INSTITUTIONALIZING ARTS EDUCATION FOR

NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS:

EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENT AND REFORM THROUGH THE ARTS

-- A Five Year Plan of Implementation --

Respectfully Submitted to theAnnenberg Foundation on behalf of

The Board of Education of the City of New York andThe New York City Department of Cultural Affairs

-by-

ARTSVISION®

Mitchell Korn, PresidentRichard Kessler, Vice President

Robert Horowitz, Ed.D., Associate

February 1996

Table of Contents:

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................ iiiForeword...................................................................................................................... ivIntroduction................................................................................................................... 1Partnerships .................................................................................................................. 4Programming ................................................................................................................ 8Leadership .................................................................................................................. 10The Center for Arts Education ....................................................................................13Central Board ............................................................................................................. 15Staff Development ...................................................................................................... 18UFT Teacher Centers Consortium ..............................................................................19Assessment ................................................................................................................. 20Arts Organizations, Community Based Organizations, Universities and Artists ..........21Community School Districts ....................................................................................... 21Licensing and Staffing ................................................................................................ 22Sustainability and Institutionalization .........................................................................23Advocacy ................................................................................................................... 26The Department of Cultural Affairs ........................................................................... 28Arts-Related Industries ............................................................................................... 28Funding ...................................................................................................................... 29Fiscal Agent ............................................................................................................... 30Proposed Estimated Allocations .................................................................................30Initiative Timeline ...................................................................................................... 35Focus Groups And Interviews In Community School Districts....................................37Interview List.............................................................................................................. 38

2

Acknowledgments

We wish to extend special thanks to Irene Diamond, Vincent McGee and Marsha Bonner of The Aaron Diamond Foundation, whose generous support made this initiative possible. Our sincere appreciation is also extended to Rudolph Crew, Chancellor of the Board of Education of the City of New York and Schuyler Chapin, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs, as co-sponsors of this project. We would also like to express our deepest gratitude to the following: David Sherman, Vice President at-large of the United Federation of Teachers; Ramon C. Cortines, former Chancellor of the Board of Education of the City of New York; Carol Gresser, President of the Board of Education of the City of New York; and all the members of the Board of Education of the City of New York; John Haworth, Assistant Commissioner for Cultural Institutions, and Marge Markey, Arts Program Specialist, Department of Cultural Affairs; Hollis Headrick, Director of Arts Education at the New York State Council on the Arts; Jane Stern, Program Director of The New York Community Trust; Jane Polin, Program Officer/Comptroller, GE Fund; Janet Price, Deputy Director of the Fund for New York City Public Education; Louis Spanier, Director, Arts Education Resource Center; Maxine Greene, Stacy Miller and Renee Darvin of Teachers College, Columbia University; Tom Cahill, Executive Director, Studio in a School; Agnes Gund, President, The Museum of Modern Art; Maria Santory Guasp, Chief Executive Officer for Instruction, Board of Education of the City of New York; Randall Bourscheidt, Executive Director, Alliance for the Arts; Kathleen Pavlick, Program Officer, Chemical Bank; Jennifer Jacobson, Executive Director, Botwinick-Wolfensohn Foundation; Maura O’Malley; Helen Stambler; Joan Firestone, Director of Economic Development, Office of the Comptroller of the City of New York; Steve Tennen, Executive Director, ArtsConnection; Greg McCaslin, Director of Education and Information, New York Foundation for the Arts; William Aguado, Miriam Bacot, Tom Bellino, Leslie Stifelman, and Terry Szor, for their excellent field work in the community school districts; all of the arts and community organizations, university and college representatives, business leaders and government officials, individual artists, foundation officials, and the parents, teachers, administrators and students who agreed to be interviewed at such length, and the many others who devoted their valuable time to the cause of children, education and the arts.

3

Foreword

In Bill Moyers' poetry series called The Language of Life, Moyers has a conver-sation with Adrienne Rich, whose poem called What Kind of Times are These raises questions about our country being “at the edge of dread.” Concluding, Rich wrote, “so why do I tell you anything? Because you still listen, because in times like these/ to have you listen at all, it's necessary to talk about trees.” Moyers asks about the meaning of the “dread” she had in mind; and Rich says: “I think that more and more people feel uncared for, feel that their lives are not only unvalued but meaningless, feel that though, they may care for their lives, no one else will, feel that the only way they can protect their survival and interests is by the gun. I’m afraid that many people feel an enormous desperation which plays into the propaganda of hate.” Then, when Moyers mentions the affirmation he still feels in her work, she responds by saying that when poetry has to speak of dread, “by its very nature poetry speaks beyond that to something different. That's why poetry can bring together parts of us which exist in dread and those which have the surviving sense of a possible happiness, collectivity, community, a loss of isolation” (Moyers, 1995, pp. 341-2).

Poetry is but one of the art forms New Yorkers have in mind when they think about the significance of the arts in their own and in their children’s lives. But what Adrienne Rich said about the “possible” may will apply to experiences with painting, dance, music, sculpture, theater, film. Each of them, in some sense, draws attention to “trees,” meaning the concrete, the particular, the organic, the wonderfully and dynam-ically alive. Engaging with any one of them, knowing how to bring them alive in per-sonal experience, persons can move beyond desperation to a sense of what might be in their lives. What is urgently needed are opportunities for creative and appreciative participation in art works of all kinds. To participate in a poem like Rich’s, a Monet rendering of poplar trees, an Ellington suite, a Bill T. Jones dance performance, a Tom Stoppard play, a Scorcese film is to find new perspectives opening in consciousness. It is to hear what Wallace Stevens called “the blue guitar” – the blue guitar of imagination, that does not “play things as they are.” In Stevens’ poem, the guitarist tells those who challenge him, “Things as they are/ Are changed upon the blue guitar” (1964, p. 165). Most of us realize that we can hear and heed that sound far more clearly if we ourselves have tried to change something, transform something by learning to work with some medium: paint, clay, musical sound, our own bodies in movement, the language of dialogue and gesture – in other words, by means of some mode of art education.

The Annenberg Arts Education Plan that follows may become a community-building initiative. If, indeed, it is possible for diverse groups to come together in the name of the artistic-aesthetic and what is called arts education, there might emerge a community dedicated to new modes of educative and, yes, personal possibility. Emily Dickinson once wrote that “The Possible's slow fuse is lit/ By the Imagination” (1960, pp. 688-9). For all the strategic and tactical tone of the pages that follow, they may have the power to stimulate the imagination of those who read. What is proposed here, after all, requires a reimagining of public education as we know it in these technocratic, troubled, often violent times. It requires, as well, a reimagining of what the arts can mean

4

for persons who feel their lives are meaningless, who see little happiness, little companionship ahead for themselves. It demands that we summon up memories of childhood playacting in backrooms, of efforts to build bookcases or birdhouses, of singing in chorus, of drawing the bird on the fence before he flew away. And it demands that we recall somehow our first visit to an art museum, our discovery of a poem in the public library, our hearing of the “Minuet in G” played by a real musician on the radio, our unexpected introduction to a live opera – the varied beginnings, different for all of us, but leaving some mark, a spot of light, an echoing of the blue guitar.

Those involved in devising this Plan are well aware of the stresses being suffered by the city’s schools and by the tendency on the part of an anxious public to repress such memories, to keep the practical and the technical and the profitable in mind above all other things. They are aware, too, of the incipient desperation in so many lives that leads people to place material and survival values above the quality of their lives. They know that the function of the arts is far more than instrumental: art cannot be argued for primarily in terms of the contributions art education can make to other kinds of learning, unquestioned as these contributions are. They know as well that the Plan is in many ways a response to scarcity, to neglect, to the absence of a coherent arts community. They are aware, also, of the continuing need for a space wide enough and deep enough for the arts/ in their full complexity and mystery, those that cannot be justified by their accessibility to the public in general. Without that public’s being to some degree educated in the arts. however, some of the great traditional works (Shakespeare’s, say, Moliere’s, Velasquez’s, Bach’s) will be less and less present. Robert Brustein, writing in The New Republic, finds a metaphor in Chekhov’s Three Sisters, when Chekhov compares Andrei Prozorov to a beautiful expensive bell, “raised with the help of countless people, then carelessly allowed to fall and smash. Lacking the financial support and the moral example of the endowments, it will take at least another thirty years to raise that bell again. But long before that time... we will have regained our positions as the dumbest and most philistine democracy in the Western world” (August 15, 1995, p. 28). Brustein may sound to some as going too far in his lament for the imminent disappearance of the Arts and Humanities Endowments; but there clearly is an implication for those engaged in sustaining art education and expanding it. The Plan here may become a Plan for the creation of an articulate public where the arts are concerned, even as it remains a Plan for the enriched education of the young.

The planners know well that, in an ideal city in an ideal world, the arts would be present, audible, and visible in every school. The sounds of clarinets would be heard in some school entranceways; half-open doors would make poetry-readings audible; hand-made masks would line the stairways; posters would announce arts events around the neighborhood. No longer on the fringe of things, the solution of visual problems in the making of murals would tap the expertise of math teachers. Leaf-drawings would surround those studying botany; stories of great scientists would stud the science curriculum; students would be given cameras to photograph the houses in the community (and the empty lots, and the river views, and the shanties, and the shacks). There would be an ongoing dialogue among teachers and their students, among students and visiting artists; studios would stay open for parents, for people from the neighborhood. There would be centers for story-telling on the part of newcomers to the city, places where culturally unfamiliar dances and ceremonies would be taught.

5

In the ideal city, of course, there would be educators trained in all the arts in every school, educators working with professional artists to engage their fellow teachers in the domains of making, the domains of attending, The Plan, with its emphases on partnerships of all sorts, may be preparing for that – for a breakdown of the specialized barriers in the schools, an overcoming of the barriers between schools and the institutions of the city. The very existence of a community, of people joining together with a shared commitment, may lead to an infusion of energy into the collaborations between universities and schools, between community organizations and schools. This Plan tries to meet the existing crisis of art education, to do something about the desperation. At once, it tries to involve enough persons as responsible agents so as to avoid the “rule by Nobody” (Arendt, 1972, p.137.) that marks bureaucracies. If enough people reflect back upon what the arts mean and have meant, if enough people enter into a civil conversation on something so crucial to human existence, we may find ourselves living Thoreau's dream. Yes, he was writing about New England in the 19th century when he announced that we should have “uncommon schools.” He did not mention women as he should have, or even children particularly; but what he said may, if we are fortunate, come to represent the spirit of this Plan:

As the nobleman of cultivated taste surrounds himself with whatever con-duces to his culture,–genius–learning–wit–books–paintings–statuary–music–philosophical instruments, and the like; so let the village do,–not stop short at a pedagogue, a parson, a sexton, a parish library, and three selectmen... To act collectively is according to the spirit of our institutions; and I am confident that, as our circumstances are more flourishing, our means are greater than the noblemen's. New England can hire all the wise men in the world to come and teach her and board them round the while, and not be provincial at all. That is the uncommon school we want. Instead of noblemen, let us have noble villages of men. If it is necessary, omit one bridge over the river, go around a little there, and throw one arch at least over the darker gulf of ignorance which surrounds us. (Walden)

Maxine Greene, July 1995

6

Introduction

New York City is the artistic and cultural capital of the world. Millions travel from all over the earth to experience our artistic and cultural wealth – a wealth multiplied by the spectacular diversity of our city’s people.

