Delta Dental has been tracking tooth fairy trends for 26 years and is sounding the alarm regarding their (not sure which pronoun to use) fiscal viability.

According to their annual survey, for the first time since 2019, our little friend is paying out less than in previous years.

Specifically, the tooth fairy's average gift value for a single lost tooth dropped 6% to $5.84 from $6.23 last year. Want to know more? According to the latest study:

The survey found that the average value of a first tooth is $7.09, down from $7.29 in 2023.
The Northeast average was $6.87, up 12%, and surpassed the national average by more than $1.
The South dropped from $6.59 to $5.51 this year, under the national average.
The Midwest has the lowest value of a lost tooth at $3.63, a $2 and 36% drop from 2023.
Lost teeth in the West had the highest value at $8.54, a 37% increase from last year, according to the survey of 1,000 parents of children ages 6 to 12.

How could the value of a tooth be so disparate depending on where you live? Are teeth in the Midwest somehow less valuable? Is there a glut of tooth inventory driving down the market? Are teeth in the West a more prized commodity? Are overhead and personnel costs in fairy unionized states that much higher?

Given that the commodity is known, predictable, and can be depreciated over its seven-year lifespan, how do we not have a formal plan and budget for replacement?

I am not talking about teeth anymore. I am talking about instruments.

According to the State of Music Education Survey (SoME):

55% of music teachers reported no budget support for instrument replacement.
63% reported no budget support for repairs.
77% reported no standard depreciation/replacement schedule for instruments.
55% reported no standard depreciation/replacement schedule for uniforms.
53% reported needing parent support, with 53% of their operating budget coming from parents.
Those with budgets reported per-pupil averages of just $21.00 for instrument repair and $46.00 for replacement.

To be clear, that means you will need eight or more years of a child in music to afford a typical uniform and two hundred students to be able to purchase one sousaphone.

How is this possible? Are we not a core curriculum? Do we not meet during the school day for credit? Don't schools have a responsibility to provide an appropriate learning environment?

After all, we have standard replacement schedules for textbooks, buses, and football uniforms. And as long as we are talking about equity, I don't remember the science department ever having to hold a car wash to buy microscopes or Petri dishes or the math department asking parents to help pay for textbooks.

Similar to teeth, we have a good idea of the life cycle of a tuba, timpani, and trumpet. These costs are not unexpected. Like buses, we have a good idea of a proper maintenance schedule for a bassoon, bass drum, and bass clarinet.

Why is there no standardized budget for music?
Why is it so different in different places?
Why is music being treated differently than other curricula?
Why is it not annualized so we can plan long-term?

I am not being unreasonable or asking for an excessive amount. I am simply saying that providing an appropriate and equitable learning experience for every child requires an appropriate and equitable set of resources.

Instead, we plan short-term, hoping to avoid necessary and routine expenses, with no long-term plan or financial stability.

So we run car washes, sell cookie dough, and start GoFundMe pages. Despite our best care and diligent maintenance, you will incur these costs if you have young people who use their instruments. As responsible adults, we should have a consistent, standardized, and equitable plan so all children have the same joyful experience.

Why not?

Oh, I am talking about the tooth fairy now.

Have a great week everyone.

Scott