When a student drops band…

Participants were invited to participate via an open invitation posted to four different band director groups on the several different social media platforms. Participation was strictly voluntary. The survey was open for two weeks and information was collected through a Google Form. Data was coded and analyzed with appropriate statistical tests. In addition to providing basic demographic information and responding to several prompts using a Likert-scale, participants were offered the opportunity to contribute additional information through some open-ended questions.

Student enrollment and retention has long been an area that band directors from elementary levels to high school. While the purpose, scope, and role of the band in music education continues to evolve, retention is a challenge for directors to understand and adapt to in certain situations. In an effort to help directors understand the issue and help students they teach navigate this process, a survey was developed to examine strategies that can be utilized when a student wishes to drop band. A review of the applicable existing body of research and results of the survey can be found here. Although the unique context of the school, distinct program features, and the background and experience of directors all influence the learning environment of a 21^st century school band, there are important commonalities and ideas directors should be aware of as they help students navigate this kind of decision.

Some of the major themes from the review of related literature as it pertains to retention and attrition in band included parental support, peer influence, academic factors, outside activities and schedules, and music aptitude and ability. The survey results illuminated differences in the settings and contexts, the structure, and district/ensemble policies as it relates to a student withdrawing from band. With all data represented in this survey, readers and interested parties should interpret results with caution. Some of the ratings provided are perceptions from the directors regarding decisions made by students, not reasons for the decision expressed by the student. Still, it provides another lens to utilize when examining this issue.

Some highlights from the demographic information provided by participants (N=106):

• The majority of participants were from the United States (32 different states) and 3 provinces from Canada were also represented.
• Participants averaged over 16 years of teaching. This participant group on average had 15.5 years teaching band, and had been in their current position for over 8 years.
• When examining their teaching assignments, 34% of participant directors taught 5 or more grade levels of band, 27% taught four grade levels of band, and 20% taught three grade levels of band (the majority of those directors in middle school/junior high settings). The remaining 19% taught two grade levels of band or less.
• The majority of participant directors taught in suburban contexts (54%). Directors teaching in rural and urban contexts comprised 33% and 15% respectively of the participating director group.
• Directors averaged teaching 154 students across the grade levels of band to which they were assigned. On average, 10 students per year decide to withdraw from band (6.7%).
• Directors teaching in rural contexts saw a lower number of students across the grade levels of band they were assigned (average of 109 students across the grade levels they taught) and a slightly higher percentage of students who wanted to withdraw (9 students on average, 8.3%).
• Directors teaching in urban contexts saw a higher number of students across the grade levels of band they were assigned (average of 186) but the percentage of students who wanted to withdraw (6.1%) was slightly lower than the average of all participant directors.
• Overall, directors rated the support from their administration on their policy to withdraw from band favorably (4.17 out of 5). This rating was relatively consistent across all three teaching contexts.

Participant directors were asked to explain their policy that permits a student to drop band. An analysis of these different policies demonstrated some commonalities. When crafting a policy that allows a student to drop band, directors should consider the following aspects. Specific policies and practices can vary widely from one school or district to another. Nuanced discussions initiated by the director with their administration to craft a supported and helpful policy for the students are important.

1. Parental Permission: Parents should be involved in the decision-making process.
2. Limited Timeframes: The timeframes can vary, often driven by individual school settings. The beginning of the school year, the end of a semester, or the first few weeks of a grading period are the most common timeframes. One option that may be helpful is to make it clear to students they are committing to a full year experience.
3. Communication and Counselor Involvement: Communication between the band director and guidance counselor is important as counselors often have a role in approving or facilitating schedule changes.
4. Exceptions and Extenuating Circumstances: There are exceptions and extenuating circumstances that arise (e.g., behavior issues, academic struggles, family circumstances).
5. Grade-Specific Policies: Policies for dropping out of band may differ based on the grade level of the students. This policy can differ between buildings within a single district.

When asked if they made contact with the parents regarding a student dropping band, a majority of the directors responded Yes/Always (56.8%) or Often (25.5%) (see Table 1). Table 2 shows the overall results of this strategy. Despite a director initiating this step, it rarely resulted in the student changing their mind (Rarely – 61.8%, Never 7.8%). It should be noted that some directors reported having limited success utilizing this strategy (Often – 29.4%, Always 2.0%).