Others move here to pursue satisfying careers in the arts-related industries that are nourished by the artistic vibrancy of our city. These industries are an economic engine that generates well over ten billion dollars a year for the New York City economy. Along with our cultural institutions, they are vital to our city’s identity and future.

Within the five boroughs comprising The City of New York is a population of over one million people who are, as a whole, denied access to our artistic and cultural wealth. They are inadequately prepared to compete for their place in New York’s arts-related industries.

What is more, this population is one with a desperate and compelling need for the power and joy of the arts.

We are speaking, of course, of the children – our children – in the New York City public schools.

Since the budget crisis of the 1970s, arts education in New York City public schools has been systematically cut back. At present, the arts are taught through a crazy quilt of fragmented and disconnected pockets of instruction. Contained within these pockets are some of the finest arts education programs available anywhere – individual, exemplary programs that serve as world-class models for what arts education can be. But access to these programs is uneven; influenced by differences in class, neighborhood, and educational policy. In our great city, no organized system exists for the delivery of arts education, and little attempt is made at accountability to instructional standards.

This is particularly troubling in light of the ever increasing body of evidence documenting the importance of arts learning. Psychologists tell us that the arts are a powerful catalyst for cognitive growth. Educators describe the improved academic achievement of children involved in the arts. Social workers and guidance counselors tell us that arts programs improve attendance and self-esteem, and reduce school violence and substance abuse.

The arts furnish tangible opportunities for students to develop long-term goals, to respect the viewpoints of others, to understand complexity of thought and actions, and to recognize that learning continues throughout a lifetime.

Most importantly, the arts provide a unique way of perceiving and understanding the world, and are a powerful means for self-expression.

1

Flourishing arts education programs are the heart and soul of a school commu-nity. They are programs that bring children to school early and keep them there late – all on their own time. They represent the power and joy of the arts and education.

Unfortunately, we find that even within the field of arts education, there are self-interested and warring factions who are too often more committed to their own program, ideology or mission than to every child’s right to an education in the arts, and through the arts. Experts debate the definition of arts education: the who, the what, and the where. Institutions compete for less and less money. And as the financial support for children’s education is reduced, some of us become increasingly shrill and narrow, rather than innovative and collaborative.

We at Artsvision believe that the time for rethinking arts education is long overdue. Every child in our city’s schools deserves the right to a comprehensive arts education. Making that a reality requires teachers, artists, parents, administrators, funders, elected officials and business leaders to unite around a resolute commitment to serve all of our children.

The process we used to develop this plan has never been attempted on such a large, inclusive scale. Artsvision’s goal was to provide a vehicle through which the greater community could speak. As part of our needs assessment, we interviewed over 1,000 educators, students, administrators and parents in community districts throughout the five boroughs and at the Central Board. In our resources assessment we interviewed over 200 arts and community organizations, and individual artists, that provide arts services to schools. Furthermore, we extended this process to include funders, government officials, university educators and administrators, arts policy leaders, and the business community. The continual sharing of information, and the genuine opportunity for constituencies to shape and direct this Initiative, produced a consensus-driven plan. It has been forged by the passionate, knowledgeable experiences and beliefs of our city’s caring citizens.

The process was successful because a critical mass of our artists, educators, politi-cal leaders, funders, arts administrators, business people and parents believe that the right to receive an education in the arts, and through the arts, is a matter of equity. It is not the selfish province of those best able to afford it. Due to the current climate of budget re-straints, many feel that this is the last best chance in the foreseeable future to create a system for arts education – a system that promises the sustainability of arts education for all of our children into the next century and beyond.

The definition of arts education that we use in this plan is also derived through consensus. Arts education is not a narrowly defined group of outcomes or teaching ap-proaches. Instead, arts education is primarily a way of learning and knowing; a means of teaching children in the ways they best learn. Arts education is the synergistic interplay of multiple ways of learning in the arts, and through the arts: learning essential subject areas through the integration of arts processes and content; the development of specific skills and abilities within arts disciplines; and the aesthetic context for looking at and perceiving our life and world.

2

Our findings are conclusive. A significant majority of our schools’ constituencies strongly desire and need arts education as a tool of effective teaching and learning across the curriculum. Despite the all-too-common public perception that the arts are educational frills, our school community perceives the arts as a necessity for school im-provement, and in most cases require significant assistance in providing arts learning for their children.

Our plan is based upon a balance between local flexibility and city-wide account-ability to high-quality instruction.

Schools will form partnerships to bring quality instruction in the arts, and through the arts, to their students. These partnerships will bring together teachers, administrators, parents, arts and community organizations, individual artists, and universities to work in collaboration to develop sustainable, comprehensive arts education programs. Partnerships will be formed according to a flexible formula that joins site-specific needs with available resources.

Partnerships will be held accountable for meeting their instructional goals through city-wide and local assessment, in conjunction with a proposal review process. All pro-posals must guarantee adequate instructional time and content, staff planning and coordination, staff development, assessment, and plans for expansion of the program over five years, with sustainability beyond. Planning and staff development are essential to ensure the effective collaboration of all those who provide arts education.

The arts-related industries will join the common effort by developing relation-ships with middle and high schools to provide mentorships, internships, and school-to-work opportunities.

All of these efforts will be accompanied by a major advocacy campaign educating the greater public to the power of the arts and education, while celebrating the ac-complishments of our school community.

We must let all those who care about New York City know that it is time to bring back arts education to our city’s public schools.

Our most compelling advocates are our school children:

I used to get very nervous in school. Now the band is in my life and a whole new world has opened up to me. I’m totally into it. I have to

work really hard, but I enjoy the discipline. It’s exciting to see the perfection when it all comes together.

3

Partnerships

There is no doubt that some of the finest arts education instruction in the nation takes place in New York City. The educational and artistic talent and resources in this city are without parallel.

However, we find that the efforts of talented individuals, organizations, and schools are extremely disjointed and uncoordinated, resulting in inequitable access to arts education. In speaking to hundreds of people involved in arts education in the city, we find that arts instruction is duplicated in some classrooms, while many others receive no arts education. A wonderful program may serve one or two classes in a school, with others uninvolved, or even unaware of its existence. Some programs simply “expose” children to the arts for several weeks, with no demonstrable impact on academic achievement in the arts, or across the curriculum.

Many classroom teachers have spoken to us of their desire to expand their arts curriculum. They tell us they need planning time, resources, access to materials, and a close, coordinated relationship with arts teachers and arts organizations. They want arts specialists and arts organizations to work closely with them in coordinating the curriculum through year-long and multi-year sequential programs. At the same time, they want arts organizations to take pedagogical issues seriously, and not just enter their classroom to get funds so they can pursue their “art.” They feel they have much to offer in classroom skills, curriculum integration, and personal knowledge of their students and the school community.

Members of arts organizations have told us they want to work closely with schools and teachers. Since the Board of Education of the City of New York abrogated its formal responsibility for teaching the arts in the 1970s, arts organizations have become, by default, the main provider of arts education in the city. In the process, they have created innovative programs that serve as national models of what arts education can be. Due to budget cuts, however, many of these organizations may not survive. They want an institutional role in the educational system that recognizes their contribution. They believe they provide a unique resource for staff development, curriculum design, skills instruction, multicultural programming, and an integrated curriculum.

Arts specialists, those teachers licensed to teach an arts discipline, have become increasingly marginalized within the system. Over the last 20 years, these specialist positions have been drastically cut. They are among the most isolated of teachers within a school – that is, until asked to coordinate a spring concert or “beautify” the school bulletin board. Today, they typically serve as cluster teachers, a position designed to enable the “regular” teacher to receive a prep period, while students receive specialized instruction in specific subject areas. We find that there is generally little coordination between arts specialists and classroom teachers or arts organizations. Arts specialists have devoted their careers to instruction within their discipline and want to share their knowledge and skills with other educators and students.

4

Our research shows that each of these three groups – classroom teachers, artists, and arts specialists – inadequately assess their instruction in the arts. This lack of adequate assessment makes coordination and long-range planning more difficult. Often, members of these groups are not sure what the others are attempting to accomplish – or whether they have accomplished anything educational at all. This lack of mutual accountability tends to separate these groups into discrete factions, and encourages a belief that they are competitors for the same educational “pie.”

We plan to bring these three groups of arts education providers together. Their approaches and skills are complementary, not antagonistic. They need each other’s help. And the children need them, too.

The cornerstone of this Initiative will be small, flexibly conceived partnerships among school communities, collaborating organizations and artists. Partnerships of schools, community school districts, arts organizations, community based organizations, individual artists, colleges, and parents are a powerful means for delivering equitable ac-cess to arts education in local schools.

Partnerships are a nationally proven tool for educational reform and the ex-pansion of arts education. They bring together the various constituencies that have a stake in the education of our children, and provide a framework in which partners can work together to provide comprehensive arts education in each of the partnership schools. Activities are planned and executed by each partnership, with outside technical assistance. They are sustained over years, and include both in-school and after school activities.

Partnerships join needs with resources, and bring many groups together to form a strong organization that gives the entire community ownership of the program. Partnerships help provide equitable distribution of varied resources and attract sustained funding. The sharing of artistic visions among partners stimulates artistic excellence. By joining forces and combining strengths, the members of a partnership create a whole that can achieve far more than any of its components are capable of on their own.

Currently, very few partnerships in New York City work with entire schools. Often, arts programs operate in a cell-like, compartmentalized atmosphere that works against expansion and replication. To counterbalance this isolation, there is a need for ac-countability, flexibility, assessment, staff development, and adequate planning time be-tween all partners.

• Individual schools, or groups of schools, will form partnerships with arts organizations, community based organizations, artists, and/or colleges to facilitate the institutionalization of the instructional curriculum in arts education.

