This paper is one that is meant to persuade the reader to agree with the writer. I chose to write this in such a manner that it would inform the readers about the issues, and wouldn't necessarily call them to any sort of action, other than to appose the issue that I argue against. I hope you enjoy.
Support for the Arts
Audience: The intended audiences that this essay is attempting to reach are parents who have children that are still in school. It is also attempting to reach teachers, principals, and other school staff, as well as anyone else who has a stake in America’s education.
The arts are an integral part of our society. We watch actors and actresses perform on television as well as the stage, we listen to all different kinds of music created by all different styles of artists, we even see pieces of art every day. Our politics is even sometimes referred to as “political theater”. So, if the arts are such an important part of our society, why are arts programs being cut from public schools? In a culture that focuses heavily on individuality and personal expression, cutting arts programs and deeming them “unnecessary” doesn’t seem to make much sense. These cuts are the results of recent budget cutbacks in the public education budget. Pennsylvania governor, Tom Corbett, has consistently proposed increasing cuts to the public education budget. This has resulted in schools cutting back on the number of services that they are financially able to provide for their students. These cuts are ultimately going to hurt the students far more than anyone could anticipate. It is for this reason that there should be far more support for increased funding for public education than there currently is in Pennsylvania.
The budget cuts that have been implemented by Governor Corbett don’t make as much sense as he claims that they do. He claimed that he was providing the schools with “level funding” (Burg). However, Governor Corbett’s idea of level funding appears to be cutting a well-funded budget down to a level that threatens, not only how successful the department is at its job, but also the futures of all of the children that go to school in Pennsylvania. Corbett’s cuts caused “seventy percent of schools in the state have increased class sizes” (Burg). This places a tremendous amount of stress on teachers, who now need to handle much larger class sizes. This also means that students will not receive the amount of attention that will help them to learn and excel. Also, “44 percent [of schools] have reduced course offerings, and more than 14,000 positions were cut or left vacant” (Burg). A lack of diversity in the courses offered means that students will be unable to explore their interests. Also, the cutting of positions in schools means that the school will be far less effective than it could be if it was funded properly.
These cuts could have been avoided had Governor Corbett not blocked “a reasonable severance tax on Marcellus Shale…The result: Pennsylvania lost out on hundreds of millions of dollars in potential revenue” (Burg). This demonstrates how low education is in the eyes of politicians. There was a chance to increase revenue flow dramatically, but Governor Corbett decided that cutting existing spending would be better. If he had simply introduced smaller across the board cuts while bringing in new sources of revenue, the public education system wouldn’t be forced to suffer the extreme cuts that it has endured over the past three years.
There have been several studies done as to why the arts are receiving so little support in recent years. One of these studies was conducted by a man named Robert W. Parsons. He conducted his study by interviewing five arts educators at four different universities. He found that “thirty-six percent (9 of 25) of the participants believed that high-stakes testing and accountability to district, state, and federal education standards” (Parsons) were reasons why administrative support for the arts was declining. These participants argue that, the shift in focus towards core academics to improve scores on high-stakes testing has caused a reduced emphasis on the arts in many school districts. In many ways, this is true. The No Child Left Behind act passed by President Bush contributed highly to this development. The act determines how much funding the individual school will receive based on how well it has scored on a few standardized tests. Frankly, this is ridiculous. The notion that, in order to increase test scores, one must dangle money, that the school should be funded anyway, in front of its face. This causes teachers to teach to the test so that they may keep their jobs. In theory, this may seem good; the teachers teach the important stuff and the students learn it. Unfortunately, this is not the case. When students go to take the tests, they simply regurgitate the information that they have “learned” and don’t retain a thing. The kind of focus on the core subjects that is being used now is no longer effective. A new system must be put into place. Yes, the core subjects are called the core subjects for a reason. However, a balanced education would be much more beneficial for a student. An education that contained reading, writing, arithmetic, and art would allow the student to learn important subjects while being able to express themselves and relieve the stress that their other subjects are causing them.
Another theme that Parsons noticed in the interviews was that art classes are not perceived as beneficial by stakeholders. Parsons reports that seven of the participants involved stated this in their interview as a cause of declining emphasis on the arts. He says that one of the participants’ reasons was that “a lack of understanding of the benefits of arts education to students and educational organizations exists among administrators and legislatures” (Parsons). This means that a solution for changing how arts programs are viewed in schools is to present “administrators and legislatures” with evidence, of which there is an abundance, of just how much arts programs positively influence, not only the moods of the students, but also their grades.
Parsons discovered yet another theme among his interviews; several participants discussed how “the arts seem not only less important [to school officials] than core classes, they seem expendable” (Parsons). A reason he gives for this is that arts classes are categorized, not as art classes, but as electives, which are viewed by schools as non-essential classes that students may choose to take if they are available. If art classes were indeed referred to as art classes, the view of them would be more favorable than it currently is. This is because they would now be on the same level as other classes such as geometry or English. This would force school officials to look elsewhere when they are cutting activities and classes that the school can cut to save money, instead of simply defaulting to the art programs.