Table 1 – Percentage of directors who contact parents

Director Group (106)	Percentage
Yes/Always contact parents (n=60)	56.8%
Often contact parents (n=27)	25.5%
Rarely contact parents (n=15)	14.2%
Never contact parents (n=4)	3.8%

            Table 2 – Success rate of retaining the student after contacting parents

Responses (102)	Percentage
Always succeeds (n=1)	1.0%
Often succeeds (n=30)	29.4%
Rarely succeeds (n=63)	61.8%
Never succeeds (n=8)	7.8%

When asked if they made contact with the other students/peers to encourage the student to remain enrolled in band, the results were more a bit more even. Table 3 show the percentage of directors who utilize this strategy, and Table 4 show the overall success rate. Few directors reported having consistent success when initiating peers and other students to assist with retention efforts.

Table 3 – Percentage of directors who contact peers or other students

Director Group (106)	Percentage
Yes/Always contact peers (n=18)	16.5%
Often contact peers (n=34)	32.1%
Rarely contact peers (n=36)	34.9%
Never contact peers (n=18)	16.5%

            Table 4 – Success rate of retaining the student after contacting peers/other students

Responses (88)	Percentage
Always succeeds (n=2)	2.3%
Often succeeds (n=19)	21.6%
Rarely succeeds (n=56)	63.6%
Never succeeds (n=11)	12.5%

When examining the data based upon the director’s teaching context (i.e., Rural, Suburban, Urban), the statistical data and ratings for the two aspects above (i.e., Contacting Parents, Contacting Peers) were nearly identical for the Suburban (n=57) and Rural Director Groups (n=33).

When examining the data based upon the number of grade levels taught, directors teaching three or less groups rated five of the various aspects that influence a student to drop band higher than their counterparts (Economic, Social, Parental Support, Gender, and Instrument Quality) and a statistical analysis revealed one noticeable difference. Directors teaching three or less grade levels had a slightly higher percentage of students who dropped band (8.2%) as compared to those teaching four or more grade levels (5.6%) This finding based upon the number of grade levels taught was statistically significant at the α = 0.05 level.

A possible explanation for this slightly elevated percentage of students who drop among directors who teach three or less grade levels could be related to the foundational relationship that develops between teacher and student. If the director has limited time to build an appropriate connection to students and understand their basic needs to grow as a musician and person, the student may become disengaged and more inclined to drop band.   

The director group was also split into two sub-groups based upon experience, and it yielded one interesting perspective to consider. Directors with less than 15 years of total teaching experience were twice as likely (22%) to contact the peers of a student who wished to drop band than their counterparts with 15 years or more of total teaching experience (11%). The directors with less than 15 years of teaching experience reported having slightly more success (25%) as opposed to their counterparts with 15 or more years of teaching experience (15%).

Directors were also posed an open-end question about other strategies they would use when a student shares they wish to drop band. When speaking to students who express their desire to drop, it is important to remember these ideas vary depending on the specific circumstances and reasons behind a student’s decision. Directors should aspire to provide support and guidance while respecting the individual choices of their students. The most prominent ideas are as follows:

1. Communication and Understanding: Many directors emphasize the importance of having one-on-one conversations to determine the underlying issues or concerns.
2. Offering Solutions: After listening to the problems or concerns raised by the student, directors can offer ideas to change their perception of staying in band (e.g., suggesting instrument changes, offering extra support through private lessons).
3. Encouragement: Simple and succinct words of encouragement from the director to a student to remain enrolled and complete the year may be very helpful (i.e., benefits of perseverance, unique future experiences they can be a part of, the commitment policy of the band program at that grade level).
4. Parental Involvement: Directors may involve parents in the discussion to ensure everyone is on the same page.
5. Empathy, Support, and Open Door Policy: Moving beyond the immediate moment, directors can remind students that they can return to the band program in the future if they change their mind and they respect the student’s current decision.
6. Examine Student Personal Growth: Some students need help to overcome personal challenges (e.g., insecurity, lack of skills).
7. Involvement of Guidance or Administration: Directors may involve guidance counselors or administration in the process, especially when there are extenuating circumstances (e.g., academic pressure from other subjects, conflicts with an extracurricular activity).
8. Proactive Culture Building: A few directors mention the importance of proactive culture building to reduce the likelihood of students wanting to drop out.

Directors were then asked to rate eight different aspects that possibly influence a student’s decision to drop band. Using a scale from 1 (rarely) to 5 (frequently), directors rated the aspects of Economic, Social, Academic, Scheduling, Parental Support, Time Commitment, Gender Factors, Instrument Quality, and Athletics. A complete list of the average rating can be found in the full report linked above and at the conclusion of the article. The highest ratings in order were Scheduling, Athletics, Parental Support, and Academics.

