A little less than a week ago, the local Board of Education decided that three specialized programs—IT, Communications, and Theatre Arts—were no longer worth keeping around. *They justified this decision by asserting that the enrollment numbers in the programs did not sufficiently meet what the the Board considered acceptable. Students currently enrolled in the programs have been assured that they will be able to finish out what they initially signed up for, but there will be no incoming class. The University Programs for Theatre Arts & Communications + IT are being decommissioned.  

In the paragraph above, I gave the facts regarding the situation. Now, I will try to give some perspective and attempt to show how this unwise decision by the Board of Education will ultimately be detrimental to the district’s reputation, the students, as well as teachers. All throughout this analysis I will intersperse some important past history regarding the program as well as the progression of the Board’s decision. The first problem with this entire situation is that it very clearly breaks a promise made by the Board to the students and teachers of the University Program:

In an open letter to the University Program community, Castor and board members Belsky, Sadie Quinlan and President Wayne Peterson indicated that it will revive its proposal should the targeted programs fail to meet specific benchmarks by Aug. 15, 2011: 18 incoming students enrolled in any of the programs or 60 total students in each program, including the members of the Class of 2015. 

 (“Enrollment Crucial to Future of University Programs”, Wyckoff Patch, Sept. 28, 2010)

The quote above—concerning the Aug. 15 deadline—appeared in an open letter posted on the RHS website, which was presumedly written to appease opponents of the Board. I must now pause and give credit to my good friend Brendan Neal, whose keen eyes were the first to catch this vitally important “breech of contract”, as he has phrased it. Whether this is a legitimate, binding legal contract is something for a lawyer to decide, but what seems clear is that the Board looks quite bad breaking their initial promise. Parents and students ought to be  outraged that Board members would be so quick to break a very simple commitment. More and more, it seems like the Board had their decision made months in advance—as if the open letter was nothing more than a phony PR document. It is difficult to have respect for a body that cannot even stick to commitments agreed upon in a highly publicized “open letter”. Looking at the actual language of the letter, it seems very clear that the Board tried to manipulate parents by making it seem as if the entire controversy was a mere misunderstanding:

The Committee members believe that it is unfortunate that our  recommendation has been misunderstood by some members of the UP community. Our recommendation does not derive from any disregard for the value of the three programs in question nor from any sense that these programs are less important than the other three UP programs, Science, Medicine & Research; Engineering & Design; and International Studies & Business. Rather, our recommendation emanates solely from our responsibilities to the District community as a whole. We understand that one of the primary roles of the Board is to make choices among competing interests. This requires that we evaluate these interests for the best outcome for the entire community.

(Board of Education “Open Letter” )

A simple and acceptable level of semantical interpretation shows that the Board wants to make it seem as if they are the victim in this situation. The Board claims that their decision does not mean to disrespect the programs themselves, but simply tries to ensure that the needs of all students are met. I find it hard to believe this when the Board presented no solution to remedy the program’s to low enrollment numbers, but rather decided that the only option was to end it. If the body did in fact care about the programs themselves, it only seems logical that they would meet with teachers, parents, and students to figure out how enrollment numbers could be increased. But once again, the Board runs the school much like a Board of Investors in a large corporation. To a person like Ira Belsky, students are emotionless automatons who have only one purpose: to earn high scores on state standardized tests. 

From a more personal perspective, the termination of the Theatre Arts & Communications University Program at Ramapo is not only insulting to students, parents, and teachers—as they are beginning to feel increasingly marginalized—but also to the work of a passionate and dedicated man named Harry K. Berkheiser. I did not have the honor of meeting Mr. Berkheiser before he passed away some years ago, but I have heard countless stories and pleasant tales about the man. All of these memories discuss how passionate and dedicated the man was. He was the true mastermind behind the incredibly unique Theatre Arts & Communications University Program. It was thanks to his work that Ramapo became known throughout the region for its unmatched program. In fact, if it was not for Mr. Berkheiser’s work, it seems safe to say that many Ramapo alumni who graduated from the University Program would have never gotten the jobs they currently have. Indeed, many graduates of the Communications University Program eagerly correspond with past teachers, highlighting the importance of the skills acquired from their time as students. Yet, the Board seems to disregard the work of this compassionate man. They would much rather write it off as too costly, and affectively stomp all over his legacy. For this, Board members should feel awful. 

