| Author | Message | ||
     J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2141 Registered: 3-2003 |
The following letter was sent to the News Record but was not published: March 22, 2005 To the Editor, On January 17, the undersigned sent to the members of the Board of Education an eight-page letter entitled, “Toward a Swift Resolution of the 2004 Music Controversy,” a copy of which may now be viewed at http://TASR.blogspot.com. The letter was signed by 105 citizens of Maplewood and South Orange. It called for the Board to rewrite policy 2270 (“Religion in the Schools”), particularly section B.4.a., which can only be understood in a way that honors the inclusive and tolerant spirit of this community if particular emphasis is read into the word “programs”: B.4.a. “Music programs prepared or presented by student groups as an outcome of the curriculum shall not have a religious orientation or focus on religious holidays.” We suggested this language be changed to read, “Taken as a whole, music programs prepared or presented by student groups as an outcome of the curriculum shall not have a particular religious orientation or focus disproportionately on any religious holiday[ ].” In addition to providing explicit rationales for a change in this direction, we urged the BOE not to expect the district administration to define the intent of current policy, which has already proven so problematic as to have provoked both complaints when it was not enforced and a lawsuit against the school district once it was. We received no response to our letter from the majority of the Board for almost a month. David Frazer, however, replied promptly and at length, saying he doubted our assertion that holiday concerts could be balanced to include secular works and works referring to multiple religious holidays, unless such concerts were not held in December. Apparently unpersuaded by our argument that the celebratory aspect of holiday music would not equate to religious observance in the context of a well balanced December program, Mr. Frazer opined that “There really is no other religious holiday around Christmas that even approaches it in significance. ‘Balancing’ it with Hanukkah or Kwanzaa, which is not even religious, is in some sense an exercise in mis-education.” Regarding whether an absence of lyrics in a Christmas carol made it less objectionable, he said, “In the context of a holiday concert, I don’t see how instrumental versions of these songs are not celebrating the religious holiday.” Robert Little responded differently. He had written in the News Record, early in the development of the controversy, that district policy should be read to prohibit “religious performances, not…each and every [religious] song.” In other words, he believed existing policy could be understood to mean more or less what we proposed as an alteration, above, and that the policy therefore required another reinterpretation, but not revision. However, Little has since changed his mind. On February 14, our group wrote to the BOE to request from every member a response to our January 17 letter. Little’s reply was favorable, and ultimately included a copy of the following correspondence addressed to members of the administration tasked with writing regulations to 2270: “In rethinking this, I realize it is unacceptable to have a policy susceptible to two opposite interpretations. Such a text gives insufficient guidance to the Administration to write regulations. Therefore, were it up to me, we would redraft that portion of Policy 2270 which gave rise to the 04-05 interpretation. … In summary, an amended Policy 2270 B.4 would make the intent of the policy intelligible to the public and avoid the ambiguity that gave rise to the two interpretations.” Other Board members responding in support of our proposal included Lynne Crawford—“I like your suggestion”—and Rowland Bennett. Bennett said he thought most people believed “the best thing for our community would be multicultural concerts as exactly the way to ‘foster mutual understanding and respect,’ wherein an explicit Christmas number is appropriate along with selections from other religious traditions … as well as secular, seasonal and non-seasonal numbers in a well-rounded program. Thus, taken as a whole, such a concert would not be a Christmas concert nor “celebrate” any particular religion. … [S]ince lack of clarity in the current wording has resulted in a mess that has annoyed, angered and alienated the public and brought harm to our district, it is incumbent on the Board to revisit the document.” We also received replies from the remaining members of the Board, except for Gregg Betheil. Steve Latz’s response included a list of questions, inquiries into our motives, a description of his time limitations, and a request that the 100+ people who had signed our letter respond to his queries before he responded to ours. He did not, in the end, provide us an answer concerning whether he might support our proposed revision to policy; however, based on the tenor of his remarks, we assume he would vigorously oppose it. Mila Jasey, Brian O’Leary, and Mark Miller, now incumbents running for re-election, all advised us that they found existing policy suitable, but were awaiting clarification from the administration. Mr. Miller told us, “I do not feel the need to change the Policy 2270. I do look forward to the articulation of guidelines and practices that reflect more flexibility.” He added that he believed “great works of art can and should be part of the curriculum,” but he apparently saw no contradiction between this conviction and the text of the existing policy. Ms. Jasey said, “I support the present policy and regret that the lack of regulations to clarify it has resulted in the situation we now find ourselves in. I want to read and consider the regulations recommended by the Administration (based on review of other districts' policies and input from our staff). If, during the course of a public board discussion and based on input from staff and community members, it is determined that revision of the current policy is needed, I will be open to that.” Mr. O’Leary said, “The administration is working on regulations, and I continue to feel that this is the correct approach. I would not favor an effort to change policy without hearing from them first.” We remain at a loss as to why more than half the BOE continues to await guidelines from the administration to a policy which, as Mr. Little observes, can be read in opposite ways. Surely public accountability requires that responsibility for establishing reasonably unambiguous school district policy falls to the school board, not its employees. Considerable administrative, staff, and legal input already has been registered with the BOE. We do not believe it is acceptable at this point for interpretation of Policy 2270 to be delegated to people other than those elected and entrusted to write it—especially since the administration’s new regulations are expected to take effect without a Board vote. In light of the upcoming BOE election, therefore, we urge citizens to ask both incumbents and challengers what they think about these issues. In particular, it should be asked of Board members exactly which interpretation of policy they now expect the administration to devise. We cannot agree with Mr. Frazer’s advice that “if you attend or view the board meetings, you will get more than your fill of every board member's position on this issue.” It is now mid-March and no BOE meeting agenda has yet included a discussion of the music policy, despite our understanding that such a discussion would take place this month. Now, because the time for voting is almost upon us, the time for waiting patiently for clarifications and disclosure of positions is over. And so we have presented here our best understanding of the Board’s summary views so that citizens may contemplate them and query incumbents directly in advance of this and subsequent elections. In addition to our original letter, the texts of Board member responses will be posted at http://TASR.blogspot.com, along with statements from all candidates for school board election, as their remarks are submitted to us. Sincerely, Jennifer Crohn Patty Brown-Christenson Mary Beth Goff Jacqueline Murphy Andrea Marino | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 3610 Registered: 5-2001  |
jennifer- great info here and on the blogspot. I am very frustrated by Brian Oleary's response, or lack thereof, to this issue. I like Brian and think he is a very good BOE moderator. It is a bit confusing why he is ignoring the public (and ignoring the very excellent letter signed by over 100 community members) and going with the pat response of "if the music has 'curricular value' as proved by the music teacher, then it is okay." | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2211 Registered: 3-2003 |
Thanks for reading, Ffof. We're frustrated too, and have been since discussing the issue with Brian by phone in early January. He seems convinced that a tautological position (performances must be determined by curriculum content, which is determined by what can't be performed) makes perfect sense. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 6484 Registered: 1-2003  |
Now what? I've been trying to keep my mouth shut about this issue and haven't fully succeeded. Looking back at those months, I realize there was a bigger difference between me and a bunch of other people who also opposed "the ban". The difference is that they wanted recognition of religions and culture, and I merely wanted a proper music curriculum. I suppose they go hand in hand, but it's a matter of which we emphasize. |
