When I was working as an arts education consultant in the early 90s, during pretty difficult fiscal times for schools, principals were focused on integrating the arts across the curriculum. I know this, because during this period I was involved in focus groups and interviews with hundreds of principals and school district officials across the country.
It was pretty simple: principals didn’t have the money nor inclination to hire certified arts teachers. Instead, they looked to utilizing existing staff for the teaching of the arts. At the primary levels that means classroom teachers, or common branch teachers (“CB’s”). In the middle and secondary levels that means subject area teachers.
When the dollars could be found, schools enhanced the work of these teachers in the arts with services of teaching artists and cultural organizations, including field trips, professional development, provision of instructional materials (study guides, lesson plans, etc.), and teaching artist residencies. Perhaps we will see more done via technology, a virtual approach to the provision of services.
A economic growth cycle is generally accompanied by increases in the number of certified arts teachers, as well as the services of cultural organizations. Periods of growth will often see an emphasis on the teaching of the arts as a discrete discipline, including the development of curricula emphasizing this approach.
Flat budgets see little or no growth in arts specialists, but may continue to see increased demand for the services of arts organizations, as the organizations help to underwrite their work in the schools.
A downward cycle with cuts to the school budget, has historically seen a reduction in the number of certified arts teachers, and depending on the severity of the downturn, may also see significant cutbacks to the budget for external services, as well as cuts from funders supporting such work. Periods such as these will see a tilt towards the integration of the arts across the curriculum. As James Carville said in 1995: “it’s the economy stupid.”
Every district is different. In New York City, there is a no layoff provision in current teacher contract. This doesn’t mean that a school can’t excess a position, it can, but the salary will continued to be paid through a flexible formula where the school and the central bureaucracy share the cost of that position. Part-time positions can be cut with much greater ease.
As always, meta-level education policies will color all of this. The continued approach to standardized testing in reading and math could act as a major accelerant to the downward cycle of cutting certified arts teachers, supplies, and external services. It’s also possible that the downward cycle will change the game in ways we cannot necessarily predict, such as principals finding ways around the present accountability movement, as well as district officials backing off during difficult financial times.
Does anyone have a crystal ball?
Arts educators are always the first to go. I see so many arts teachers, drama teachers especially who are under such stress as their budgets shrink and their jobs become fragile.
If only we could convince (it’ll never happen I know) administrators that in flat times students need the arts more than anything. They need to express, to build confidence, to learn how to work as a team. Everything that is found in the arts classes…