• Each school may only participate in one partnership. Partnerships are conceived as catalysts for school reform at the local level.

5

• Partnerships will receive financial and technical support through this Initiative. Funds will become available as the result of an RFP process initiated by the Center for Arts Education (see p. 13). RFPs will be sent out once each year for the first three years of the Initiative.

• The smallest unit that can apply via the RFP will be an individual school joined with one external partner that has the ability to provide compre-hensive arts and education services. However, most partnerships will require the participation of several external organizations. An ideal partnership may consist of a middle school with its elementary feeder school(s), and several external organizations. Different organizations may take on separate roles. For instance, one arts organization may work on integrating the curriculum through the arts while a college may undertake an assessment of the partnership’s instructional program. The key to success for a partnership is ensuring that the partners work to-gether toward shared educational goals.

• The RFP process will be designed to ensure that all constituencies and partners are accountable to each other and, primarily, to the academic achievement of children.

• Proposals will be reviewed according to specific criteria including:

1. Adherence to either:a) instructional expectations as outlined in the Curriculum Frameworks,b) other credible curricula, standards, or educational designs;

2. Demonstration of an existing commitment to arts education;

3. Explicit plans for an increase in arts education instruction over the initial five-year period, and sustainability beyond;

4. Plans for hiring or retaining full-time arts specialists;

5. Strong commitment to staff development, planning, coordination with external organizations, curriculum, and assessment;

6. Descriptions of arts disciplines and methodologies to be addressed by partnerships. An ideal comprehensive arts education program in-cludes music, art, dance, theater arts, and literary arts instruction. These should be taught through a skills-based approach, aesthetic context learning, and an arts integrated curriculum. However, part-nerships will need to focus on specific components of this ideal model, based on their particular needs and resources. Partnerships will be encouraged to expand the scope of existing programs as arts educa-tion flourishes. Proposals should include credible plans for this expansion;

6

7. Commitment to cultural diversity;

8. Demonstration of broad-based support for the partnership within the school community, indicated by the substantial participation of fac-ulty, administration, and parents;

9. Indication of the individual(s) within a school responsible for on-site implementation.

• A partnership must affect a whole school and every child, not isolated pockets of individual classes and students. Partnership proposals must stipulate how their plan will encompass whole schools within five years. For instance, partnerships may utilize a grade-by-grade implementation plan, with the first year K-1, and additional grades added each year.

• Proposal reviewers must ensure that partnerships are approved for a variety of schools with different levels of academic achievement. SURR schools may particularly benefit from partnerships.

• Proposal reviewers must ensure that partnerships are approved for an equitable number of schools with little prior success in comprehensive arts programming. To be approved, these schools must demonstrate their commitment to the Initiative and school reform through the arts. The Center for Arts Education will provide technical assistance to these schools, to enable them to develop successful partnerships.

• Partnership schools may wish to establish relationships with “sister schools” in other partnerships to share resources and allow intervisi-tations.

Partnerships will require that schools and external organizations work toward common goals. For a partnership to succeed, each participant must understand the needs and abilities of the other partners. Adequate planning time is essential.

It is important that partners take education and educational reform seriously and approach them with commitment. The model external partner is an organization with a genuine commitment to education and an understanding that the cultural life of the City is, in many ways, dependent on arts education. Elements of the partnership plan must be aimed at school reform issues, such as parent involvement and co-learning, community involvement, restructuring the school day, participatory learning, team teaching, interdisciplinary studies, and authentic assessment.

• External organizations must be flexible within their partnerships, and work with schools to develop instructional programs appropriate for diverse settings.

7

• External organizations need to clearly define the instructional missions and educational outcomes of their programs.

• External organizations must work in concert with each other and the schools.

• Schools must determine what they want from external organizations: where they need their participation, and how they can best cooperate.

• External organizations may use their current programming if these programs meet the instructional needs of the partnership.

Within the parameters of these criteria, partnerships are encouraged to pursue flexible and creative solutions suitable to their own environment.

Programming

All programming for this Initiative must be instructionally directed towards aca-demic achievement in the arts, and through the arts. As we have already stated, students will achieve through the powerful, collaborative efforts of classroom teachers and arts specialists, in partnership with arts and cultural organizations, community based organizations, colleges, and individual artists.

Arts education is a collection of disciplines in which students acquire a broad range of abilities and knowledge. It is a powerful avenue for perceptual and cognitive growth, and the ability to understand one’s own capacity for learning.

The arts are not learned through “exposure” any more than math or science are; they are learned through teaching and experience. Arts education requires teachers who are familiar not only with the subject matter, but with the developmental stages of students, and what concepts are best taught at what age. It is not only for the gifted any more than reading and history are. It is a central element of a well-educated person.

At the same time, the teaching and assessment of arts learning has traditionally been different from the teaching and assessment of the so-called “core” subjects – those “testable” subjects, such as reading, mathematics and history. An essential element of arts learning is doing: singing, dancing, painting, acting, etc. What is more, in the arts there are often no “right” answers, so an important component of arts education is developing perception and understanding.

The arts, therefore, by their very nature foster teaching and learning that is enjoy-able, challenging, and immediately engaging for students. It is also a form of education that teaches the development of skills that are valued in later life – judgment, empathy, an appreciation for complexity and ambiguity, and the means to deal with it. After a certain point in a person’s life, his or her performance on standardized tests is no longer what counts, but rather the skills and abilities that may not be so easily measured.

8

Ironically, at a time when arts education is still viewed by some as a frill, many educators are beginning to recognize its value as a way to influence teaching methods in all disciplines. Those who teach the arts, after all, are teaching the whole child, and are enabling that child to learn by doing. Teachers in other disciplines have begun to recognize that such methods have far-reaching implications throughout all areas of learning. The value of arts education in a school, therefore, goes beyond simply the teaching of arts: it affects the educational environment of the whole school.

A comprehensive arts education program includes diverse arts disciplines, such as dance, theater arts and literary arts, in addition to the traditional disciplines of music and visual arts. Comprehensive arts education has three components. They are:

• Skills-based instruction, in which specific techniques are taught within each discipline, such as playing an instrument, dancing, or drawing.

• Aesthetic context instruction, in which the meaning of the arts is described relative to their relationship to a culture and its people. This is where the artistic works of diverse cultures, as well as one’s own culture, are studied.

• Integrated arts curriculum, in which the arts are used to illuminate and illus-trate concepts from other disciplines. When the arts are used in an integrated fashion, they become a tool for exploring other “non-arts” ideas. At the same time, the non-arts disciplines illuminate and invigorate arts learning. One small example is the profound relationship between music and mathematics, and the way that musical intervals illustrate the concept of fractions. When such concepts are put to practical use in an artistic activity, they become relevant and understandable to the learner rather than dry and abstract.

Each of these three components is as important as the others; indeed, in compre-hensive arts teaching, they require each other. Teaching and learning in one area leads to increased demand for, and interest in, teaching and learning in the others. Comprehensive arts education, therefore, refers to this holistic, inclusive three-part concept that makes education attractive and engaging to students.

Partnerships should strive to combine these three components with the various arts disciplines. The appropriate mix must be determined according to the needs and resources of each partnership. Plans for growth, to be accompanied by Initiative funding, should be based on the expansion of current programming to include areas in which a partnership may be lacking.

For instance, a junior high school may have a band and full-time music and art specialists, but may wish to integrate the curriculum with the help of an arts organization. On the other hand, a school with an interdisciplinary approach may lack the resources to deeply engage children in the production of music, drama, or art. An external organization might be particularly adept at adding aesthetic context learning to a mix already including artistic production and curriculum integration.

9

The most important agenda for each partnership is bringing comprehensive arts education instruction to the children of New York City.

• Partnerships will need to determine and stipulate how they intend to meet their programmatic goals. They must plan their growth over the initial five years, with plans for sustainability beyond. However, their plans must be realistic and attainable. Partners will need to commit ade-quate resources to meet programmatic goals.

• Partnerships should serve as catalysts for the institutionalization of arts education. Some partnerships may only exist for the initial five years of this Initiative, while others will continue afterwards. However, partnerships must plan to sustain arts programming in their schools after the initial five-year period. Therefore, partnership plans must emphasize staff development of permanent on-site faculty.

• Essential programmatic components of all partnerships are: classroom instruction and activities, staff development, planning and coordination between partners, artist training, parent co-learning, adequate as-sessment, community participation, and cultural diversity learning.

• Partnership schools may facilitate the achievement of programmatic goals through restructuring their school day. Some partnership arts in-struction may take place at community sites and/or after regular school hours. To be considered a component of the partnership, instruction must be graded or credited in a manner consistent with other school programming. Arts education instruction is not extra-curricular.

Partnerships will promote those components of school reform in which arts education can lead the way: active and participatory learning, co-learning with parents, community involvement, team teaching, the integrated curriculum, and authentic assessment.

Leadership

Accountability to educational standards will be maintained through an Initiative-wide leadership system, administered by an independent Center for Arts Education. At the local level, leadership within each partnership will coordinate the efforts of all partners. Local leadership for each partnership will enable schools to pursue arts education goals with maximum flexibility.

Most previous studies that recommended reforms and initiatives in arts education advocated for the appointment of a coordinator for arts education at the Central Board to administer and coordinate arts education throughout the city. Although we recommend this position as well, we also believe that the institutionalization of arts education must be a bottom-up process, with top-down support. Partnerships at the local level are best

10

able to match local needs with resources. Successful partnerships will establish local leadership in which all constituencies are accountable to each other and, most of all, the children. Central leadership – the top-down component – will augment accountability through an RFP process, city-wide assessments, adequate staff support, technical assistance.

Initiative-Wide Advisory Board

• An Initiative-wide Advisory Board will be established to provide overall guidance and leadership to the Initiative. The Board will include:

◊ the Chancellor;◊ a member of the Chancellor’s staff;◊ a member of the Board of Education;◊ the Mayor;◊ a mayoral appointee;◊ the Commissioner of Cultural Affairs;◊ funders of the Initiative;◊ a representative of the arts-related industries;◊ a representative of the fiscal agent for this Initiative◊ a representative of the Fund for New York City Public Education;◊ a representative of the Alliance for the Arts;◊ two members of arts education organizations, one selected by the

Citywide Arts Education Advisory Committee, and the other by the Arts Education Roundtable;

◊ two classroom teachers, selected with the assistance of the UFT;◊ two arts education specialists, selected with the assistance of the

UFT;◊ two individual artists representative of the New York City

community, selected with the assistance of the New York Foundation for the Arts and the New York State Council on the Arts;

◊ two parents, representative of the New York City community, se-lected with the assistance of the Office of Parent Involvement of the Board of Education;

◊ representatives from the academic community, selected by a rep-resentative group of college and university presidents;

◊ an elected officer as UFT representative;◊ a school principal, selected with the assistance of CSA;◊ A district superintendent.

