From: Panel Representing Carmen Farina, Chancellor, New York City Department of Education

Response Panel Decision

From: Panel representing Carmen Farina, Chancellor, New York City Department of Education To: Melissa Lazo and Adam Schafer Re: Arts & Physical Activity in Schools Responses From: Nadia Kreshchuk, Johanna Torres, Achilles Katsanaskis, Meiling Li Date: April 20, 2016

Art and physical education has been an integral part of society from antiquity. The body and mind are intimately related and both must be cultivated in order to create a harmonious and well-rounded individual. Melissa Lazo and Adam Schafer’s well- written and insightful policy option addressing the lack of arts and physical activities in New York City public schools thus spotlights in great detail a critical and pressing problem affecting our city’s children.

Even though in some circles art and physical activities are not deemed important, they quite often provide an incentive for many students to continue attending school in the first place. It is evident from the experience of working with disadvantaged inner city students that art classes and physical education can help keep students enrolled and occupied all the while reducing their stress and providing them with the opportunity to express their creativity in a space where otherwise it wouldn't be expressed. It is unfortunate to see that many vocational schools are currently being closed and that there is a strong shift in focus towards academics-only pedagogy, despite the role both arts and physical education can play in determining student development and self- expression. When these activities are taken away from students, they lose the drive to continue their education, particularly as said students view such activities as their only escape from a so-called disadvantaged life,.

According to the two authors, in fact, the NYC Department of Education registered a 47% decline in spending on arts and cultural vendors and an 84% cut in arts supplies and equipment in the seven years leading up to the 2013-2014 biennium. In addition, they underscore the immediate need to provide the city’s children with access to physical education. Citing a report published in 2015 and released by the office of NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer, the authors note that more than 26% of students aged 5 to 14 years in Kindergarten through 8th grade are registered as “obese or severely obese.”

1 Although the authors’ efforts to underline the seriousness of the problem could, perhaps, be reinforced with actual real-life, citywide examples of children and schools deprived of arts and physical education, their overall analysis of the problem is thorough and points to a veritable crisis affecting NYC public schools.

The authors advance four possible policy options including providing educators with the resources and additional training to teach children a greater variety of art forms and physical activities; ensuring equal and widespread access to arts and physical activities for all students across the public school system through a cohesive citywide program; developing community partnerships with already established organizations, from sports teams to art institutes, in order to provide children with better access to the city’s rich cultural resources; and pioneering a more comprehensive afterschool program.

We believe that a holistic application of all four policy options would be the key to providing NYC public school students with the variety and access they need to arts and physical education. Additionally, we feel that initiatives such as the afterschool program offer greater opportunities to also provide students with educational and professional advancement. The public school, City-As School, already enacts a part of this philosophical approach to education by encouraging students to pursue internships and learn more about so-called “real world” jobs and activities. We feel that while arts and physical education might not be to every students liking, within an afterschool program where a wider range of educational alternatives are provided, more students will be helped. Ultimately, the point is to encourage students to disconnect from a sedentary or unproductive life and connect with a passion, whether it is art, physical education or a newfound career dream.

Breaking down the individual proposed policy options to a more granular level, we believe that Option 1 could be effective, but would need to be further analyzed from a financial standpoint. At the same time, we feel that Option 1 opens up the possibility of recruiting volunteers who are passionate about art and physical education in order to satisfy an urgent need in instructors.

As for Option 2, we believe that the recommendation to combine schools in co-location buildings may not be feasible due to separate funding issues. However, what does seem

2 promising is the suggestion that an inventory of musical instruments and sports related equipment be taken to determine if they can be shared when not being used. Likewise, if both co-location schools shared a space-scheduling program or calendar, then both schools could potentially utilize the space when it became available.

For its part, Option 3’s focus on the role of community partnerships is worth pursuing as our city is one of the most vibrant cultural capitals in the world. Considering the number of performing artists and businesses in the city, there is no reason why New York City’s Department of Education cannot create the access and/or develop the fundraising options in order to grant each student the possibility of learning an instrument or other art form.

Furthermore, Option 3 is optimal because the NYC DOE can further appeal to members of the communities where each and every public school is located in order to solicit volunteers for said partnerships, thus building stronger links with the neighborhoods the public schools serve.

Finally, we find that Option 4 already exists in many public schools. Nevertheless, there is no reason why it should not be expanded. The only problem we see with this option is that the authors should use good advertisement in order to recruit students to the program, considering that many of them may have other responsibilities after school. Both Options 3 and 4 seem to be the most promising. Emphasis should be made on who can enroll and the criteria necessary to enroll.

Of course, in a city and school system where space is continuously an issue and where budgetary measures must be continuously kept in consideration, we also suggest that a more toned down application of the above policy measures be applied. In this instance, we simply recommend that the physical education teacher or representative focus on the importance of nutrition. A poor diet can be more detrimental to a children's health than inactivity, per se. For this, we draw inspiration from (Fed Up), a great documentary that focuses on how poor food choices (including school lunches where lobbyists have enabled ketchup to be categorized as a vegetable) can be a greater cause of childhood obesity than lack of exercise. It does not cost much to discuss and educate nutrition. As regards a more tailored application of arts education, we would point to STEM to STEAM as another program worth researching as they have done excellent ground work nationwide on integrating art into the classrooms to better help science and math comprehension.