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 the

Annenberg Foundation on behalf of
The Board of Education of the City of New York and
The New York City Department of Cultural Affairs

-by-
 ARTSVISION®

Mitchell Korn, President

Richard Kessler, Vice President
Robert Horowitz, Ed.D., Associate

February 1996

Table of Contents:

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

4
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
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
5
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.

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.

1
 Most importantly, the arts provide a unique way of perceiving and understanding
the world, and are a powerful means for self-expression.

Flourishing arts education programs are the heart and soul of a school community.
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 inno-
vative 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 sys-
tem 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
2
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 ar-
eas 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.

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
3
work really hard, but I enjoy the discipline. It’s exciting to see the
perfection when it all comes together.

4
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

5
have devoted their careers to instruction within their discipline and want to share their
knowledge and skills with other educators and students.

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

6
 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.

• 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;

7
 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;

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.

8
 • 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.

• 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.

9
 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.

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 rel-
ative 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.

10
 • 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.

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 adequate
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.

11
 • 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
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:

12
 ◊ 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
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

13
 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

14
 • 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
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 dis-
parate 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.

15
• 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-
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.

16
 • 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.

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

17
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
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.

18
 • 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, experimentation,
aesthetics, and children’s involvement in authentic assessment.

• 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
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.

19
 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

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.

20
 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.

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-

21
 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 develop-
ment, 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.

• 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.

22
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
powerful tools for cognitive development and involvement in one’s own
learning.

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
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.

23
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.

• 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

24
 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
25
 with the various arts disciplines, and curriculum, assessment, and policy
issues in arts education. In addition, the individual should be an
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.

26
 • 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.

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

27
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 fi-
nancial 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.

• 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.

28
 • 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
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:

29
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
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.

30
 • The Center for Arts Education will coordinate a week-long arts education
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.

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.

31
 • 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 coordi-

nation with the music, fashion, graphic design, television, film, advertis-
ing, 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.

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

Funding

32
 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 support

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.

33
 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.

34
Overhead expenses are kept as minimal as possible, but are large enough to effectively
manage the Initiative and ensure accountability among partners.

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

35
 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

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

36
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

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 total
x 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

37
 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

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
38
 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

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

39
Initiative Timeline

March-April • Plan is approved by Annenberg Foundation.

1996 • 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 pro-
cess. 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 • RFP process is completed. Center determines awards and
1996 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.

40
January – • Partnerships continue to plan and implement Year One instruc-
June 1997 tional, parent and assessment activities.
• Assessment development at Board and CSD levels are initiated.
• Fundraising continues.
March 1997 • Center provides RFP workshops for new partnerships
May 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.
July 1997 – • Cycles continue according to plan. Time lines are adjusted as
June 2000 needed.
• Fundraising continues.

41
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 13 CSD 25

CSD 2 CSD 15 CSD 26
CSD 3 CSD 16 CSD 27
CSD 4 CSD 17 CSD 28
CSD 5 CSD 19 CSD 29
CSD 6 CSD 20 CSD 30
CSD 7 CSD 21 CSD 31
CSD 10 CSD 22 CSD 32
CSD 11 CSD 23 CSD 75
CSD 12 CSD 24

42
 INTERVIEW LIST

Bridget Abby Four Seasons Project

Plays for Living Teachers College, Columbia University

Harold F. Abeles
Teachers College, Columbia University Linda Michelle Barron
Harlen Jacques Publications
Andrew Ackerman
Children’s Museum of Manhattan Ivy Barsky
Institute for Contemporary Art
Richard Adams
Manhattan School Of Music Cheryl Bartholow
Brooklyn Children’s Museum
Sol Adler
92nd Street Y Amy Bay
Lower East Side Print Shop
Leslie Agard-Jones
Board of Education Rachel Bellow
of the City of New York Mellon Foundation

William Aguado Kate Bennett

Bronx Council On The Arts Staten Island Children’s Museum

Nicholas Aiello Robert Bennett

Board of Education Circle in the Square.
of the City of New York
Kathy Benson
Camille Giraud Akeju Museum Of The City Of New York
Mindbuilders Creative Arts
Ted Berger
Jerri Allyn New York Foundation for the Arts
Bronx Museum
Elise Bernhardt
Anthony Alvarado Dancing in the Streets
Community School District 2
Alex Bettencourt
Anthony Amato Community Agency Projects In Schools
Community School District 6 United Way