• The Advisory Board will meet three times annually to review the progress of the Initiative and provide overall policy direction.

• The Advisory Board will form an Executive Committee from among its members. The Executive Committee will oversee the work of the Center for Arts Education, which will provide day-to-day Initiative-wide

11

leadership. The Executive Committee will consist of seven members: a Chancellor’s representative, a funders representative, an external organization representative, a DCA representative, and three members of the NYC public education community, i.e., teachers, principals, superintendents, etc.

• In order to include broader representation in specific areas, the Advisory Board will establish subcommittees composed of individuals from a wide range of fields. Both Advisory Board members and non-members may serve on subcommittees. The subcommittees will provide advice to the Chancellor and Board of Education staff to assist in determining specific educational policies. Subcommittees may address:

1. policy;2. fundraising;3. the arts-related industries;4. curriculum and assessment;5. parent co-learning;6. advocacy;7. the RFP process;8. staff and professional development;9. pre-service teacher preparation;10. licensing;11. contracting procedures between the Central Board and external organizations.

• The Center for Arts Education will serve as a bridge between the educa-tional system and external service providers.

In many schools, arts organizations have become the de facto providers of arts ed-ucation, due to cuts in staffing of arts specialists and the lack of arts training for classroom teachers. Some of these organizations have developed exemplary programs, and have a long history of commitment to arts education. They provide an invaluable resource of expertise in programming and technical assistance.

• Ancillary staff for the Center for Arts Education will be chosen from the staffs of organizations solely dedicated to arts education. The Advisory Board will select the participating organizations. They will assist in providing a wide range of services. Their consultation and technical assistance will be funded through this Initiative.

Partnership Leadership

• Each partnership will form its own committee to administer arts edu-cation at the local level. The committee will consist of the principal(s), teachers, parents, representatives from community based organizations

12

and arts organizations, and other interested constituents. This role may be assumed by subcommittees of existing School Based Planning Councils, augmented by members of partnership organizations.

• The partnership leadership committee will meet periodically to coordi-nate partnership activities.

• Each partnership will assign the role of “anchor” to one of the partners. The anchors will serve as the local fiscal and coordinating agent re-sponsible for partnership finances and programming. This role can be assumed by a school, arts organization, community based organization, college, or other partnership member.

• Each partnership will be required to submit mid-year and year-end re-ports for review by the Center. Partnerships will be accountable for meeting the goals contained in their proposals, in order to continue re-ceiving Initiative funds.

The Center for Arts Education

The Arts Education Resource Center will be renamed The Center for Arts Education. The Center will be expanded to enable it to serve as the linchpin and site of central leadership for this Initiative.

By placing the day-to-day leadership of this Initiative external to the Board of Education we will build a bridge between the educational system and various external providers of arts education. The leadership system for this Initiative must connect the disparate constituencies in arts education and coordinate their efforts. The Center will serve as this link, and hold all constituencies accountable to each other through the RFP process. In addition, it will help channel the efforts of the artistic community and the arts-related industries, as they broaden their commitment to New York City public education.

If the leadership for this Initiative was situated within the Central Board, it would be subject to intense fiscal and political pressures. It is impossible to predict what the effect of this pressure would be. Certainly, staff positions and funding would always be at risk. Arts education would have to compete against other curricular areas and programs for funds, support, and staff. A stand-alone support system can ensure that this Initiative is resistant to budget constraints and political shifts.

• The Advisory Board will appoint a highly qualified Executive Director of the Center for Arts Education to oversee the implementation of this Initiative. The Executive Director will be responsible for day-to-day operation, and will participate in fundraising and the advocacy cam-

13

paign. The Executive Director will report to the Executive Committee of the Advisory Board.

• The Center will require a four to five person professional staff, a two person support staff, adequate space, and information systems to enable it to fulfill its expanded role. The DCA will facilitate the search for donated space for the Center from private industry.

• The Center will initiate and supervise an RFP process by which schools, and groups of schools, can participate in this Initiative.

• The Center will provide technical assistance to Initiative RFP applicants. This will include:

1. providing a menu of options describing potential partners, and as-sisting in matching appropriate partners;

2. proposal writing assistance, particularly for schools and districts un-accustomed to successful grant writing;

3. reviewing mid-year and year-end reports to determine annual awards.

• The Center will oversee the reviewing of proposals, and ensure that the resulting partnerships are accountable to educational standards as reflected in the Curriculum Frameworks or other credible standards or curricula.

• The Center will serve as liaison to, and support system for, the schools and districts, the Central Board, the Department of Cultural Affairs and other city agencies, arts organizations, community based organizations, colleges, the arts-related industries, and funders.

• The Center will make a concerted effort to reach out and provide techni-cal assistance to those districts and schools that traditionally have not worked with externally-funded initiatives.

• The Center will serve as a site for city-wide professional development, including leadership sessions, national model sessions, demonstrations of arts teaching, and presentations by national educational and artistic leaders.

• The Advisory Board and the Center for Arts Education may wish to retain the services of an independent facilitator to assist in the imple-mentation of this Initiative.

14

There are many truly remarkable model partnerships and programs in New York City. However, some are not widely known, they may not be adequately assessed, and they are not easily replicated.

• Information concerning successful models will be made available to po-tential partners and the educational community through the Center for Arts Education. The Center will facilitate the selection of exemplary models.

• Some models will be cited as best practices for schools to specifically use as examples for developing partnerships and programs.

Central Board

The firm support of the Central Board is essential to this Initiative. Key indi-viduals will provide leadership through policy and proclamation. As a full partner in this Initiative, we look to the Central Board to help expedite the RFP process, provide technical assistance, and streamline the payment process for arts organizations, community based organizations, and individual artists.

Our research demonstrates that many individuals who work at various levels throughout the schools and the Board of Education believe that the arts are part of the core, basic curriculum and should be taught to all students. While almost everyone we spoke to supports this view as individuals, the system as a whole sends a very different message.

The Citywide Profiles are a case in point. These assessments, which detail “performance in relation to minimum standards,” detail achievement in reading, math-ematics, language acquisition, writing, social studies, and science. They contain statistics on class size, registers, attendance rates, and much more. However, the arts are barely referenced. In a section describing “teacher characteristics” and their “type of assignment,” the number of staff teaching under various licenses is totaled. After adding up common branch, math, English, library and other teachers, a final category appears: “other.” One must assume that this is where arts teachers reside.

The Annual School Reports tell a similar tale. Student achievement is narrowly reflected through the results of standardized reading and math tests.

Many teachers and administrators throughout the system have stated that there is no compelling message from Central about the importance of arts education. Many feel that the arts will only be considered part of the core curriculum when they are part of the assessment process. They tell us: What you assess is what you get.

We are not arguing that the solution is standardized testing in the arts. Rather, arts education lends itself to various assessment strategies. We understand that the Central

15

Board is already planning to add the arts to the Annual School Reports, and we heartily support their efforts.

• Senior staff at the Central Board will ensure that needs and issues re-garding arts education are considered equal to other subject areas.

• The Chancellor will appoint a Director of Arts Education, to coordinate arts education curriculum and instruction, and serve as liaison with ex-ternal organizations, the Center for Arts Education, funders, and other parties to this Initiative. The Director of Arts Education will be in-strumental in strengthening arts instruction in all city schools, including non-partnership schools.

• The Central Board will provide continued and expanded support for the Center for Arts Education. We recommend the current allocation of $165,000 be increased to $250,000, with additional increases each year of the Initiative.

• Annual School Reports will be broadened to reflect the commitment of each school to arts education. Documentation may include numbers of classes offered by arts specialists, partnerships with outside organi-zations, adherence to state mandates and city frameworks, professional development, the introduction of new programs, and descriptions of programs taught in the arts, and through the arts.

• Citywide Profiles will be broadened to reference academic achievement in the arts and system-wide commitment to arts education.

• The New York City Curriculum Frameworks will serve as the minimal standard for a partnership proposal and its program implementation. However, certain aspects of the Frameworks in arts education should be broadened to reflect diverse, and valuable, viewpoints in arts education. For instance, the section on knowledge, skill, and abilities in music should be expanded beyond a performance-based approach, and the early grades should have more opportunity for exploration, exper-imentation, aesthetics, and children’s involvement in authentic as-sessment.

• The Board of Education will issue a resolution stating that arts education is essential to the basic education of every child, and that New York City will institutionalize arts education for all children.

• The Board of Education will actively participate in an advocacy cam-paign promoting arts education for all children.

• The Central Board will take a pro-active role in implementing this Initiative by identifying potential partnership schools through its school

16

review process, and supporting professional development, parent in-volvement, and other Initiative activities.

• The Central Board will make television station WNYE available as a re-source for Initiative partnerships. WYNE can broadcast performances, professional development workshops, parent co-learning sessions, and other relevant programming.

Another way that the Central Board can help restore arts education is to streamline and expedite the payment process for arts organizations and individual artists that provide services to our schools. Many arts organizations find it difficult to do business with the Board. Prompt payment for services is a huge issue. Payment is typically made months after a service is provided, often with extended delays. The process is seen as cumbersome and confusing, and puts organizations with cash-flow problems at risk.

This is an even more pressing problem today than it was when A Report Examining the Contracting Procedures Between the New York City Public Schools and Arts & Cultural Organizations by Terry Greis was prepared for the New York Foundation for the Arts (1993). This report detailed the long delays encountered in payment for services, usually due to human error on the part of the public schools’ staff, artists, or organizations. Due to cuts in funding to arts and cultural organizations, many arts education providers may not have the requisite cash flow to survive long payment delays.

As we continually repeat in this Initiative, all of those concerned with arts edu-cation must work together, not in opposition or isolation. The Central Board can help by expediting the payment process and ensuring that clearly articulated guidelines are distributed to those schools, organizations, and individuals who must complete the paperwork.

The Central Board and the Center for Arts Education should implement rec-ommendations in the Greis report such as technical assistance seminars, publishing a handbook on contracting procedures, and developing multi-year contracts with organi-zations.

• The Central Board will act to ensure that the payment process for ven-dors is streamlined and that payment to arts and cultural organizations is prompt and efficient.

• The Center for Arts Education will provide assistance to organizations and schools to ensure prompt payment to all partnership members.

