True Source of Band Inequities in CCSD

If all middle and high schools are treated equally in funding by CCSD, why do major inequities exist in the equipment available school-by-school for their bands?

It would be easy to assume that inequity results from prior unequal treatment; however, that's a very unlikely scenario. Unfortunately, the inequity exists in the amount of parental involvement in the schools' band programs and, in particular, in the affluence of each school's community. Them that has, gets.

This point was not clearly made in Tuesday's congratulatory article on CCSD's decision to invest half-a-million dollars in instruments over the next five years, a move that follows its prior decision to purchase half-a-million dollars of new band uniforms over every nine-year period. According to the P & C,

Some Charleston County high schools use band instruments that are 20 years old. Others lack basic instruments, and still others don't have enough instruments for students who want to play.

In an effort to address the inequities among high schools across the county, the school board has agreed to sink $575,000 during the next five years into its high school band programs. It's the first time in at least 10 years that the school district has made a significant investment in its band instruments.

The money will replace or buy the most expensive instruments that are in the worst condition. The lease-to-purchase program means schools will own the instruments after the district finishes making payments, and the instruments will be bought at half the market price because of the mass purchase.

"We wanted to make sure we used the money as efficiently and effectively as possible," said Jim Braunreuther, the district's fine arts coordinator, who repeatedly thanked the school board for agreeing to the purchases. The new instruments should be in schools by this summer.

This is the second financial boost from the school board to its band programs, the first being nearly two years ago when it agreed to allocate $60,000 annually to replace uniforms on a nine-year rotation cycle.

The district's 32 middle and high school band programs have an estimated $2.4 million of band equipment in poor condition. It doesn't have a program to buy band equipment. Schools get up to $8,000 per year, depending on its students' poverty and enrollment, to buy or repair its instruments, and one pricey instrument purchase can wipe out an entire school's budget.

Wando High School needed $76,000 in band equipment last year just to handle the new band students who played smaller, typically "school-owned" instruments. The district money allocated to the school was only enough to buy one tuba. The 247-student band got the needed instruments through grant money, help from the school's principal and fundraising by its booster club, which has taken out three loans in the past 11 years to pay for big-ticket items.

Wando serves an affluent community. Like it or not, schools such as, say, Alice Burney Middle cannot call upon "fundraising by its booster club" to even approach the loans and tens of thousands supplied by Mt. Pleasant parents. Should adequate equipment be possible only for the middle-class and the rich? Should schools that serve poorer communities not have bands?

A million dollars over the next nine years IS a big commitment; however, imagine what the district spends on football programs! No contest. The only question is whether the school district should provide music programs in its middle and high schools that are open to even the most disadvantaged among its students. It's ludicrous to suggest that those students could rent or buy their own instruments and uniforms.

Students who are actively involved and participating regularly in school-organized activities, whether they be athletic or otherwise, are much less likely to drop out before graduating. If these band expenses serve to keep potential dropouts in school, they are well worth the money.