***
Hey Sarah,
I'm working on a draft of a letter - it's at home and I'm at work - but I wanted to share some clarifications. Post this to the blog if you like, or keep it to yourself, or whatever.
I've been thinking a lot about this situation ever since I got your message and I'm really torn about my feelings. Let's be clear: I am not uncertain at all, in any sense, about the importance of art education or of dance programs in schools. People on the blog have spoken far more eloquently and with more expertise than I can about the benefits it offers to students. The fact that St. Andrew's has a program at all, and the strength of that program, is part of what sets us aside from other independent schools in the area (you will note, for example, that Maret doesn't even say anything about the arts on its homepage and says nothing about dance at all, anywhere). Dance classes were a fun activity for me, but I know that for many others, they were a saving grace during middle and high school. So of course I don't condone the elimination of middle school dance classes.
But I think I'm in a different position from many other alumni, because since my mother still works there, I still encounter the workings of the school on a daily basis. (That administration so many students - and apparently, other alums - bash all the time? Yeah, that's my mother.) I've seen how many difficult decisions Kosasky et al. have had to make over the past few months. And this is the dilemma that I keep running up against: The dance program has not been cut because anyone feels that that money would be better spent in other areas, i.e. athletics. If that were the reason, I would be the first one in the offices staging a sit-in. They're not re-allocating money - there is no money. They've cut benefits for the school's employees, i.e. summer hours for the staff; they've slashed even the technology budget, traditionally one of the biggest. My mother comes home every day with heartbreaking stories about having to choose between giving financial aid to current students whose families' financial situations are newly precarious, or to new students who can increase the diversity of the school.
So why was the middle-school dance program the first to go? To be brutally honest, because Debby is classified as a part-timer, and they've eliminated virtually all part-time positions across all departments as a cost-saving measure. Frankly, she's probably lucky that they didn't slash the after-school companies too. I don't know whether she's part-time by her own choice or by the school's decision, and we can get into what it says about the situation of arts at St. Andrew's that "dance teacher" is only a part-time job - but the fact is that that's the reason for the decision. And she's not the only one.
This is what I've been wrestling with for the past two days. How can I, in good conscience, support my alma mater's elimination of the programs that meant the most to me during my time there, particularly considering the myriad benefits that those programs offer to both the students and the school? On the other hand, how can I support their continuance when that money might be given as financial aid to a child who would otherwise be unable to afford to attend? I wish it were as simple as arts vs. athletics, but it's not. (An aside: Since I know people will bring up the fields in response to this, here are my feelings. I am just as angry about the spending on the new turf as everyone else, mostly because I don't remember the last time the arts department received an influx of over $100,000. BUT at the time the decision was made to put down the synthetic turf, two years ago, almost no one was predicting the crash of the economy, and Robert probably could not have foreseen the financial predicament the school would be in in the future. I seriously doubt that he would make the same decision now. What's more, my understanding is that this is a cost-saving measure in the long term, because they don't need to spend time or money on fertilizing, upkeep, etc. So, while we can all agree that it was unfair and may in retrospect have been a mistake, it's kind of a moot point now.)
We can frame this moment as a debate exclusively about the dance program and its merits, and the potential deleterious effects of its elimination (dance education offers x, y, and z to the school and the students; it's a slippery slope from its elimination to that of the entire arts curriculum; it's the same as not forcing students to take math, etc.) - to which Robert will reply that he eliminated the program not because of its own value or enthusiasm for it or lack thereof, but because it was taught by a part-timer and was therefore easily cut to provide money for equally worthwhile initiatives, i.e. financial aid. We can frame it as an opportunity to discuss the importance of arts education to the St. Andrew's mission and to question whether it is truly receiving equal recognition as one of the "four pillars." That's a discussion that needs to take place, and this might be the ideal catalyst for it. But that doesn't mean that dance classes will return, because that's an immediate budgetary issue. And if that degenerates into a demand for tit-for-tat deletions from the athletic budget, it's easy for Robert to say that those reductions will be made, or to reply, "Okay, new uniforms for the teams are out" - in which case, athletic supporters will be annoyed and the dance classes still won't be reinstated. Or, as you and Jessica have discussed, we can use this as an opportunity to exert some leverage as alumni and to explain, "We care about this institution and we feel that, faced with a number of difficult choices, you've made a decision that isn't acceptable to us since it isn't in the best interest of the school, the community, or the students."