Staff Development

17

Staff development is a critical cornerstone of this Initiative. The quality of in-struction within partnerships will largely determine their success. Collaborative part-nerships will require all arts education providers to go beyond traditional modes of in-struction, and develop new skills, techniques, and abilities. Many individuals will for the first time engage in participatory learning, team teaching, and a truly integrated curriculum that draws on the resources of several partners.

Teachers, artists, and administrators have all spoken to us of the lack of adequate staff development. Coordinated staff development, designed for the individual needs of specific sites, is essential for successful partnerships.

Partnerships must include staff development as an essential component of their proposal and implementation plan. Colleges, universities, the UFT Teacher Centers, and some arts organizations will be resources for professional development.

Artists working in schools must learn classroom management skills, and teaching styles appropriate to different ages. Classroom teachers need help integrating the curricu-lum. Many arts specialists will need to learn new skills as they coordinate partnerships and begin to work in collaboration with classroom teachers.

Colleges involved in teacher preparation must play a major role in systemically institutionalizing arts education. Many people in the schools have told us that colleges need to broaden the pre-service training of both classroom teachers and arts specialists. On the other hand, colleges that do include arts in the elementary education sequence often have difficulty finding student teaching sites that integrate the arts into classroom programs.

Classroom teachers often begin their careers with little expertise in the arts. Because of the cuts in arts education that began in the mid-1970s, we now have young teachers entering the system who have only minimally participated in arts education.

As the number of arts specialists in the New York City public schools has dwin-dled, their role has become increasingly complex. They are often the only on-site, full-time individuals in a school with thorough expertise in both education and the arts. To be effective, they must increasingly participate in school-based decision-making, advocate for the arts within their school community, and serve as a resource for classroom teachers integrating the curriculum.

Pre-service: By the fifth year of this Initiative, colleges and universities involved in teacher preparation should:

• Require pre-service teachers to take classes in the arts and an integrated curriculum.

• Expand the pre-service preparation of arts specialists beyond the teach-ing of performance and production techniques.

18

In-service: Partnerships will collaborate to provide high quality, well-planned staff development for teachers and artists.

• Partnerships must include adequate time and planning for staff develop-ment. To accomplish this, schools may need to re-structure the school day. Partnerships may fund coverages for teachers, enabling them to attend planning sessions.

• Colleges, universities, and some arts organizations will provide staff de-velopment of classroom teachers as a contribution to their partnership.

• When possible, teachers should receive graduate credit for participating in partnership professional development.

• The UFT Teacher Centers will serve as sites and facilitators of profes-sional development, and will assist in disseminating information per-taining to in-service support for arts educators and classroom teachers. Staff development may also take place at each school site.

Staff development will be primarily concerned with:

1. assisting classroom teachers in instruction in the arts, and through the arts;

2. assisting artists and arts organizations in the development of class-room teaching skills;

3. coordinating the efforts of classroom teachers, artists, and arts edu-cation specialists.

UFT New York City Teacher Centers Consortium

UFT/Teacher Center staff, located in over 55 school sites throughout the city, will work in conjunction with colleges, artists, and arts organizations to provide staff development, resources, and technical assistance that emphasizes arts education. The UFT/Teacher Center has been at the forefront of providing professional development opportunities for teachers in New York City public schools for 17 years and will be a valuable resource for Initiative implementation. Specifically:

• The UFT/Teacher Center will partner with universities and arts organi-zations to provide staff development.

• Partnerships may choose to use the Teacher Centers sites for staff de-velopment seminars and hands-on workshops.

• Teacher Center staff will assist partners in writing and implementing arts proposals.

19

• A library of materials at each Center can include curricula, information about potential partners, descriptions of model programs, assessment resources, videotapes, books, and other relevant materials. UFT Centers will be able to access materials from the Center for Arts Education.

• The UFT will be an invaluable resource in reaching out to schools and teachers throughout the city. For example, New York Teacher is the only city-wide publication received by all teachers. In many schools, the UFT will be able to assist in the dissemination of RFP information and materials.

Assessment

Few arts education programs, whether conducted by a school or an external organization, are adequately assessed. Partnerships must guarantee adequate assessment as a component of their proposal. Assessment should be considered essential to accountability, advocacy, and educational reform.

• Partnerships must plan for assessing both student achievement and the effectiveness of program implementation. Partnerships should adjust their programming and staff development in response to these as-sessments.

• The Center for Arts Education will conduct an ongoing overall program assessment of the Initiative, and furnish periodic reports to the Advisory Board.

• In the current climate of limited resources, assessment is essential for the systemic institutionalization of arts education.

• Assessments detailing academic achievement, cognitive development, at-titudinal shifts, and other accomplishments of successful arts education will be invaluable resources for the advocacy campaign.

• Schools, districts, teachers, and arts organizations need assistance in un-derstanding and using contemporary assessment procedures. Their competency at assessment is essential to document their accomplish-ments, advocate within their own communities, expand or replicate their programs, and revitalize their instruction. Some partners, such as colleges, will be particularly effective in this area.

• A variety of assessment techniques will be employed, tailored to fit each school or partnership. Alternative assessment strategies1 are particularly

1Alternative assessment strategies, such as portfolio or authentic assessment, require students to actively accomplish complex tasks, rather than merely choose correct answers. To accomplish these tasks, they

20

powerful tools for cognitive development and involvement in one’s own learning.

Arts Organizations, Community Based Organizations, Universities and Artists

Arts organizations, artists, community based organizations, and universities will be important participants in partnerships. There is a long tradition of artists and cultural institutions working with the New York City public schools. For instance, the American Museum of Natural History has collaborated with the public schools since the 1870s.

• Arts organizations, artists, community based organizations, and universi-ties will be resources for teacher training, integrating the curriculum, instruction, assessment, and artist training.

• Some large organizations, due to the breadth of their expertise, may serve in more than one partnership.

• Smaller organizations may also serve in more than one partnership, if they have the requisite resources.

Community School Districts

Our research indicates that the delivery of arts education is extremely uneven throughout New York City. A school with minimal arts instruction may be the neighbor of a school with a strong arts program. A teacher may use the arts to enliven and integrate the curriculum, while his or her colleague relies on dull, textbook driven, rote learning. A community school district may contain many worthwhile arts programs – and be adjacent to one with limited commitment.

It is the commitment of individual people that makes the arts flourish at the local level.

If a principal or superintendent chooses to support arts education, then it flour-ishes despite budget constraints. Unfortunately, many administrators are not familiar with the best practices in arts education. Also, due to the recent large turnover in principals, many have no experience in administering arts education programs. Administrators would benefit from the opportunity to experience the best of New York’s art educators.

must use their acquired knowledge and skills. Completed tasks, works-in-progress, and other documents may be assembled in a portfolio, allowing the student to examine their progress and reflect on their own learning.

21

• The Center for Arts Education, in conjunction with CSA, will organize periodic Principal Retreats for administrators in partnership schools. The Retreats will be devoted to developing administrative support for arts education. A participating principal and the UFT chapter leader will jointly select a teacher to accompany her/him, and will also be able to invite a principal and teacher from a non-partnership school within their district. Coverages for participating teachers will be funded through this Initiative. Participants in the Principal Retreats will join with renowned arts educators in exploring the best current practices in arts education. Sessions will include participatory demonstrations of model programs.

• District superintendents will be invited to attend a Superintendents Retreat, similarly devoted to developing institutional support for arts education. Participating superintendents should be accompanied by a deputy superintendent, a Community School Board member, and the UFT district representative. The Center for Arts Education will supervise the Retreat’s development and implementation.

• Proposals for partnerships must be co-signed by the district superinten-dent and the UFT district representative.

Flexibility at the local level is essential for the success of this Initiative. There must be a balance between system-wide accountability and local autonomy. This balance can be struck by insuring educational standards and making all partnerships educationally valid. Districts and schools will use thorough assessment procedures to enable them to maintain maximum flexibility while meeting city-wide educational guidelines.

• Superintendents will initiate district-wide arts education assessments, with financial and technical assistance provided through this Initiative. The districts may determine the specific methodology of assessment. However, these assessments provide an opportunity for comprehensive alternative assessment. Information regarding these assessments will be distributed to schools and parents throughout the district to promote understanding of partnership accomplishments, and to build support for arts education. The UFT Teacher Centers may be valuable resources for district-wide assessments. District-wide assessment results will be kept at the Center for Arts Education to provide partnerships with potential models.

• This Initiative will fund one full-time staff position – Arts Education Director – in those districts that have a large percentage of their schools in Initiative partnerships. The specific percentage will be determined by the Advisory Board, upon the recommendation of the Center for Arts Education. The districts must stipulate that they will fund one half of the position in year four of the Initiative, and three fourths in year five. The Arts Education Director position should be held by an individual familiar with the various arts disciplines, and curriculum, assessment, and policy issues in arts education. In addition, the individual should be an

22

exemplary teacher, and be involved in classroom teaching and staff development. The candidate must be approved by the Advisory Board, with input from the staff of the Center for Arts Education. The funding for this position will be renewed on an annual basis, according to the performance review conducted by the Center for Arts Education and the community school districts.

Licensing and Staffing

Schools and community school districts find it difficult to retain qualified arts teachers due to licensing regulations. Currently, there are no arts licenses at the ele-mentary school level in New York City. However, state licenses run from K-12. The Board of Education should move to conform with state licensing requirements in arts education and allow the appointment of arts specialists in the elementary schools.

Some arts organizations are seeking the creation of an alternative license for their artist/educators. This license would serve to officially sanction their role in the schools.

The discussion of licensing issues should be facilitated by the Licensing Subcommittee of the Advisory Board, in coordination with the Central Board, the UFT, and the CSA.

• The licenses in arts specialties should be amended to run from Kindergarten through 12th grade.

• Licensing exams in arts education specialties should include criteria rele-vant to the education of young children. They should also expand beyond production and performance requirements to include knowledge of basic aesthetics and criticism, cultural diversity, alternative assessment, and the integrated curriculum.

• Exams for common branch licenses should include expanded references to music, art, theater arts, dance, and an integrated curriculum.

• The rules for appointments at elementary schools should be revised to allow the appointment of arts specialists at the primary level.

• An alternative license should be developed to enable highly qualified artists to work in the schools. The UFT has indicated its willingness to pursue this issue.

• These recommendations, and other recommendations of the Licensing Subcommittee of the Advisory Board, should be instituted by the fifth year of this Initiative.

