Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grassfield Band Staff topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, students and community members urge Chesapeake board to reinstate Grassfield assistant band director
Summary
Dozens of students, parents and alumni told the Chesapeake School Board that eliminating Grassfield High School’s assistant band director will jeopardize co‑curricular ensembles, adaptive music and competitive programs; speakers cited steady enrollment, competition medals and an online petition topping 1,000 signatures.
Dozens of students, parents and other community members urged the Chesapeake School Board on May 4 to reverse a decision that eliminates Grassfield High School’s assistant band director position.
Kim Lee, a six‑year parent of the Grassfield band, told the board the move "attributed to a dip in enrollment" will be "reactionary and shortsighted," and said "118 students have already signed up to march this fall, up from 105 this year." Madison Lee, a Grassfield student, said the program influenced her college major and that co‑curricular success depends on two directors. Several student speakers and parents cited the program’s competitive record — including repeated medals at the WGI World Championships — and stressed the assistant director’s role in running indoor percussion, winter guard, AP music theory and adaptive music for students with special needs.
Speakers described organized community opposition: student leaders said a petition had gathered more than 1,000 signatures, and multiple commenters asked the board for transparent enrollment data and a fuller explanation of the staffing decision.
The public comments repeatedly highlighted the assistant director’s responsibilities beyond classroom instruction. Dylan Davis, a senior and band president, said the assistant director manages travel logistics, hotel reservations and competition scheduling that would otherwise fall on a single person; other students warned that removing the post would strain the remaining director and reduce program offerings.
Board procedure limited immediate dialogue. Chair Kim Scott thanked speakers and said the board’s practice is to "receive information; however, we do not usually engage in dialogue" and invited superintendent staff to evaluate concerns and provide a response if appropriate.
What the board did: the meeting record shows no formal board vote on reinstating the position during this session. Speakers asked the board to reconsider the staffing decision and requested the underlying enrollment and budget data the division used.
Why it matters: supporters said the assistant director position sustains award‑winning co‑curricular programs, provides adaptive music and AP offerings, and serves hundreds of students; students and families argued the cut would shift costs and logistical burdens onto parents and the remaining staff, potentially reducing student opportunities.
Next steps: the board received the comments and directed staff to evaluate the concerns and respond. The meeting proceeded to other agenda items after the public‑comment period.