In schools faced with significant budget cuts, the first things to be cut from the school are usually the arts and music program. For some reason, these programs are viewed as unnecessary and superfluous. However, it is these very programs that provide children with the outlet they need to express themselves. They also give the students the self-confidence that they need to do better in school. In fact, students who participate in the arts are “4 times more likely to be recognized for academic achievement” (National Arts Education). This shows that children who are involved in the arts are more likely to do well in school, than children who are not. Children who participate in the arts are also “3 times more likely to be elected to a class office within their schools” (Burg) and “4 times more likely to participate in a math or science fair” (Burg). This demonstrates how students involved with the arts are more willing to enter competition and engage in activities that they would not normally partake in, had they not begun to participate in the art programs that their schools provide for them. With benefits such as these, the cutting of arts programs no longer seems to hold any sort of merit. Choosing to deny students these benefits is the choice that is made when art programs are cut, and this is a choice that is completely unacceptable by any standards. Denying students, the future of this great nation, the benefits of an art program is an act that may seem like it will save money in the short run, but will ultimately have an adverse effect on future students who are denied an art program. These students would lack adequate outlets with which they are able to express themselves in a safe and supporting environment. A lack of such an environment could lead to students seeking other, less safe or supporting atmospheres within which they could express themselves.
Art, in most every form, has helped to define our society up until this very day. We use art terms to sometimes describe important functions of society, art entertains us every day, and art pieces help to decorate our homes. With such a large presence of art in our modern society, it is a wonder why our schools are being forced to cut their art programs as a result of ridiculous budget cuts. It has been proven that involvement in art programs improves academic performance. So then why do school administrators and officials fail to see how important these programs really are? Until school officials understand exactly how important and beneficial arts programs are to students, things will not reach the levels that will make the education of American students exponentially more successful than it is in its current state.
Works Cited
Burg, Erica. Corbett cuts school districts to the core. The Patriot News. 4/3/2013. Web. 3/30/2013.
National Arts Education Public Awareness Campaign. Americans for the Arts. 8/22/2012. Web. 3/30/2013
Parsons, R. W. (2009). Arts educators' perceptions regarding decreased administrative support for public school arts education: A phenomenological study. University of Phoenix). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 164-n/a. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305126491?accountid=13158. (305126491).
Support for the Arts
Audience: The intended audiences that this essay is attempting to reach are parents who have children that are still in school. It is also attempting to reach teachers, principals, and other school staff, as well as anyone else who has a stake in America’s education.
The arts are an integral part of our society. We watch actors and actresses perform on television as well as the stage, we listen to all different kinds of music created by all different styles of artists, we even see pieces of art every day. Our politics is even sometimes referred to as “political theater”. So, if the arts are such an important part of our society, why are arts programs being cut from public schools? In a culture that focuses heavily on individuality and personal expression, cutting arts programs and deeming them “unnecessary” doesn’t seem to make much sense. These cuts are the results of recent budget cutbacks in the public education budget. Pennsylvania governor, Tom Corbett, has consistently proposed increasing cuts to the public education budget. This has resulted in schools cutting back on the number of services that they are financially able to provide for their students. These cuts are ultimately going to hurt the students far more than anyone could anticipate. It is for this reason that there should be far more support for increased funding for public education than there currently is in Pennsylvania.
The budget cuts that have been implemented by Governor Corbett don’t make as much sense as he claims that they do. He claimed that he was providing the schools with “level funding” (Burg). However, Governor Corbett’s idea of level funding appears to be cutting a well-funded budget down to a level that threatens, not only how successful the department is at its job, but also the futures of all of the children that go to school in Pennsylvania. Corbett’s cuts caused “seventy percent of schools in the state have increased class sizes” (Burg). This places a tremendous amount of stress on teachers, who now need to handle much larger class sizes. This also means that students will not receive the amount of attention that will help them to learn and excel. Also, “44 percent [of schools] have reduced course offerings, and more than 14,000 positions were cut or left vacant” (Burg). A lack of diversity in the courses offered means that students will be unable to explore their interests. Also, the cutting of positions in schools means that the school will be far less effective than it could be if it was funded properly.
These cuts could have been avoided had Governor Corbett not blocked “a reasonable severance tax on Marcellus Shale…The result: Pennsylvania lost out on hundreds of millions of dollars in potential revenue” (Burg). This demonstrates how low education is in the eyes of politicians. There was a chance to increase revenue flow dramatically, but Governor Corbett decided that cutting existing spending would be better. If he had simply introduced smaller across the board cuts while bringing in new sources of revenue, the public education system wouldn’t be forced to suffer the extreme cuts that it has endured over the past three years.