23

Sustainability and Institutionalization

This Initiative aims to systemically institutionalize the instructional curriculum in arts education in the New York City public schools, K-12. The overall key to sus-tainability is the cultivation of individual values. People who value the arts are able to make arts education happen at the local level.

All efforts of the Initiative should be coordinated to ensure that programs, schools, and districts deepen their commitment to arts education beyond the initial five year period.

Arts education must be restored to the educational system in a manner that ensures that it will be permanently retained. The marginalization of arts education throughout the system, reflected in the Citywide Profiles, lack of adequate licensing, and the lack of compliance with Regents arts education mandates, makes permanent institutionalization difficult. However, the arts will only be institutionalized if they are seen as central to the curriculum. An advocacy campaign, coupled with accountability, and assessment, will demonstrate that arts education is indigenous to the basic curriculum.

Arts education will become institutionalized within the system when it truly be-comes an essential component of the core curriculum, and is integrated across the curriculum. Then, if the arts are cut, the curriculum is damaged, and children will be seen as not receiving quality education.

The message must be: If you cut the arts you damage the curriculum.

Developing the support of parents is critically important for sustainability. Support will be enhanced through co-learning with their children, and the use of parent volunteers and community-based artists. Parents will be particularly interested in as-sessments describing the achievement of their children in the arts, as well as in other academic subjects positively impacted by arts education. Parents will appreciate the vocational opportunities created by comprehensive arts education. They will support arts education when they understand how it helps reduce social problems endemic to many schools.

Parents will support the arts if they believe their children will benefit.

• Schools and districts that participate in partnerships must specify their financial contribution to arts education, and stipulate how that contribu-tion will increase over the initial five-year period. Contributions include staffing, staff development, funds, and supplies.

• At the end of five years, schools will be accountable for successful, com-prehensive teaching in the arts.

24

• A major advocacy campaign based on student achievement in the arts, and through the arts, will elevate public and institutional support for arts education.

• Specific cash allocations from the Central Board will be devoted to per-manent institutionalization of arts education. These allocations will include support for staffing, coordination, assessment, expansion of the Citywide Profiles and Annual School Reports, and partial funding of the Center for Arts Education.

• There will be a programmatic emphasis on parents learning with their children. This shared learning, rather than the traditional passive ob-servation of performances, will demonstrate to parents the effectiveness of arts education.

• This Initiative will demonstrate that arts education is essential to cogni-tive development. It will be difficult to cut arts education funding when it is widely considered essential to learning.

• Continuous relationships must be maintained with foundations, teaching colleges, and government agencies to ensure ongoing support. Adequate assessment, with accountability among all constituencies, is necessary for continued public and private funding.

• The institutionalization of the instructional curriculum in the arts will re-quire the participation of the classroom teacher, arts specialist and artist/arts organization in a flexible formula that varies depending on the needs of individual schools.

• The Board of Education and the Center for Arts Education will work to-gether to develop a funded program (similar to BOCES) that will reim-burse individual schools for a percentage of their arts education outlays.

This Initiative will build a sustainable network of schools where teaching and learning has been permanently changed. After five years, partnership schools will have arts programming that is coordinated with the rest of the curriculum. External organizations will work with whole schools, instead of isolated classes, and will co-ordinate their instruction with the school community. Parents will actively participate in a school’s artistic life. Art will be a visible and audible presence.

Some funders and businesses may establish endowments with partnerships to per-manently fund arts programming, purchase supplies, maintain relationships with external organizations, and provide scholarships.

• The Center for Arts Education will support the establishment of a net-work of partnership schools. The network will facilitate sharing of in-formation, publish a newsletter, and organize performances and exhi-bitions. Most importantly, the network will support school efforts to

25

sustain arts instruction after the initial five years of the Initiative. The network will also establish mutually supportive relationships with other school reform networks.

The decline of arts education in New York City schools has been reflected by large cuts in the staffing of arts specialists. Their restoration to the system is a key component of systemic institutionalization. Children greatly benefit from year-to-year relationships with committed, knowledgeable professionals. This Initiative will help create the environment for their retention, and return to the system.

Advocacy

The implementation of this Initiative will be accompanied by a major advocacy campaign to build support for education in the arts, and through the arts. Public support is essential for sustainability and systemic institutionalization.

This Initiative provides a powerful means for highlighting the accomplishments of New York City’s schools, which too often suffer from unfavorable publicity. We plan, through this Initiative, to unite the public schools with the city’s various constituencies in a common effort to benefit children.

The advocacy campaign will stress that:

1. Arts education is central to the development of cognitive skills and is an in-herent, irreplaceable component of the basic curriculum. The public, and much of the educational community, needs to learn about the value of arts education and current research by arts education specialists and cognitive psy-chologists.

2. The arts improve academic achievement in other subject areas.

3. A comprehensive arts education program is effective in reducing social prob-lems.

4. The arts are uniquely valuable for teaching about cultural diversity.

5. Education in the arts, and through the arts, engages children in active and par-ticipatory learning.

6. A comprehensive city-wide arts education program, in conjunction with other educational initiatives, will serve as a powerful catalyst for school reform.

• The Alliance for the Arts will coordinate the advocacy campaign, assisted by the donated services of public relations and advertising firms. They will work with the media, providing press kits and organizing press con-ferences. They will coordinate their efforts with the Chancellor, the

26

Department of Cultural Affairs, the Mayor’s Office, the State of New York, the UFT, and the Center for Arts Education.

• The Central Board, in coordination with the Center for Arts Education, will produce year-end reports on arts education. These reports will be distributed with the assistance of the Alliance for the Arts and the UFT Teacher Centers.

• Assessments demonstrating academic achievement in the arts, and through the arts, will be disseminated to the media.

• The advocacy campaign will enlist the participation of parents, students, teachers, the Chancellor, City officials, members of the Board of Education, The Department of Cultural Affairs, members of the arts-related industries, and private funders.

• The Advisory Board and the Center for Arts Education may institute competitive city-wide awards in Arts Education for outstanding students and educators. Awards will be publicized through the media.

• The Center for Arts Education will coordinate a week-long arts edu-cation festival and conference. The festival will celebrate the artistic ac-complishments of New York City children and their schools. During the conference, educators will share and explore ideas, methods and pro-grams, as they plan for the following year.

A key component of the advocacy campaign will focus on the arts-related in-dustries as an economic engine that helps drive the New York City economy. New York City children are denied access to vocational opportunities in these industries, through inadequate education in the arts.

• The arts-related industries will be asked to support the Initiative through:

1. advertising/media time,2. mass transit posters,3. radio and television spots,4. spokespersons,5. a toll-free telephone number for information on arts education,6. high-profile artists working with children in the schools.

27

The Department of Cultural Affairs

• The DCA, in concert with the Mayor, will be empowered to act as liaison and mediator between the arts-related industries and the Center for Arts Education.

• The DCA, in conjunction with the New York City Partnership, will serve as linkup and broker between the arts-related industries and New York City’s middle and high schools. These middle and high schools will be en-couraged to forge partnerships, mentorships, and internships with the arts-related industries.

• The DCA will assist in coordinating the advocacy campaign with mem-bers of the arts-related industries.

• The DCA will assist in fundraising presentations for foundations, the arts-related industries and individuals.

Arts-Related Industries

The arts-related industries are a multi-billion dollar economic engine that drives the economy of New York City. A recent study by the Port Authority and the Alliance for the Arts describes a 9.8 billion dollar industry, employing over 77,000 people.

However, the complete figures are much higher. The Port Authority study does not include much of the music, advertising, and fashion industries, or consider the arts-related skills woven into every New York City business.

A major conduit to employment in these industries is New York City’s out-standing arts colleges, which admit fewer and fewer City children each year. Due to inadequate participation in arts education, New York City’s children are denied access to potentially satisfying and lucrative careers.

• We need to open up the vocational opportunities for City children by vastly increasing the opportunities in arts education.

• Vocationally-based arts education programs should be initiated in co-ordination with the music, fashion, graphic design, television, film, ad-vertising, and other arts-related industries.

• These collaborations will provide a rich avenue for mentorships, intern-ships, and skills-based instruction at the middle and high school levels. Relationships may also be formed with primary schools.

28

• The arts-related industries should provide high profile support for this Initiative through partnerships, funding, and participation in public ad-vocacy.

Funding

The catalyst for this Initiative will be a Challenge Grant from the Annenberg Foundation. In addition, the Initiative will be funded by matching grants from founda-tions, the arts-related industries, and individuals.

This Initiative provides an opportunity for those who truly support arts education and care about the City of New York.

• The fundraising campaign will be coordinated by the Executive Director of the Center of Arts Education, in collaboration with the Board of Education’s Division of Funded and External Programs and the Department of Cultural Affairs.

• There must be major leadership gifts from philanthropic organizations and individuals to ensure the success of the Initiative.

• Funds should be sought from major foundations that support education and/or the arts, but not necessarily arts education, in New York City.

• Funders who have steadfastly supported arts education are encouraged to increase their commitment through this Initiative.

• Funders should work closely with external organizations, enabling them to maintain and develop programs appropriate to this Initiative. Funders and their grantees may meld existing programs into this Initiative. Already existing funded programs may become part of a partnership. The funding for these programs can be considered part of the Annenberg Challenge match.

• Funders may choose to support portions of the Initiative, such as specific schools, neighborhoods, grades, arts disciplines, external organizations, and themes.

• Individual funders may wish to establish endowments to continue sup-port for the Initiative after the initial five years.

• Through this Initiative, schools, community school districts, and the Central Board will have an incentive for re-directing funds to arts edu-cation. Sources may include Attendance Improvement Dropout Prevention (AIDP), Drug Free Schools Formula Grants, State Incentive Grants, Title 1 funds and other programs. The most viable source will likely by Title 1 funds.

29

Research demonstrates that arts education programs positively impact on the social problems these funding streams were created to address. Arts programs have a positive collateral effect on attendance, reading and math scores, self-esteem, and other concerns of administrators and parents. Although some principals and superintendents may fear that partnerships will “eat up” their discretionary funding, their fears will be allayed if the programs are educationally valid, and if they genuinely impact on overall learning.

Fiscal Agent

• We recommend that, initially, the New York Foundation for the Arts serve as the fiscal agent for this Initiative. The Fund for New York City Public Education will provide technical assistance.

• We recommend that the Center for Arts Education be empowered to serve as fiscal agent for this Initiative once it establishes 501(c)3 status.

• The fiscal agent will be the recipient of the Annenberg funds and matching funds provided by other foundations, the arts-related indus-tries, and individuals. The fiscal agent will be responsible for prudently investing and managing the Initiative funds. Funds will be disbursed as needed, upon recommendation of the Advisory Board.

