A Huge Misstep: LMSD's Proposed Cuts to Music, Art, and P.E.

My older child attends elementary school in Lower Merion Township.  I, like many of us, moved here for the public schools.  We cherish the teaching quality, resources, and richness of subject offerings.  Maybe we even took these things for granted.

Well, no more.  It appears the Lower Merion School District administration has been quietly aiming to pass a scheduling change that would significantly reduce class time allotted to “Specials”—music, art, physical education, foreign languages, and library—at the elementary school level. 

Currently, students 1st—5th grade receive an hour each of music, art and P.E., 90 minutes of a foreign language, and 30 minutes of library, in a 5-day cycle of classes.  The LMSD Curriculum Committee, in a document dated April 2, 2013, proposed that music, art, P.E., and foreign language class times be reduced by up to 15 minutes per class, and that classes be offered on a 6-day cycle.  These changes, annually, would have resulted in a total loss of 765 minutes per class, or roughly a third of the annual class time for music, art and P.E.

Following a public outcry, including an online petition that has garnered over 1100 signatures, the Board of School Directors introduced a revised proposal that would leave the individual class lengths unchanged but would adopt the 6-day cycle, which would still result in over 15% of total class time lost per Special.  This means that, there would be an interval of as many as 10 days (versus the present 7 days) between offerings of a given Special.  The goal of retaining a “holistic” approach, as cited by the Curriculum Committee, would be compromised by treating these Specials as if they are interchangeable.

The LMSD administration cites the need for reinforcement of the core curriculum and for additional teacher preparation and reflection time as impetus for these changes.  In addition, they say, the more rigorous benchmarks of the Common Core Curriculum Standards and Keystone exams (which are slated to replace the PSSA’s for 11th graders), through a backward domino effect, have increased the amount of material to be covered at the elementary school level.

In classrooms our children carry out investigations in which teachers encourage them to support their hypotheses.  But where is the data to support a need for this curriculum change? If our district is not meeting its achievement goals, as measured by PSSA scores, is it due to insufficient class time spent on core subjects? Or might we improve our creativity and efficiency in teaching?  And are shifting test score benchmarks realistic and meaningful measures of educational quality?  Is this proposal addressing a current, pressing educational deficiency or only a future perceived one?  And is it not alarming that in a school district that spends over $30,000 per child, we can’t find the resources to maintain the Specials curriculum that the vast majority of us deem vital to our children’s education?

Perhaps more troublesome is the lack of transparency with which school administrators have overseen this curriculum proposal, which might have gone unnoticed had not Penn Valley elementary school principal Scott Mitchell mentioned to his staff in mid-March that it was a “done deal.”  Shocked, they told their counterparts at other schools, who told parents, who starting calling their principals.  Only as a result of this collective pressure did the principals send out an explanatory letter.

Then, at the April 15 School Board meeting, Superintendent Dr. Christopher McGinley presented the revised 6-day cycle schedule—backpedaling from the original proposal—and admitted that being less than forthcoming had been “a mistake.”

Equivocation continued two days later at the Home School Association meeting at Cynwyd Elementary School, when Dr. Daniel Martino, the principal, voiced wide staff support for this curriculum shift.  Yet, I’ve spoken with at least half a dozen teachers—both Specials and homeroom teachers, who asked that they not be named for fear of professional repercussions—who all think it’s a terrible idea.  And while claiming that homeroom teachers need more time to “reflect” on core subjects, he noted that state and Federal mandates have flip-flopped repeatedly (which would make it near-impossible to accurately plan lessons, even with more time allotted to them.)

Here’s the message we need to send to our school principals and School Board members:

Lead, don’t just manage. 

Lead, by recognizing the unique and essential contributions that art, music, P.E. and other non-core subjects make to our children’s education. 

Lead, by articulating how these Specials enable children to develop creativity, problem-solving, self-expression and hand-eye coordination, to get their blood pumping and their imagination ignited, and to get them excited about exploring worlds beyond what they encounter in everyday life.

Lead, by understanding that no less than weekly (5-day cycle) repetition of each of these Specials is essential to reinforcing their content and benefits.

Lead, by defending the very subjects that make this school district one of the best in the region, a reality that is demonstrated through our art shows and choral performances.

Lead, by exploring ways to incorporate core skills, such as math and writing, into the overall curriculum.  For example, teaching rhythm in music is a pure exercise in fractions.

Lead, by assessing the effectiveness of the Journeys (language arts) and Investigations (math) workbook series and by making professional development a top priority, thereby affirming that the quality of teaching and teaching tools, not the reallocation of minutes in the school day, are the real drivers of learning.

Lead, by fostering an environment where parents—key stakeholders in our schools—are part of any discussion and any solution to an issue that will have a major impact on our children’s education.

Lead, by being very, very cautious of making a curriculum change that will affect our children now and for years to come.  What’s once taken apart cannot easily be put back together.

* * *

Right now, the LMSD.org home page slideshow opens with news that the District is one of the “Best Communities for Music Education 2013.”  In fact, most of the slideshow is devoted to accomplishments in areas that qualify as Specials.  I wonder whether these achievements would have been possible on a restricted Specials schedule.

If we believe that cutting Specials in any manner is unacceptable, each one of us must say so, by writing our individual school principals and, more importantly, each of our School Board members.  We owe this much to our kids.