Myles Amend Gabriela Bianco

Museum Of The City Of New York American Symphony Orchestra

Michelle Audet Roz Bindman

New York City Ballet St. Luke’s

Miriam Bacot Jeff Bliss

Jazzmobile Elders Share The Arts

Terry Baker Phil Block

NCREST International Center of Photography
 Frank Carucci
Marsha Bonner La Mama Experimental Theater Club
The Aaron Diamond Foundation
Carolyn Chaliff
Randall Bourscheidt Abraham Fund
Alliance for the Arts
Schuyler G. Chapin
Department of Cultural Affairs
Ron Brady City of New York
Board of Education
of the City of New York Cecilia Clarke
Drawing Center
Scott Brandon
Lincoln Center Institute Madeline Cohen
Symphony Space
Dawn Gibson Brehon
Lar Lubovitch Dance Gylbert Coker
Children’s Arts Carnival
Stephen Brier
Office of Academic Affairs Denise Coleman
City University of New York Bank Street College Of Education

Joseph Brockett Deborah Collingwood

Creative Educational Systems Rush Philanthropic Foundation

Julie Brockway Kinshasha Conwill

Lifelines Community Arts Project Studio Museum Of Harlem

William Robert Bucker Ramon C. Cortines

Metropolitan Opera Association Board of Education
of the City of New York
Judith Burton
Teachers College, Columbia University Sylvia Corwin
University Council
Tom Cabaniss
92nd Street Y Joanna Cossa
Symphony Space
Cora Cahan
The New 42nd Street Roberta Ciuffo
Juilliard School
Catherine Cahill
New York Philharmonic Ronald Dabney
Dance Theatre Harlem
Gloria Cahill
Young Playwrights Renee Darvin
Teachers College, Columbia University
Tom Cahill
Studio in a School Suzanne Davidson
Second Stage Theatre
Richard Caples
Lar Lubovitch Dance Askia Davis
Board of Education
of the City of New York Jane Englebart
Big Apple Circus
Lawrence Davis
Bloomingdale House of Music Mary Lou Falcone
ML Falcone Public Relations
Scottie Davis
Salt And Pepper Mime Company Jonathan F. Fanton
New School for Social Research
Judith Daykin
City Center - 55th Street Theater Foundation Jeanne Faulkner
Board of Education
Peg Denithorne of the City of New York
Circle Repertory Theatre
Diana Feldman
John Devol ENACT
Festival Of Music
Dorothy Feldman
Board of Education
Carol Dioguardiz of the City of New York
Foundation for the Joffrey Ballet
Barbara Field
Jenny Dixon Third Street Music School
Lower Manhattan Cultural Council
Joan Firestone
Margie Duffield NYC Controller’s Office
Women’s Project and Productions
Edmee Firth
Nancy Duncan Jean & Louis Dreyfus Foundation
Pentacle/Danceworks
Barbara Fisher
Dorothy Dunn Ten Penny Players
Cooper-Hewitt Museum
Barbara Fitz
Sharon Dunn Chase Manhattan Bank
Community School District #25
Karen Fitzgerald
Darryl Durham Queens Symphony
Harlem School of the Arts
Ernie Fleischman
Susan Ebersole Alliance for Young Writers and Artists
Alliance For Young Artists & Writers
Susan Fleminger
Selma Ehrenfeld Henry Street Settlement
Council Of Supervisors & Administrators
Robert Frederico
Barbara Elliott Spanish Theatre Repertory Company
Il Piccolo Teatro Dell’ Opera
Jo Frederiksen
Marjorie Elliott School for Education in Dance
Board of Education and the Related Arts
of the City of New York
Anna French
Society for the Preservation of Weeksville
Mara Greenberg
Lawrence Fried Pentacle/Danceworks
Little Orchestra Society
Maxine Greene
Judith Friedlander Teachers College, Columbia University
Original Ballets Foundation.
Vartan Gregorian
Norm Fruchter Brown University
Aaron Diamond Foundation
Terry Greiss
Tiki Fuhro Irondale Productions
Center for Family Life
Carol Gresser
Claire Gaines Board of Education
Board of Education of the City of New York
of the City of New York
Ila Lane Gross
Fred Gerber Learning Thru An Expanded Arts Program
Queens Botanical Garden
Maria Guasp
Lara Gerstein Board of Education
Dancing in the Streets of the City of New York

Herman Gersten Helen Guditis

S.E.M. Ensemble Broadway Theatre Institute

Donna Guilliani
Eileen Goldblatt
Young Audiences NY Juan J. Gutierrez
Los Pleneros De La 21
Aileen R. Golden
Community School District #21
Beverly Hall
Brian Goldfarb Board of Education
New Museum of Contemporary Art of the City of New York