• The fiscal agent will receive a standard fee for its management of Initiative funds.

• A member of the fiscal agent will serve on the Initiative’s Advisory Board.

Proposed Estimated Allocations

The following budget is based upon an estimated 5-year total of $36 million created by the Annenberg Challenge. The line-item projections are detailed in rela-tionship to expenditures outlined in the plan. These items and their adjustments over the five-year period detail special allocations of this Initiative and do not detail the current and increased spending from funders, individual schools, and districts as required in the plan.

The overwhelming majority of allocations is for the instruction of children, through allocations to partnerships, staff development, and community school districts. Overhead expenses are kept as minimal as possible, but are large enough to effectively manage the Initiative and ensure accountability among partners.

30

1. Partnerships

Partnership costs increase over the first three years as more schools enter the Initiative through the RFP process. These costs level out in years four and five to reflect the increased financial contributions of participating schools. Individual awards will be based upon the number of participating schools and students.

A. Partnership Funds

These funds will be used for instruction, planning time, staff development, artist fees, parent co-learning, curriculum development, assessment, transportation, etc.

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$3,589,310 $4,514,312 $5,014,312 $5,014,312 $5,017,424 $23,149,670

B. Supplies

Partnership schools that have qualified arts teachers on staff will receive dedi-cated supply funds. Funds will be allocated on a per-student basis.

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$230,000 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000 $1,150,000

2. Staff and Professional Development

Most professional development will be funded through the partnership allocations detailed in Section One (above). Additionally, the following funds are allocated for support and implementation of professional development.

These allocations increase each year of the five-year plan as more schools and teachers enter the Initiative. Library/information resources level out because much of the original investment in this area will be recycled.

A. UFT Teacher Centers (staffing, information systems, facilitation)

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$125,000 $175,000 $225,000 $250,000 $275,000 $1,050,000

B. Staff Development Providers (universities, arts organizations, etc.)

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$125,000 $175,000 $225,000 $250,000 $ 275,000 $1,050,000

31

C. Library/Information Resources

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$60,000 $85,000 $85,000 $85,000 x $315,000

D. Superintendent and Principal Retreats

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$25,000 $30,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $175,000

3. Community School Districts

A. Arts Director Support

District Arts Director support is based upon an estimated ten districts in year one with regular increases until all districts are participating. Years four and five reflect the districts picking up one-half and three-quarters of costs, respectively.

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$500,000 $800,000 $1,250,000 $825,000 $412,500 $3,787,500

B. Assessment Support

Assessment support reinforces district-wide arts assessment practices. Costs level out and decrease as the districts pick up an increasing percentage of the expenditures.

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $700,000

4. Center for Arts Education

A. Professional Staff

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$227,800 $244,550 $257,950 $274,700 $294,800 $1,299,800

B. RFP Process Support

32

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$56,950 $56,950 $56,950 x x $170,850

C. Ancillary Staff/Consultation

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$53,500 $53,600 $53,600 $40,200 $40,200 $241,000

D. Assessment

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$125,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $925,000

E. Information Systems

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$85,000 $85,000 $25,000 x x $195,000

F. Donated Space

year one year two year three year four year five five-year totalx x x x x x

G. Administrative Support

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$50,250 $52,260 $54,270 $56,950 $60,300 $274,030

H. Independent Facilitation

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$50,250 $50,250 $35,500 $30,150 $26,800 $190,950

I. Workshops/Presentations

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $30,000 $140,000

J. Fiscal Agent Fees and Technical Assistance

33

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000

5. Arts-Related Industries

A. Coordination/Facilitation

Coordination costs for arts-related industry activities will decrease after initial ex-penditures as a result of systematizing industry involvement, and increased donated participation.

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$93,800 $87,100 $80,400 $73,700 x $335,000

B. Presentations/Workshops/Training

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 x x $30,000

6. Advocacy

A. Coordination/Facilitation

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$33,500 $40,200 $46,900 $50,250 $50,250 $221,100

B. Resources

Most resources will be donated by arts-related industry media, advertising, etc. Additional funds for supplementing these resources are detailed below.

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000

Total Expenditures

34

year one year two year three year four year five five-year total$5,680,360 $7,184,222 $8,237,882 $7,725,262 $7,172,274 $36,000,000

35

Initiative Timeline

March-April 1996

• Plan is approved by Annenberg Foundation.• Formal fundraising for Annenberg match begins. Several large

leadership gifts are targeted to initiate campaign.• Advisory Board, Executive Committee, and Center for Arts

Education are established. Initial staffing, fundraising, services and RFP format are developed and approved by Advisory Board. The search for donated Center space is commenced.

• Fiscal agent accounts are formally established.• Advisory Board hires Executive Director, Development Director,

and first support staff postion.May 1996 • RFP process is initiated. Information campaign is launched to fa-

miliarize schools and organizations with the Initiative and RFP process. Initial RFP technical assistance workshops are provided to schools and organizations.

• Center continues to develop staffing and begins to coordinate staff development, advocacy and arts-related industry networks. Center finalizes RFP and RFP review process. Center finds new home.

• Fundraising continues.June 1996 • RFP and Partnership facilitation and assistance is fully imple-

mented. Partnerships begin development of proposals. Applicants receive further advice as needed.

• Fundraising continues.October 1996 • Partnerships submit proposals to Center for consideration.

• Staff development, advocacy and arts-related industry networks established.

• Advocacy campaign is fully initiated.• Center establishes committee structure and solicits broad involve-

ment from various professional and community constituencies.December 1996

• RFP process is completed. Center determines awards and distribution

• Center awards partnerships Year One grants. Partnerships com-mence planning and development of instructional activities.

• Staff development and arts-related industry network fully estab-lished.

• Center initiates best practices workshops and information libraries.

36

July 1997 – June 2000

• Cycles continue according to plan. Time lines are adjusted as needed.

• Fundraising continues.

37

January – June 1997

• Partnerships continue to plan and implement Year One instruc-tional, parent and assessment activities.

• Assessment development at Board and CSD levels are initiated.• Fundraising continues.

March 1997 • Center provides RFP workshops for new partnershipsMay 1997 • Funded partnerships submit year-end report and plan for Year

Two.• New partnerships submit RFPs for consideration.

June 1997 • Center awards successful second year partnerships Year Two grants.

• New partnerships are awarded upon the basis of a successful RFP and initial grant.

• Center reviews leadership and fiscal accountabilities.• Center establishes timelines for Years Two to Five.• Fundraising continues.

FOCUS GROUPS AND INTERVIEWS IN COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Focus groups and interviews with classroom teachers, arts specialists, parents, schoolchildren, administrators, and arts coordinators were conducted in the following community school districts.

CSD 1

CSD 2

CSD 3

CSD 4

CSD 5

CSD 6

CSD 7

CSD 10

CSD 11

CSD 12

CSD 13

CSD 15

CSD 16

CSD 17

CSD 19

CSD 20

CSD 21

CSD 22

CSD 23

CSD 24

CSD 25

CSD 26

CSD 27

CSD 28

CSD 29

CSD 30

CSD 31

CSD 32

CSD 75

38

INTERVIEW LIST

Bridget AbbyPlays for Living

Harold F. AbelesTeachers College, Columbia University

Andrew AckermanChildren’s Museum of Manhattan

Richard AdamsManhattan School Of Music

Sol Adler92nd Street Y

Leslie Agard-JonesBoard of Educationof the City of New York

William AguadoBronx Council On The Arts

Nicholas AielloBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Camille Giraud AkejuMindbuilders Creative Arts

Jerri AllynBronx Museum

Anthony AlvaradoCommunity School District 2

Anthony AmatoCommunity School District 6 Myles AmendMuseum Of The City Of New York

Michelle AudetNew York City Ballet

Miriam BacotJazzmobile

Terry BakerNCRESTFour Seasons ProjectTeachers College, Columbia University

Linda Michelle BarronHarlen Jacques Publications

Ivy BarskyInstitute for Contemporary Art

Cheryl BartholowBrooklyn Children’s Museum

Amy BayLower East Side Print Shop

Rachel BellowMellon Foundation

Kate BennettStaten Island Children’s Museum

Robert BennettCircle in the Square.

Kathy BensonMuseum Of The City Of New York

Ted BergerNew York Foundation for the Arts

Elise BernhardtDancing in the Streets

Alex BettencourtCommunity Agency Projects In SchoolsUnited Way

Gabriela BiancoAmerican Symphony Orchestra

Roz BindmanSt. Luke’s

Jeff BlissElders Share The Arts

Phil BlockInternational Center of Photography

Marsha BonnerThe Aaron Diamond Foundation

Randall BourscheidtAlliance for the Arts

Ron BradyBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Scott BrandonLincoln Center Institute

Dawn Gibson BrehonLar Lubovitch Dance

Stephen BrierOffice of Academic AffairsCity University of New York

Joseph BrockettCreative Educational Systems

Julie BrockwayLifelines Community Arts Project

William Robert BuckerMetropolitan Opera Association

Judith BurtonTeachers College, Columbia University

Tom Cabaniss92nd Street Y

Cora CahanThe New 42nd Street

Catherine CahillNew York Philharmonic

Gloria CahillYoung Playwrights

Tom CahillStudio in a School

Richard CaplesLar Lubovitch Dance

Frank CarucciLa Mama Experimental Theater Club

Carolyn ChaliffAbraham Fund

Schuyler G. ChapinDepartment of Cultural AffairsCity of New York

Cecilia ClarkeDrawing Center

Madeline CohenSymphony Space

Gylbert CokerChildren’s Arts Carnival

Denise ColemanBank Street College Of Education

Deborah CollingwoodRush Philanthropic Foundation

Kinshasha ConwillStudio Museum Of Harlem

Ramon C. CortinesBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Sylvia CorwinUniversity Council

Joanna CossaSymphony Space

Roberta CiuffoJuilliard School

Ronald DabneyDance Theatre Harlem

Renee DarvinTeachers College, Columbia University

Suzanne DavidsonSecond Stage Theatre

Askia DavisBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Lawrence DavisBloomingdale House of Music

Scottie DavisSalt And Pepper Mime Company

Judith DaykinCity Center - 55th Street Theater Foundation

Peg DenithorneCircle Repertory Theatre

John DevolFestival Of Music

Carol DioguardizFoundation for the Joffrey Ballet

Jenny DixonLower Manhattan Cultural Council

Margie DuffieldWomen’s Project and Productions

Nancy DuncanPentacle/Danceworks

Dorothy DunnCooper-Hewitt Museum

Sharon DunnCommunity School District #25

Darryl DurhamHarlem School of the Arts

Susan EbersoleAlliance For Young Artists & Writers

Selma EhrenfeldCouncil Of Supervisors & Administrators

Barbara ElliottIl Piccolo Teatro Dell’ Opera

Marjorie ElliottBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Jane EnglebartBig Apple Circus

Mary Lou FalconeML Falcone Public Relations

Jonathan F. FantonNew School for Social Research

Jeanne FaulknerBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Diana FeldmanENACT

Dorothy FeldmanBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Barbara FieldThird Street Music School

Joan FirestoneNYC Controller’s Office

Edmee FirthJean & Louis Dreyfus Foundation

Barbara Fisher

Ten Penny Players

Barbara FitzChase Manhattan Bank

Karen FitzgeraldQueens Symphony

Ernie FleischmanAlliance for Young Writers and Artists

Susan FlemingerHenry Street Settlement

Robert FredericoSpanish Theatre Repertory Company

Jo FrederiksenSchool for Education in Danceand the Related Arts

Anna FrenchSociety for the Preservation of Weeksville

Lawrence FriedLittle Orchestra Society

Judith FriedlanderOriginal Ballets Foundation.