The way forward isn't attacking the administration; nor is it hammering home the same points about arts and dance, important though they may be. Rather, we need to see this as an opportunity for collaboration to try to find an alternative that would be acceptable to both parties. To do that, we need to have a clear idea of the options available. Would they be willing to dip into the endowment? (Probably not: (a) I'm sure it's taken a hit since it's all invested, and (b) Robert's view of an "emergency" isn't a global financial crisis, but the building burning down or something.) Are there individuals we could hit up for donations specifically for the dance program, or the arts classes more generally? (I think they've probably begged as much money as they can out of the wealthy alums, and I doubt those who care most about the arts are the ones making a lot, but I could be wrong.) Are there external grants available for dance education that the school could apply for? Is there any way to re-allocate the money in the budget, either from other arts programs or from other line items? The letter-writing campaign is great and will show that we care about the issue. But we should also be setting up meetings to discuss these issues with Robert, E-team, and the trustees. And to be prepared for those meetings, we need to have educated ourselves and have some practical alternatives beyond an idealistic vision.
Just some thoughts from a different perspective. Sorry to be so long-winded but this is what's been going round and round in my head for the past two days. I know this is an emotional issue for all of us, but I think we'll be more productive if we try to remember that this was a difficult decision for them and not made on a whim, but that there may be alternatives they haven't considered and it's our responsibility to point those out.
A.
I'm working on a draft of a letter - it's at home and I'm at work - but I wanted to share some clarifications. Post this to the blog if you like, or keep it to yourself, or whatever.
I've been thinking a lot about this situation ever since I got your message and I'm really torn about my feelings. Let's be clear: I am not uncertain at all, in any sense, about the importance of art education or of dance programs in schools. People on the blog have spoken far more eloquently and with more expertise than I can about the benefits it offers to students. The fact that St. Andrew's has a program at all, and the strength of that program, is part of what sets us aside from other independent schools in the area (you will note, for example, that Maret doesn't even say anything about the arts on its homepage and says nothing about dance at all, anywhere). Dance classes were a fun activity for me, but I know that for many others, they were a saving grace during middle and high school. So of course I don't condone the elimination of middle school dance classes.
But I think I'm in a different position from many other alumni, because since my mother still works there, I still encounter the workings of the school on a daily basis. (That administration so many students - and apparently, other alums - bash all the time? Yeah, that's my mother.) I've seen how many difficult decisions Kosasky et al. have had to make over the past few months. And this is the dilemma that I keep running up against: The dance program has not been cut because anyone feels that that money would be better spent in other areas, i.e. athletics. If that were the reason, I would be the first one in the offices staging a sit-in. They're not re-allocating money - there is no money. They've cut benefits for the school's employees, i.e. summer hours for the staff; they've slashed even the technology budget, traditionally one of the biggest. My mother comes home every day with heartbreaking stories about having to choose between giving financial aid to current students whose families' financial situations are newly precarious, or to new students who can increase the diversity of the school.
So why was the middle-school dance program the first to go? To be brutally honest, because Debby is classified as a part-timer, and they've eliminated virtually all part-time positions across all departments as a cost-saving measure. Frankly, she's probably lucky that they didn't slash the after-school companies too. I don't know whether she's part-time by her own choice or by the school's decision, and we can get into what it says about the situation of arts at St. Andrew's that "dance teacher" is only a part-time job - but the fact is that that's the reason for the decision. And she's not the only one.
