While setting out to investigate the school legend of “budget cuts,” I’ll be the first to admit that the editorial board broke the cardinal rule of journalism: beginning the article with preconceived notions. In systems of power, it is easy to resort to the vilification of those wielding the knife, or, in this case, immediately point fingers at our school’s administration. However, this way of thinking fails to understand the nuances of the funding cuts, or in the preferred term, funding “redirections.”

To plainly answer the question of whether certain departments and activities are to see funding changes in the next academic year: yes. It is a given that any multifaceted institution, with a considerable number of variables, such as our school, is bound to face some funding shifts. This, however, does not reflect the state of Taipei American School’s (TAS) overall budget, which has increased by 86 million New Taiwan Dollars (NTD) from the last fiscal year. The apparent disconnect between certain departments’ budgets and the schoolwide budget can be traced back to the school’s burgeoning “15-year plan.”

Though the “15-year plan” seems good on paper, paving the way for its financing will undoubtedly require the shaving of what the school’s Chief Operating Officer (CFO), Dr. Gygax, dubbed the “fat” of our school. Now this begs the true question of what exactly the “fat” is?

Dr. Gygax described the school’s finances as three distinct categories: “Mission Critical,” “Should Have” and “Nice to Have.” The first of which focuses on essential operating costs, such as the electrical bill and payroll. The next category is allocating funds to the activities that maintain our school’s level of prestige. If the first two are the “muscle” of the school, the latter would be relegated to the “fat” category.

Applying this theory to the Upper School, if the Upper School were a cow, the most brawny muscles would be high-enrollment, resource-heavy departments. “Robotics requires a bit more money because robotics…has materials that need to be used. There’s the same thing with art,” Upper School Principal Ms. Read said, “whereas, for example, a history class tends to go through fewer materials just because they’re not what we call ‘consumables.’” Hence, programs that do not require costly equipment or the constant resupplying of materials would be the “un-consumables.”

Whether or not the budget changes span across all the departments of the school, including even the “muscle,” the act of shaving off any amount from the already relatively small budgets of the “un-consuming” departments is counterintuitive. For though it may seem as if removing a few thousand NTDs here and there has no means to cause real harm, the changes can be severe upon closer look.

Our journalism program, for example, has a fraction of the membership of the larger robotics or debate programs. Despite a growing number of student enrollments from previous years, from just eight students in 2023 to more than 20 in 2025, the funds allocated to us have seen an annual decrease. The amount of money removed from our budget may seem insignificant when placed in the grand context of the “15-year plan.” To us, however, it means that we have to concede on the number of newspaper editions we can afford to print or the new equipment we could afford to purchase.

With long-term planning inevitably comes some form of sacrifice. The administration’s “15-year plan” is not a ‘white elephant,’ and I believe it will truly usher in a new era of TAS prestige. The issue, however, arises with the oversimplification of what is essential and what is expendable. If the majority of funds are reserved for these “Mission Critical” and “Should Have” programs, then it would be expected that these are the programs that continue to grow and expand, while the “fat” and the “un-consumables” stay stagnant.

If the school were truly a cow, stripping it of all its fat would leave it emaciated and lifeless. The fat is needed to provide flavor and cushioning, or in our case, these lesser-financed programs allow students to have a more well-rounded and personalized education.