Norm FruchterAaron Diamond Foundation

Tiki FuhroCenter for Family Life

Claire GainesBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Fred GerberQueens Botanical Garden

Lara GersteinDancing in the Streets

Herman GerstenS.E.M. Ensemble

Eileen GoldblattYoung Audiences NY

Aileen R. GoldenCommunity School District #21

Brian GoldfarbNew Museum of Contemporary Art

Pamela Lack GoldmanPLG Communications

Francine GoldsteinBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Neal GoldsteinBronx Dance Theater

Steven GoodmanEducational Video Center

Arthur GreenbergCommunity School District #25

Mara GreenbergPentacle/Danceworks

Maxine GreeneTeachers College, Columbia University

Vartan GregorianBrown University

Terry GreissIrondale Productions

Carol GresserBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Ila Lane GrossLearning Thru An Expanded Arts Program

Maria GuaspBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Helen GuditisBroadway Theatre Institute

Donna Guilliani

Juan J. GutierrezLos Pleneros De La 21

Beverly HallBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Elizabeth HalverstamFestival Of Music

John HammerNew York Hall Of Science

Kitty Carlisle HartNew York State Council on the Arts

Barbara HauptmanAlvin Ailey Dance

John HaworthDepartment of Cultural AffairsCity of New York

Hollis HeadrickNew York State Council on the Arts

Bonnie HelmsBig Apple Circus

Lillian HernandezBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Allan F. HershfieldFashion Institute of Technology

Tracy HirschAmerican Place Theatre

Jo HodakNYC Opera

Susan HoetzelLehman College Art Gallery

Jeffrey HorowitzTheater for a New Audience

Joseph HorowitzBrooklyn Philharmonic

Frances HuberStaten Island Botanical Garden

Anne-Marie HudleyBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Fred HudsonFrederick Douglass Creative Arts Center

J. HumphreyGold Mountain Institute forTraditional Shadow Theatre

Jill JacksonTeachers & Writers Collaborative

Linda JacobsCulpepper Foundation

Jennifer JacobsonBotwinick-Wolfensohn Foundation

Nina JaffeBank Street College Of Education

Linda JankelowArtsConnection

Karen JarmonChildren’s Museum Of Manhattan

Denise JeffersonAlvin Ailey Dance

Ed JonesJP Morgan

Martin D. JosmanNational Choral Council

Yvonne JoynerThe New 42nd Street

Polly KahnNew York Philharmonic

Elissa KaneNew York State AllianceFor Arts Education

Myra KlarPoets in Public Service

David KleiserSnug Harbor Cultural Center

Lydia KontosElaine Kaufman Cultural Center

John KordelLittle Orchestra Society

Barbara KriegerVineyard Theatre & Workshop Center

Daniel KronenfeldHenry Street Settlement

Karen LamontUrban Glass

Lanny LaskyMuseum of Modern Art

Brad LearmonthFriends of the Davis Center

Ron LeDonniBoard of Educationof the City of New YorkMarvin LefflerTown Hall

Veronique LeMelleJamaica Center of Performing and Visual Art

Sandra LernerBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Nathaniel LeventhalLincoln Center for the Performing Arts

Susan LevineBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Richard LewisTouchstone Center for Children

Beth LiefFund for NYC Public Education

Barbara LombardoSpanish Dance Arts Company

Sharon LuckmanAlvin Ailey Dance

William LuersThe Metropolitan Museum of Art

Kent LydeckerThe Metropolitan Museum of Art

Cynthia MachmaniMuseum of Modern Art

Kitty MackeyCultural NYC School Volunteers

Brenda MaloyArts Connection

Lorenzo MansINTAR

Michael MaoMichael Mao Dance

David MarquisMarquis Studios

Mariella MartinezBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Harry MartinianClassroom Materials Exchange

Joan MaynardSociety for the Preservation of Weeksville

James MazzaSuperintendentCommunity School District 3

Greg McCaslinNew York Foundation for the Arts

Vincent McGeeThe Aaron Diamond Foundation

Ann McKinneyInter School Orchestras of New York

Deborah MeierSenior Annenberg FellowCenter For Collaborative Education

Amy MelnickEducational Video Center

Debra MentonNew York Philharmonic

Joey MerrillOffice of Ninfa SegaraDeputy Mayor for Education

Edie MezirowThe New 42nd Street

Laura MillerBrooklyn Historical Society

Stacy MillerTeachers College,Columbia University

Carol MitchellAmerican Ballet Theatre

Debbie MitchellWomen’s Project and Productions

Joseph MitchellThe Fan Fox & Leslie R. Samuels Foundation

Charles Monaco

Brooklyn Center for Urban Environment

Marta MontanezArts, Inc./Art Resources forTeachers And Students

Katherine MooreOriginal Ballets Foundation.

Scott MorrowScott Morrow Dance Theater

New York City EducationalReform Coalition

Emily NashCreative Alternatives of New York

Paul NashTeachers College, Columbia University

David NoltaDIA Center for the Arts

Sandy NorfleetNYS Department of Education

Michelle I. NowosadDiv. of Funded & External Programs Board of Educationof the City of New York

Susannah OhringSouth Street Seaport

Maura O’MalleyBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Rob O’NeillThe American Stage Network

Walter O’NeillFlushing Council on Culture and the Arts

Felix OrochoPregones Theater

Gordon OstrowskiManhattan School Of Music

Sandy OwenBoys Harbor

E.A. PalmerBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Suzanne ParkerQueens Council on the Arts

Kathleen PavlickChemical Bank

Susan PerlsteinElders Share The Arts

Margot PerronWave Hill

Elizabeth Bernerd PettitSchool for Education in Danceand the Related Arts

Glenn PhillipsNew York Botanical Garden

Joseph PolisiThe Julliard School

Debra PopeRoundabout Theatre

Janet R. PriceFund for NYC Public Education

Jeanne RanceBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Sunna RaschPeriwinkle Productions

Glenn RayBrooklyn Conservatory Of Music

Jane Remer

Luis ReyesBoard of Educationof the City of New York

W. Ann ReynoldsCity University of New York

Judith RiveraPregones Theater

Myrta RiveraBoard of Education of the City of NY

Patrick RiviereSecond Stage Theatre

Andrea RockowerLehman Performing Arts Center

Marissa RodriguezAmigos Del Museo Del Barrio

Diane RosenblattMichael Mao Dance

Jeffrey RosenstockQueens Theatre in the Park

Jerrold RossNew York University

Daniel RostanBrooklyn Music School

Kim E. RozziLearning Through Arts

Nick RuoccoThe Metropolitan Museum of Art

Judith St. CroixSonora House

Ben SalazarCity Lore

Brenda SaleThe American Stage Network

Debra Sale

Margaret SalvanteTheater for a New Audience

Carlotta SantanaSpanish Dance Arts Company

Lynne M. SavageBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Terry SavageAmerican Express

Jerry SchoenfeldSchubert Organization

Mark SchubartLincoln Center Institute

Deb SchwartzBrooklyn Institute of Arts & SciencesBrooklyn Museum

Susan SchwartzBrooklyn Academy of Music

Bill ScribnerBronx Arts Ensemble

Martin SegalSegal Company

Barnett ShepherdStaten Island Historical Society

David ShermanUnited Federation of Teachers

David ShookhoffManhattan Theatre Club.

Judith SiegalJewish Museum

Irwin SilversteinBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Ann SmithSchool for Education in Danceand the Related Arts

Nelson SmithEducation & Workforce DevelopmentNew York Partnership

Louis SpanierArts Education Resource Center

Gregory SpenceNew School for Social Research

Michael SpencerHospital Audiences

Richard SpiegalTen Penny Players

Carl Spielvogel

Helen StamblerCommunity School District #1

Brian StansiferCreative Alternatives of New York

Jane SternNew York Community Trust

Sandra Stratton-GonzalezSoundance

Phyllis SusenCarnegie Hall

Nancy SusnowWildlife Conservation SocietyBronx Zoo

Barbara TateHenry Street Settlement

Steve TennenArts Connection

Walter ThompsonThe American Stage Network

Robert TobiasBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Dee TopolThe Travellers Foundation

Grady TurnerNew York Historical Society

Fran Van HornStudio in a School

Sharon VatskyQueens County Art & Cultural Center

B.C. VermeerschGreenwich House Music School

Merle VladimerLa Mama Experimental Theater Club

Laura N. VuralRise & Shine Productions

Cynthia WainwrightChemical Bank

Marya WarshawGowanus Arts Exchange

Cynthia WayInternational Center of Photography

Martin WechslerJoyce Theater Foundation

Anne WickhamAmerican Express

Dan WileyBrooklyn Center For Urban Environment

Kim WileyTADA!

Richard L. WilliamsBoys Harbor

Arthur WilsonNew York Shakespeare Festival

Ted WiprudMeet the Composer

Katherine WiseManhattan School of Music

Anne WolfBoard of Educationof the City of New York

Connie WolfeWhitney Museum of American Art

Teddy YoshikamiAmerican Museum of Natural History

Ellen YoungQueens Symphony

Jannas ZaleskyCity Center - 55th Street Theater Foundation

Steven ZeitlinCity Lore

Lynda ZimmermanNYU Creative Arts Team

Stephan ZuckerEducational Consultant to Brooklyn Academy of Music

Bill ZukofWestern Wind Vocal Ensemble