This is what I've been wrestling with for the past two days. How can I, in good conscience, support my alma mater's elimination of the programs that meant the most to me during my time there, particularly considering the myriad benefits that those programs offer to both the students and the school? On the other hand, how can I support their continuance when that money might be given as financial aid to a child who would otherwise be unable to afford to attend? I wish it were as simple as arts vs. athletics, but it's not. (An aside: Since I know people will bring up the fields in response to this, here are my feelings. I am just as angry about the spending on the new turf as everyone else, mostly because I don't remember the last time the arts department received an influx of over $100,000. BUT at the time the decision was made to put down the synthetic turf, two years ago, almost no one was predicting the crash of the economy, and Robert probably could not have foreseen the financial predicament the school would be in in the future. I seriously doubt that he would make the same decision now. What's more, my understanding is that this is a cost-saving measure in the long term, because they don't need to spend time or money on fertilizing, upkeep, etc. So, while we can all agree that it was unfair and may in retrospect have been a mistake, it's kind of a moot point now.)
We can frame this moment as a debate exclusively about the dance program and its merits, and the potential deleterious effects of its elimination (dance education offers x, y, and z to the school and the students; it's a slippery slope from its elimination to that of the entire arts curriculum; it's the same as not forcing students to take math, etc.) - to which Robert will reply that he eliminated the program not because of its own value or enthusiasm for it or lack thereof, but because it was taught by a part-timer and was therefore easily cut to provide money for equally worthwhile initiatives, i.e. financial aid. We can frame it as an opportunity to discuss the importance of arts education to the St. Andrew's mission and to question whether it is truly receiving equal recognition as one of the "four pillars." That's a discussion that needs to take place, and this might be the ideal catalyst for it. But that doesn't mean that dance classes will return, because that's an immediate budgetary issue. And if that degenerates into a demand for tit-for-tat deletions from the athletic budget, it's easy for Robert to say that those reductions will be made, or to reply, "Okay, new uniforms for the teams are out" - in which case, athletic supporters will be annoyed and the dance classes still won't be reinstated. Or, as you and Jessica have discussed, we can use this as an opportunity to exert some leverage as alumni and to explain, "We care about this institution and we feel that, faced with a number of difficult choices, you've made a decision that isn't acceptable to us since it isn't in the best interest of the school, the community, or the students."
The way forward isn't attacking the administration; nor is it hammering home the same points about arts and dance, important though they may be. Rather, we need to see this as an opportunity for collaboration to try to find an alternative that would be acceptable to both parties. To do that, we need to have a clear idea of the options available. Would they be willing to dip into the endowment? (Probably not: (a) I'm sure it's taken a hit since it's all invested, and (b) Robert's view of an "emergency" isn't a global financial crisis, but the building burning down or something.) Are there individuals we could hit up for donations specifically for the dance program, or the arts classes more generally? (I think they've probably begged as much money as they can out of the wealthy alums, and I doubt those who care most about the arts are the ones making a lot, but I could be wrong.) Are there external grants available for dance education that the school could apply for? Is there any way to re-allocate the money in the budget, either from other arts programs or from other line items? The letter-writing campaign is great and will show that we care about the issue. But we should also be setting up meetings to discuss these issues with Robert, E-team, and the trustees. And to be prepared for those meetings, we need to have educated ourselves and have some practical alternatives beyond an idealistic vision.
Just some thoughts from a different perspective. Sorry to be so long-winded but this is what's been going round and round in my head for the past two days. I know this is an emotional issue for all of us, but I think we'll be more productive if we try to remember that this was a difficult decision for them and not made on a whim, but that there may be alternatives they haven't considered and it's our responsibility to point those out.
A.
Hi Amanda,
ReplyDeletethanks for your thought-provoking post, and thanks as well for letting me post it to the blog. I think it brings up a lot of valid points, and would like to respond to a few of them to clarify my position and maybe suggest some next steps.
I (and i would guess every other person who's written a letter) understand how bad the economy is now, and knows that it's going to be another few years of heartbreaking and hard decisions for everyone in management positions everywhere. I am also realistic about the school's need to survive as an institution, and respectful of the fact (as Jessice Macie pointed out) that the school should indeed be run by the administration and faculty, and not the will of the parents and alumnae.
