Presents… Strategies for MEAs: A Case Study of the Process and Results of a Statewide Survey and the Development of an Advocacy Network
What We’ve Been Doing • State participation in calls with the White House • Teachers to Rose Garden for Presidents speech • Watch legislation on ESEA reauthorization • National Core Arts meeting • Teacher Evaluation
Dr. Frederick Burrack Chair: KMEA Advocacy Committee Associate Professor Kansas State University
Advocacy Sessions at annual in-service (state conference) Arts Day at the Capitol Advocacy Video Contest Survey on cuts to programs
Impact of Budget Cuts on Music Education in Kansas’ Schools from the 2009 & 2010 Surveys of Kansas’ Schools
Demographic Information Requested • One Survey from each district – information for entire district • District number • Number of students in district • Percentage of students involved in each level & area of the music program
POPULATION AND REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE FOR THIS SURVEY There are 293 school districts in Kansas 190 school districts responded to the survey a response rate of 64.4%.
POSITIONS CUT IN THE PAST 3YEARS Of those who responded: • 124 positions cut in 2009-2010 • 61 positions cut in 2007-2009 185 positions had been cut 2007-2010 Generalized across the entire population: • 167 positions may have been cut in 2009-2010 • 250 positions may have been cut from 2007-2010.
Strong Participation in Kansas’ Music Programs More that 20% of their student body is involved: 74% of middle school bands 39% of high school bands 67% of middle school choirs 43% of high school choirs 16% of string programs
Over the past year, up to 48% to 55% of reporting districts reported a loss of funding for 2009-2010. 33% of those districts music programs (18% of all respondents) reported funding cuts over 25% of their previous year’s operating budget. Generalize to the entire population, up to 168 districts may have cut funding and up to 53 districts could have cut their music programs’ budgets by over 25%.
50% reported a reduction in travel expenditures.20% reported an increase in responsibility with no compensation.19% reported that music teachers were being asked to teach courses outside of their area of expertise.18% are turning to student fees to supplement the unfunded expenditures.
Issues addressed on the survey • Percentage of participation in each area. • Number of teaching positions cut (not renewed or replaced) in the past year. • Loss of funding. • Reduction or elimination of extra duty pay and/or summer contracts . • Amount of contact time with students. • Addition of student fees (pay-to-participate). • Reduction of travel expenditures. • Reduction of capitol improvement. • Unfunded increase of responsibility. • Teaching outside of area of expertise. • If cuts been equitable across disciplines. • Open response for other concerns.
Available from NAfMEwebsite • Copy of the survey 2010 • Copy of the survey 2011 • 2010 findings report • 2010 findings brochure • Presented to legislators at state capitol • Presented to Kansas High School Athletic Association • Presented to the Kansas Board of Education
Email to district presidents Information from teachers • Create a state-wide network of support. • influential in the educational/cultural/business community. • Supports music education. • Knowledgeable of the educational validity of music education
Letter sent via post to advocates • Obtain permission for inclusion in the Music Advocacy Network
Response form from advocates sent via post in post-paid return envelope
Music Advocacy Network Protocol Hierarchy of communication • A KMEA member enacts the Music Advocacy Network through an email describing the advocacy support need: firstname.lastname@example.org • The KMEA advocacy chair communicates the need to the KMEA president and discusses communication options: email@example.com • The KMEA president contacts music teacher to approve the communication plan and then contacts the advocate indicating the need, type of contact, and the message to be delivered. • The KMEA president communicates the advocacy effort to the appropriate district president and the KMEA advocacy chair communicated the advocacy effort to the appropriate district advocacy chair. • The district advocacy chair and district president maintains contact with the director followed with communication of resulting actions to the KMEA president and advocacy chair. • The advocacy chair maintains a record of all actions taken for future reference. • The KMEA president sends appreciative communication to the advocate.
Available at NAfME Advocacy Groundswell • Copy of the advocacy network plan • 2010 KMEA Advocacy Survey • 2011 KMEA Advocacy Survey • KMEA Advocacy Brochure All available at http://advocacy.nafme.org/KMEA-Webinar
Frederick Burrack KMEA Advocacy Chair firstname.lastname@example.org
Thank you for participating! Please look for a reminder email from us later this week concerning Hill visits. We sincerely appreciate your attendance this evening and hope that you will join us again soon!