There have been several studies done as to why the arts are receiving so little support in recent years. One of these studies was conducted by a man named Robert W. Parsons. He conducted his study by interviewing five arts educators at four different universities. He found that “thirty-six percent (9 of 25) of the participants believed that high-stakes testing and accountability to district, state, and federal education standards” (Parsons) were reasons why administrative support for the arts was declining. These participants argue that, the shift in focus towards core academics to improve scores on high-stakes testing has caused a reduced emphasis on the arts in many school districts. In many ways, this is true. The No Child Left Behind act passed by President Bush contributed highly to this development. The act determines how much funding the individual school will receive based on how well it has scored on a few standardized tests. Frankly, this is ridiculous. The notion that, in order to increase test scores, one must dangle money, that the school should be funded anyway, in front of its face. This causes teachers to teach to the test so that they may keep their jobs. In theory, this may seem good; the teachers teach the important stuff and the students learn it. Unfortunately, this is not the case. When students go to take the tests, they simply regurgitate the information that they have “learned” and don’t retain a thing. The kind of focus on the core subjects that is being used now is no longer effective. A new system must be put into place. Yes, the core subjects are called the core subjects for a reason. However, a balanced education would be much more beneficial for a student. An education that contained reading, writing, arithmetic, and art would allow the student to learn important subjects while being able to express themselves and relieve the stress that their other subjects are causing them.
Another theme that Parsons noticed in the interviews was that art classes are not perceived as beneficial by stakeholders. Parsons reports that seven of the participants involved stated this in their interview as a cause of declining emphasis on the arts. He says that one of the participants’ reasons was that “a lack of understanding of the benefits of arts education to students and educational organizations exists among administrators and legislatures” (Parsons). This means that a solution for changing how arts programs are viewed in schools is to present “administrators and legislatures” with evidence, of which there is an abundance, of just how much arts programs positively influence, not only the moods of the students, but also their grades.
Parsons discovered yet another theme among his interviews; several participants discussed how “the arts seem not only less important [to school officials] than core classes, they seem expendable” (Parsons). A reason he gives for this is that arts classes are categorized, not as art classes, but as electives, which are viewed by schools as non-essential classes that students may choose to take if they are available. If art classes were indeed referred to as art classes, the view of them would be more favorable than it currently is. This is because they would now be on the same level as other classes such as geometry or English. This would force school officials to look elsewhere when they are cutting activities and classes that the school can cut to save money, instead of simply defaulting to the art programs.
In schools faced with significant budget cuts, the first things to be cut from the school are usually the arts and music program. For some reason, these programs are viewed as unnecessary and superfluous. However, it is these very programs that provide children with the outlet they need to express themselves. They also give the students the self-confidence that they need to do better in school. In fact, students who participate in the arts are “4 times more likely to be recognized for academic achievement” (National Arts Education). This shows that children who are involved in the arts are more likely to do well in school, than children who are not. Children who participate in the arts are also “3 times more likely to be elected to a class office within their schools” (Burg) and “4 times more likely to participate in a math or science fair” (Burg). This demonstrates how students involved with the arts are more willing to enter competition and engage in activities that they would not normally partake in, had they not begun to participate in the art programs that their schools provide for them. With benefits such as these, the cutting of arts programs no longer seems to hold any sort of merit. Choosing to deny students these benefits is the choice that is made when art programs are cut, and this is a choice that is completely unacceptable by any standards. Denying students, the future of this great nation, the benefits of an art program is an act that may seem like it will save money in the short run, but will ultimately have an adverse effect on future students who are denied an art program. These students would lack adequate outlets with which they are able to express themselves in a safe and supporting environment. A lack of such an environment could lead to students seeking other, less safe or supporting atmospheres within which they could express themselves.
Art, in most every form, has helped to define our society up until this very day. We use art terms to sometimes describe important functions of society, art entertains us every day, and art pieces help to decorate our homes. With such a large presence of art in our modern society, it is a wonder why our schools are being forced to cut their art programs as a result of ridiculous budget cuts. It has been proven that involvement in art programs improves academic performance. So then why do school administrators and officials fail to see how important these programs really are? Until school officials understand exactly how important and beneficial arts programs are to students, things will not reach the levels that will make the education of American students exponentially more successful than it is in its current state.
Works Cited
Burg, Erica. Corbett cuts school districts to the core. The Patriot News. 4/3/2013. Web. 3/30/2013.
National Arts Education Public Awareness Campaign. Americans for the Arts. 8/22/2012. Web. 3/30/2013
Parsons, R. W. (2009). Arts educators' perceptions regarding decreased administrative support for public school arts education: A phenomenological study. University of Phoenix). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 164-n/a. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305126491?accountid=13158. (305126491).
RSS Feed