I also understand that this this is not an issue of sports versus arts, or academics versus "culture", and i've been fairly pleased that that hasn't become the main rallying cry of our response. I've also been pleased with the professionalism and courtesy that this campaign has conducted itself with, and want to re-state that my advocacy for the dance program is in no way an "empty rebellion" against some perceived enemy within the SAES administration. I have nothing but the utmost respect for all of the SAES administration, and respect and admire all that they have given to students, myself included, through the years.
However, i think that is precisely the driving factor behind my organization of and participation in this grass-roots campaign. I LOVE St. Andrew's, and feel that it had a major impact on my life. Though I clearly am not able to donate massive amounts of money to the institution at this point in my life (and, realistically, may never be able to) I would like to think that I can continue to give back to the school by remanning an active member of the community by being aware of the ongoing changes within the school, and politely but firmly expressing my views as a concerned and caring alumnae. For the record, i HAVE donated money to the school, and while it certainly wasn't much (i think it was $10) I feel fairly confident in saying that it was more than some alumnae who professionally are more money grossing have donated. There are many MANY ways to give back, and staying connected to the school (as well as returning to teach, helping current students, and enriching the community - all of which i've done since graduation).
This letter writing that i've called for is not an attempt to bad-mouth or scold the school for any decisions it's made. Nor is the mobilization using facebook and other digital social media a rebellious smear-campaign or vent session. Quite the opposite. We're using networking and peaceful grass roots techniques (many of them imparted upon us by SAES teachers in SAES classes) to express our concern for a program that we believe to be a major pillar of the SAES experience.
Now, clearly, there are some incredibly hard choices that were, are, and will be made about what is best for the school. As alumnae (who paid tuition for upwards of four years, and are repeatedly contacted and asked to "give back to the SAES community") we are by no means guaranteed to be a part of that discussion. However, writing a letter to state our opinions, and perhaps offer some facts about the importance of arts education in America, is an extremely gentle and, though i hate to say it, harmless response. We are not marching on the school, we are not setting up protests and barricades, we are simply asking "are you aware that this many people care?"
While it may be idealistic to think so, I would love to think that the SAES community would want it's alumnae to be more than just money-givers and passive watchers. In part, much of my frustration with this whole chain of events is the response to our activism as something that is rebellious, libelous, and damaging to the school and its community.
What a great opportunity this would have been for the school to think "though we have to make these horrible decisions, what an opportunity to reach out to past and current students and see what matters to them". What a great opportunity this would have been to ask alumnae to get involved and mobilize and fundraise to come to the aid of an institution that has given them so much. As is evident from the already-strong response to our outcries for help, dancers and artists are some of the strongest organizers and social networkers that are alive today, largely in part because we depend upon those skills and networks to survive as artists. As artists we are no strangers to problems of "not enough funding". What a great opportunity this would have been to, rather than seeing the population of arts alumnae of SAES as a group unable to donate and give back to the institution, ask for their help in fundraising to support the program. I am not rich, nor will i ever be, but if someone had approached me and said "look, times are bad, we need to cut this program unless X is raised by X date" you can bet the farm that i would be our there, raising that money.
Now, this is all well and good, but where do we go from here? Personally, i think it would be immensely helpful to be able to sit down with the administration and address some of these issues as a group, as well as clear the air between all parties. We are not enemies, we are not battling factions, we are all people who care deeply about SAES. I agree that idealism is not helpful to anyone in this situation. That is why i would have loved to hear their reasons for cutting this program and see numbers about the schools situation much much earlier.
I would also love to hear what I can do to help. Does SAES need me to fundraise? Do they need me to come teach classes? Do they need twelve-million dollar donations by friday? I'm not saying that i can do these things, but knowing what would help is a great starting point.
Most importantly, i would like to be treated like a decent upstanding human being, and not some rabble-rouser out to defame the school. If SAES wants our support - be it donations, activism, or using our names once we're famous - they need to be willing to look us in the eye and have a conversation as mutually intelligent human beings, not poor artist vs. donor vs. sports field vs. administrator.