An inter-item correlation of these aspects was completed to better understand how these aspects might interplay in the school context. The majority of correlations among these aspects feel below the 0.30 level, but there were two exceptions. A low positive correlation was discovered between Economic and Instrument Quality aspects (r = 0.356). As these two aspects were rated lower in terms of influencing a student’s decision, it is possible that this association is not a prominent concern among participant directors. It is possible some directors in this survey are able to provide quality instruments to students who are in need.

Another low positive correlation was discovered between Scheduling and Academic aspects (r = 0.471) and was found to be significant at α = 0.01 level. Some directors expressed concern over the class schedule that forces students to choose band or a singleton course that might have more relevance to their career path (e.g., a student pursuing a career in health must choose anatomy or band). Other directors shared their concern over the pressure students share for taking AP/dual enrollment classes in order to advance their collegiate/university studies. Directors in lower grade levels expressed a level of frustration with how their band period is scheduled into an exploratory block with limited meeting time (e.g., during a six day cycle the band only meets as a full group twice).

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, directors were asked to share additional perspective on aspects that influence a student’s decision to drop band in an open-ended question. Directors often face the challenge of addressing these various factors to encourage retention and foster a positive musical learning environment.

1. Parental Priorities: Some students believe that sports offer better future opportunities and earnings, and they may not see the value in their child dedicating time to practicing an instrument. Additionally, if parents do not hold their children accountable for their commitments and practice, students may not feel motivated to continue in the band program.
2. Instant Gratification and Lack of Patience: Students and some parents may want quick results and may become discouraged by the long-term commitment and effort required to excel in playing a musical instrument.
3. Scheduling Conflicts: Students who participate in multiple extracurricular activities may feel overwhelmed and choose to drop band as a way to reduce their commitments.
4. Social influence: Peer pressure and social dynamics can influence a student’s decision to remain enrolled or drop out of band.
5. Instrument Selection: Some students may have been placed on an instrument that is not a good fit for them, sometimes due to parental influence or access to an instrument.
6. Lack of Interest: Students may simply lose interest in band over time, and this disinterest can be a significant factor in their decision to drop out.
7. Perception of Difficulty & Other Academics: Some students may perceive band as too difficult or demanding, especially when they see other elective options as easier or less time-consuming. On the other side, students may drop band in pursuit of higher GPAs or academic recognition, especially if the grading system in their school incentivizes other courses over music.
8. Fear of Performance: Performance anxiety or fear of performing in front of others can lead some students to drop out of band, particularly if they find the experience too stressful.

Conclusions

The survey confirmed and revealed a number of important aspects when a student is confront the decision to drop band. It is vital that directors communicate with the student and understanding the individual or underlying influences. As these conversations begin, directors must involve parents, administrators, and guidance counselors. While the influence of peers cannot be discounted, directors must be sensitive involving other students. Before approaching the student’s peers to act in a mediation role, directors should get permission from the student who is considering dropping. Ultimately the decision belongs to the student and directors must respect their privacy.

In these situations, directors are an important person as a student faces this decision. There are several key points directors should aspire to bring about in their teaching. The first is to ensure that every student is able to forge a meaningful personal connection to music. The second is to guide students to become the best version of themselves as a person and a musician. The third is to think, lead, and act with the best interest of all students in mind. The encouragement a director can provide to a student in this situation is central to each of the aforementioned points.

Directors can still be advocates for their program and the potential benefits and experiences the band offers to the student, and keep an open door, chair, instrument, and stand waiting for them should they change their mind. At points, directors often make substantial personal investments in the success of their band program. It can be difficult to separate those personal feelings when a student is questioning whether or not they should remain involved. Directors must remember that students have personal feelings too that may not align with their vision for the program. A director who handles this situation with grace, respect, empathy, and understanding will last longer in the memory of a student than the music they played in the ensemble.

The comments in the open-ended questions of this survey reflected an empathetic group of directors as it relates to students who are considering dropping out of band. The aspects of parental support, peer influence, academics and scheduling, and conflicts with other activities should be taken into consideration when directors are trying to help students in this situation. The ideas shared in this survey of what to include in a drop policy for students provide a good framework for band directors at any level to consider. As directors keep band programs moving forward, it is imperative to re-examine issues like these to ensure they have done everything possible to serve the students they teach.

Link to complete survey results.