Another disturbing element of the Board’s decision to terminate the program’s is the very clear lack of planning as to how the programs will be slowly dismantled. Superintendent Dr. C. Lauren Schoen has been less the helpful in answering even the most basic of questions. It is almost disturbing to think that the Board would end the programs without establishing a clear plan of future action. When asked about the particulars of the presumed open UP electives, Schoen simply responded with a typical “Well, that’s a good question. I’ll look into that.”, type response. Let me make it clear that such a response is in no way appropriate given the circumstances. Teachers, parents, and students should be getting highly detailed information as to how the programs will proceed. So far, the only thing that is certain is that current UP students will be able to finish their program as promised ; however, other details are still up in the air. In a very general sense, the Board neglected their due diligence by failing to outline a plan as to how things should proceed. At this point, I certainly hope the reader is asking him or herself one very important question: What is the point of a “Board of Education” when it fails to fulfill even the most basic of obligations? This question has been baffling me since I attended the much publicized September 27 meeting  of the Board some months ago. At the meeting, numerous parents and students(myself included) spoke out against the Board’s rash decision. Yet, member’s like Ira Belsky simply sat with blank expressions, fidgeting with pens and paper, wondering if he could shut opposers up by ignoring them. It is very disturbing to think that our schools are managed by executives who only comprehend entries on a spreadsheet, and have no understanding of students. In a sense, they have become so desensitized and bored by their humdrum life, that they can no longer respond to emotional stimulus. All of this is highly disturbing to someone who cares.  

Additionally, the Board had failed to investigate the possible consequences of opening up the former University Program as ordinary electives.With thousands of dollars worth of specialized equipment, it seems logical to assume that students without proper training would cause considerable damage by mere accident, or perhaps due to horseplay. Members of the Communications University Program were required to undergo extensive training regarding safe operation of the equipment. Even with this training, equipment would occasionally get damaged due to an accident. Untrained students wandering into the Television studio, or into the Editing Suite, are bound to have many more accidents. Logic tells us that the number of accidents—and in turn damage—occurring will increase considerably with students who lack the proper pre-requisites. Furthermore, the high standards of excellency and rigor that made the program so well respected will decline. Open electives inevitably tend to attract a less dedicated crowd. Some students might see “Broadcasting Studies” on a list of electives and choose it because they expect it to be very little work—a quick and easy “A”.  The overall sense of community that has been so essential to the Theatre Arts & Communications programs at Ramapo will most certainly be destroyed. Arbitrarily scheduled elective classes will not allow for a “family” feel that has been essential to the operation of the programs. The very notation of a cumulative curriculum—one that builds on each year’s experience—will be terminated in favor of a non-linear series of electives. All of these reasons highlight the negative implications of dismantling the Communications & Theatre Arts University Programs, but the Board has never once voiced any concern about the issues outlined above. 

Throughout this entire process, it seems that the students have gotten the short end of the stick. Speaking for my fellow classmates, I can affirm that we have be repeatedly ignored by the Board of Education. At no point were students asked, or even confronted, regarding their opinion of the Board’s decision. Information was hidden from students in an attempt to hamper any chance of mass opposition. Indeed, the Board was clever in how they executed the diabolical process. This is why the September 27 meeting was such a breath of fresh air ; students joined together to oppose the Board, despite their efforts to quiet any such opposition. Even Ira Belsky must acknowledge the extreme dedication showcased by students who voiced their opinions to the Board. Granted, many of these suggestions and opinions were flat out ignored, as students preached to deaf ears, but they were nonetheless honorable. I would go so far as to say that the Board should send a personalized letter out to students who fought to oppose the Board’s decision. After all, one of the main goals of the public school system is to turn students into outstanding members of their communities—to be informed and responsible individuals. From what I can gather, the passionate opposition among students demonstrated all of these qualities. But it is a pity that Ira Belsky, Wayne Peterson, Jane Castor, Jeff Brown, Dr. Lynn Budd, Thomas Bunting, Robert  Gebhard, Elizabeth Pierce,and Sadie Quinlan simply do not care. They are happy with their Excel spreadsheets and would much rather go on assuming that students are mere widgets without any capacity for emotion or contrarian thought. Perhaps it is time that we review the actions of the Board and elect passionate people who actually care, rather than numb, depressing executives. 

* At no point did the Board of Education produce a document that set guidelines for minimum enrollment numbers. Therefore, one can assume that the numbers were decided upon after the fact, as a way of adding to the Board’s crusade.