I'd like to encourage others to weigh in on this discussion. If, at this point, the next step is setting up a meeting with the administration, perhaps it's time to organize a little more formally, choose a head of this organization, and make that phone call.
Amanda--if you're reading this, thank you! I think we all needed a more internal view of all of this, and I know it helped me formulate some new ideas as to how I'm going to approach the situation when I start writing letters. This was really helpful and valuable.
ReplyDeleteHi Amanda,
ReplyDeleteI hear what you are saying, but I also want to comment that letter writing, frustration, personal experiences are all that some people (me obviously) have to offer. What gets people to speak out? Is it practical, calm, collected thoughts? Usually not. It's usually a passionate cry out of love for a subject, for an idea, for all those silly things that can get so tangled and so complicated.
I cannot meet with anyone--I'm a California college student. I also have no money to offer. I don't feel comfortable or entitled to speak to Robert or John on the phone (although they did offer), because I have nothing more to add that what I've already written to them.
They have tough choices, as does everyone. Tough choices happen to people in positions like headmaster. Yet, when the choice they make directly conflicts with my life and belief, I will express it in the way I know (writing) and with emotion.
I did have issues at St. Andrew's, I did have issues with certain members of the administration. Does that include your mother? No. Does it include other people? Yes. Does it make the dance program even closer to my heart? Yes. Am I being a silly college student? I have no idea, but I don't think it really matters.
I graduated from the school, and continually give the time I can to the dance program, and will fight for dance and movement studies to be considered as important as other non elective classes, visual arts, music, etc...or, if that is not what this situation is about, I will simply write until my fingers hurt to keep dance in schools.
I agree with Sarah--what do they need? Fund raising? Let us know! We would help, would have helped, had we known before now.
The other issue is how I saw the school's relations to dance during high school. I often saw little or no attention paid by the headmaster or the assistant headmaster. Maybe I was blind--but that's what I saw (or, didn't see). My concern, one reason for writing, stems from the impression I received over many years and over many concerts: high schools and middle schools do not understand that dance, although an "enrichment" class, is a valid profession and academic career. (As are all the arts, may I add, but I'm not majoring in those)
Ultimately, I don't have your perspective, but I'm glad to hear it. There are good reasons for me not being involved in the phone call. I am not one to consider the economic or inner workings of the school--frankly, that's not my world at all. As I said, I do what I can, and continue to allow others to do what they can as well. Frame the phone call/meeting in any way helpful, whether or not it sounds remotely like my letter. I'm still glad I sent my letter, glad I got my dance professors to comment on the value of such a program, and made others aware of this issue.
Lastly, I suspect Sarah's reply is far more centered and reasonable--so if this strikes anyone wrong, go with hers instead.
-Lindsay
Ok, this comment is probably going to seem really b*tchy, but this really is what I think, so I'm just going to say it. Warning: I'm probably about to step on a lot of people's toes here!!!!! Also, I hope I'm keeping the focus enough on the dance program and not too much about economical issues... Ok here goes.
ReplyDeleteAmanda- thank you for shedding some light and informing us from the inside out.
I feel like i need to comment on the financial aid issue. I was never on financial aid, and my parents worked extremely hard to afford sending me to St. A's. The whole reason I went to St. A's was because of the dance program, which really sets it apart from many other schools. My parents both work full time so that I could go to a private school with this amazing dance program, NOT to pay for other students to go to private school. Everyone deserves to go to the best school possible, but not everyone can afford to go the private school route. I don't feel like it's fair for my parents to be taxed outrageous amounts, and then expect me to pay a higher tuition so that other kids can get financial aid. So frankly, it's nice that St. A's wants to give new students a free ride, but I don't think it's fair whatsoever. If it's between keeping our dance program and paying for other students' educations, I choose dance. If they need more money, stop letting people in on hefty scholarships. If we take more and more scholarships, it won't even be worth it to pay for private school, because it will become public school.
I really this is quite a strong post, so feel free to disagree.
-Rachel