ed.), Loyola Symposium on National Music Standards: Implications for String Education (pp. 31-45). New Orleans: Loyola University. Gillespie, R. and Hamann, D. (1998). The status of orchestra programs in the public schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 75-86. Horvath, K. (1993). The state of strings in Ohio: Teacher profile, program structure, and implications for the future. Triad, 62, 36-38. Jensen, J. (1992). An analysis of federal arts education policy and its implementation at the state level: A modified Delphi study of collaborations as ends and means of the policy process in arts education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53 (10), 1104A. (University Microfilms No. DA9225619)

Leonhard, C. (1991). The status of arts education in American public schools. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 105, 1-21. Market Data Retrieval. (1999). MDR school directory, 1999-2000. Sheltan, CT: Author. SAS Institute. (1985). SAS users guide: statistics (5th ed.). Cary, NC: Author. Smith, C. (1997). Access to string instruction in American public schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 650-662. Stewart, C. (1991). Who takes music? Investigating access to high school music as a function of social and school factors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52 (10), 3554A. (University Microfilms No. DA9208660) U.S. 106th Congress, First Session, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (1999). ESEA: Arts Education and Magnet Schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.