Pamela Lack Goldman Elizabeth Halverstam

PLG Communications Festival Of Music

Francine Goldstein John Hammer

Board of Education New York Hall Of Science
of the City of New York
Kitty Carlisle Hart
Neal Goldstein New York State Council on the Arts
Bronx Dance Theater
Barbara Hauptman
Steven Goodman Alvin Ailey Dance
Educational Video Center
John Haworth
Arthur Greenberg Department of Cultural Affairs
Community School District #25 City of New York
 Botwinick-Wolfensohn Foundation
Hollis Headrick
New York State Council on the Arts Nina Jaffe
Bank Street College Of Education
Bonnie Helms
Big Apple Circus Linda Jankelow
ArtsConnection
Lillian Hernandez
Board of Education Karen Jarmon
of the City of New York Children’s Museum Of Manhattan

Allan F. Hershfield Denise Jefferson

Fashion Institute of Technology Alvin Ailey Dance

Tracy Hirsch Ed Jones

American Place Theatre JP Morgan

Jo Hodak Martin D. Josman

NYC Opera National Choral Council

Susan Hoetzel Yvonne Joyner

Lehman College Art Gallery The New 42nd Street

Jeffrey Horowitz Polly Kahn

Theater for a New Audience New York Philharmonic

Joseph Horowitz Elissa Kane

Brooklyn Philharmonic New York State Alliance
For Arts Education
Frances Huber
Staten Island Botanical Garden Myra Klar
Poets in Public Service
Anne-Marie Hudley
Board of Education David Kleiser
of the City of New York Snug Harbor Cultural Center

Lydia Kontos
Elaine Kaufman Cultural Center
Fred Hudson
Frederick Douglass Creative Arts Center John Kordel
Little Orchestra Society
J. Humphrey
Gold Mountain Institute for Barbara Krieger
Traditional Shadow Theatre Vineyard Theatre & Workshop Center

Jill Jackson Daniel Kronenfeld

Teachers & Writers Collaborative Henry Street Settlement

Linda Jacobs Karen Lamont

Culpepper Foundation Urban Glass

Jennifer Jacobson Lanny Lasky

Museum of Modern Art Lorenzo Mans
INTAR
Brad Learmonth
Friends of the Davis Center Michael Mao
Michael Mao Dance
Ron LeDonni
Board of Education David Marquis
of the City of New York Marquis Studios
Marvin Leffler
Town Hall Mariella Martinez
Board of Education
Veronique LeMelle of the City of New York
Jamaica Center of Performing and Visual Art
Harry Martinian
Sandra Lerner Classroom Materials Exchange
Board of Education
of the City of New York Joan Maynard
Society for the Preservation of Weeksville
Nathaniel Leventhal
Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts James Mazza
Superintendent
Susan Levine Community School District 3
Board of Education
of the City of New York Greg McCaslin
New York Foundation for the Arts
Richard Lewis
Touchstone Center for Children Vincent McGee
The Aaron Diamond Foundation
Beth Lief
Fund for NYC Public Education Ann McKinney
Inter School Orchestras of New York
Barbara Lombardo
Spanish Dance Arts Company Deborah Meier
Senior Annenberg Fellow
Sharon Luckman Center For Collaborative Education
Alvin Ailey Dance
Amy Melnick
William Luers Educational Video Center
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Debra Menton
Kent Lydecker New York Philharmonic
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Joey Merrill
Cynthia Machmani Office of Ninfa Segara
Museum of Modern Art Deputy Mayor for Education

Kitty Mackey Edie Mezirow

Cultural NYC School Volunteers The New 42nd Street

Brenda Maloy Laura Miller

Arts Connection Brooklyn Historical Society
Stacy Miller of the City of New York
Teachers College,Columbia University
Rob O’Neill
Carol Mitchell The American Stage Network
American Ballet Theatre
Walter O’Neill
Flushing Council on Culture and the Arts
Debbie Mitchell
Women’s Project and Productions Felix Orocho
Pregones Theater
Joseph Mitchell
The Fan Fox & Leslie R. Samuels Foundation Gordon Ostrowski
Manhattan School Of Music
Charles Monaco
Brooklyn Center for Urban Environment Sandy Owen
Boys Harbor
Marta Montanez
Arts, Inc./Art Resources for E.A. Palmer
Teachers And Students Board of Education
of the City of New York
Katherine Moore
Original Ballets Foundation. Suzanne Parker
Queens Council on the Arts

Scott Morrow Kathleen Pavlick

Scott Morrow Dance Theater Chemical Bank

New York City Educational Susan Perlstein

Reform Coalition Elders Share The Arts

Emily Nash Margot Perron

Creative Alternatives of New York Wave Hill

Paul Nash Elizabeth Bernerd Pettit

Teachers College, Columbia University School for Education in Dance
and the Related Arts
David Nolta
DIA Center for the Arts Glenn Phillips
New York Botanical Garden
Sandy Norfleet
NYS Department of Education Joseph Polisi
The Julliard School
Michelle I. Nowosad
Div. of Funded & External Programs Debra Pope
Board of Education Roundabout Theatre
of the City of New York
Janet R. Price
Susannah Ohring Fund for NYC Public Education
South Street Seaport
Jeanne Rance
Maura O’Malley Board of Education
Board of Education of the City of New York
Sunna Rasch Ben Salazar
Periwinkle Productions City Lore

Glenn Ray Brenda Sale

Brooklyn Conservatory Of Music The American Stage Network

Jane Remer Debra Sale

Margaret Salvante
Theater for a New Audience
Luis Reyes
Board of Education Carlotta Santana
of the City of New York Spanish Dance Arts Company

W. Ann Reynolds
City University of New York Lynne M. Savage
Board of Education
Judith Rivera of the City of New York
Pregones Theater
Terry Savage
Myrta Rivera American Express
Board of Education of the City of NY
Jerry Schoenfeld
Patrick Riviere Schubert Organization
Second Stage Theatre
Andrea Rockower Mark Schubart
Lehman Performing Arts Center Lincoln Center Institute

Marissa Rodriguez Deb Schwartz

Amigos Del Museo Del Barrio Brooklyn Institute of Arts & Sciences
Brooklyn Museum
Diane Rosenblatt
Michael Mao Dance Susan Schwartz
Brooklyn Academy of Music
Jeffrey Rosenstock
Queens Theatre in the Park Bill Scribner
Bronx Arts Ensemble
Jerrold Ross
New York University Martin Segal
Segal Company
Daniel Rostan
Brooklyn Music School Barnett Shepherd
Staten Island Historical Society
Kim E. Rozzi
Learning Through Arts David Sherman
United Federation of Teachers
Nick Ruocco
The Metropolitan Museum of Art David Shookhoff
Manhattan Theatre Club.
Judith St. Croix
Sonora House Judith Siegal
Jewish Museum Steve Tennen
Arts Connection
Irwin Silverstein
Board of Education Walter Thompson
of the City of New York The American Stage Network

Ann Smith Robert Tobias

School for Education in Dance Board of Education
and the Related Arts of the City of New York

Nelson Smith Dee Topol

Education & Workforce Development The Travellers Foundation
New York Partnership
Grady Turner
Louis Spanier New York Historical Society
Arts Education Resource Center
Fran Van Horn
Gregory Spence Studio in a School
New School for Social Research
Sharon Vatsky
Queens County Art & Cultural Center
Michael Spencer
Hospital Audiences B.C. Vermeersch
Greenwich House Music School
Richard Spiegal
Ten Penny Players
Merle Vladimer
Carl Spielvogel La Mama Experimental Theater Club

Laura N. Vural
Helen Stambler Rise & Shine Productions
Community School District #1
Cynthia Wainwright
Brian Stansifer Chemical Bank
Creative Alternatives of New York
Marya Warshaw
Jane Stern Gowanus Arts Exchange
New York Community Trust
Cynthia Way
Sandra Stratton-Gonzalez International Center of Photography
Soundance
Martin Wechsler
Phyllis Susen Joyce Theater Foundation
Carnegie Hall
Anne Wickham
Nancy Susnow American Express
Wildlife Conservation Society
Bronx Zoo Dan Wiley
Brooklyn Center For Urban Environment
Barbara Tate
Henry Street Settlement Kim Wiley
TADA!
 Teddy Yoshikami
Richard L. Williams American Museum of Natural History
Boys Harbor
Ellen Young
Arthur Wilson Queens Symphony
New York Shakespeare Festival
Jannas Zalesky
City Center - 55th Street Theater Foundation
Ted Wiprud
Meet the Composer Steven Zeitlin
City Lore
Katherine Wise
Manhattan School of Music Lynda Zimmerman
NYU Creative Arts Team
Anne Wolf
Board of Education Stephan Zucker
of the City of New York Educational Consultant to
Brooklyn Academy of Music
Connie Wolfe
Whitney Museum of American Art Bill Zukof
Western Wind Vocal Ensemble