Public School Arts Argumentative Essay
America’s public schools are woefully underfunded. As state legislatures around the nation focus on reducing spendings, education spending is often the first to go. And when these public schools are confronted with a dramatically smaller budget, art programs get the axe. As the Chicago Sun-Times report in 2013, Chicago Public Schools laid off over 1,000 teachers when they made the decision to close over 50 schools. Nearly ten percent of these teachers taught in the arts or music. As ThinkProgress writes, this is a national phenomenon-- Philadelphia, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles are all cutting their public school arts funding in order to cope with budget shortfalls. In fact, the government is offering so little support for the arts that the private organizations are having to fill the gap. This low funding is a national catastrophe that has the potential to lead to the decline of American culture and education.
There has been a great debate whether or not the arts should be funded by the government. Opponents believe the money spent on art programs is being wasted. Many believe that the arts, whether it is a career or hobby, do not directly benefit the country. On the contrary, others conclude that a …show more content…
sense of culture and creativity is being diminished without these programs.
In addition to declining school funds, federal funds are being lost as well. President Obama has taken the money for the arts and put them into programs that cover health education, financial literacy, foreign language, and physical education. Although President Obama has recently added funds back to the National Endowment for the Arts and the Kennedy Center, the program for Art in Education was cut because of a lack of funding. Government funding is not centered around education, as it used to be.
Why fund the arts? Asking why we should fund the arts is like asking whether or not people want to be successful in life. The arts allow people to take what they have learned and transform it into ways that can push them through life. The arts teach skills in expression, creativity, diversity, exploration, and the human experience. If these skills are acquired at a young age, they will most likely continue to carry on. Creativity allows for a great sense of individuality, to have each and every student be who they want to be. Being able to express one’s self is a privilege that is difficult to come by, yet has become a necessity to move forward in life and school. According to the Education Fund, a public education think tank, teachers have proved that the art programs in their schools have brought a new level of creativity to the field. It has allowed for the children to find themselves and figure out what they desire out of life. It has been shown that through the arts children have channeled other thoughts and feelings into their art, creating a network that allows them to focus.
There has been a lot of discussion on the campaign trail about the need to provide a free college education for everyone. There is even a quote that has been making its way around the Internet. “The cure for cancer could be in the mind of someone who can’t afford and education”. We can take that a step further and say how do we know if we are missing out on the next, Van Gogh, Beethoven, Mark Twain or even Steven Spielberg. If these cultural giants were never inspired to pursue their dreams with arts education at a young age, we would live in a boring world. Government funding for the arts is and always will be a polarizing topic. Proponents say it makes communities more vibrant and desirable. It promotes tourism. It puts people to work. It can even enhance property values. Opponents bring up such arguments like, they will survive on their own without the funds. They argue that it promotes pornography, and that it discourages other charitable gifts to the arts. They believe that people will think that if the Government supports the arts then why should I? But the question is not really about should there be funding for the arts, but where should the funding be coming from? Should funding be coming from the Government or should it come from the private sector? Why can’t it come from both? Why can’t government, on the local, state and federal level provide funding for the arts in all public schools? In fact, this topic is frequently a topic that Hollywood takes on with such great films as “Mr. Hollund’s Opus” which shows just how impactful a music teacher’s lessons are on this students or “Music of the Heart” which tells the true story of a school teachers struggle to teach violin to inner city students in Harlem, New York. Research confirms that there is positive relationship between arts education and academic success with better grades, higher IQ’s and increased standardized test scores. Additionally, the arts helps those students from both economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds achieve a better education and increase the likelihood that they will go on further their education after high school. Why can’t the public sector, through donations, sponsorships and fundraising efforts take on the responsibility for their respective communities to make sure music, art, dance and literature are showcased and highlighted for their citizens? Every city has prominent and successful business that should be encouraged to give back to the very community that has made them so successful. Corporate sponsorship of venues, exhibits and events not only provides the public with the opportunity to be exposed to art, literature and music, but also promotes that very business that provides the sponsorship. Each year the “public funding” debate rears it’s ugly head when congress tries to come up with the nation’s budget.
The National Endowment for Arts” seems to be the lightning rod when congress wants to find an organization on whose budget to cut. According to The NEA or The National Endowment for the Arts, it is an independent federal agency that funds, promotes, and strengthens the creative capacity of our communities by providing all Americans with diverse opportunities for arts participation. The NEA works with more than 20 other federal agencies, state and local governments, state and regional arts agencies, and private nonprofits on projects that provide opportunities for thousands of Americans to experience quality arts programming throughout the
country. The crazy part is the NEA only accounts for one one-hundredth of federal discretionary spending and that just $1 dollar in NEA grants garner another $9 in additional monies from both other public funds and private sections. So the question should be is benefit of cutting one one-hundredth the Federal budget worth the huge cost of not having a programming supporting the arts in this country? One of the most public arguments on public funding was given center stage a few years ago during the 2012 Presidential debates. The candidates were discussing the budget and the subject of funding for Public Television was raised. Specifically, on what the candidates’ budget cuts would do to Big Bird and Sesame Street was pretty vocal that although he loved Big Bird he was not about to borrow money from China to pay for his yellow feathers. Fast forward a few years and Sesame Street has packed up their Muppets and garbage cans and moved from the very expensive real estate of 123 Sesame Street on free public television over to 123 Sesame Street at the headquarters of the pay TV service of HBO. Now, only those that pay to subscribe to HBO will be able to watch the first runs of Sesame Street. The good news is that those brand new episodes will be available for free a mere nine months later. I also doubt that the very kids who watch Sesame Street will know the difference between a first run episode and a repeat. From what I understand, I certainly didn’t know which Barney episodes were new, but I’m pretty sure my parents did.
Now the move to HBO can’t be blamed entirely on the money that was cut from Corporation for Public Broadcasting. A lot can be blamed on the dwindling demand for DVD’s and the explosive growth of the “I” devices that capture the imaginations of our kids and the quantity of children’s shows on TV. When Sesame first premiered there were only two shows geared to children, Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers. Now there are 96 and counting. As the arts go without funding, there’s an important section in education being ignored. The arts provide a type of learning that can help children express themselves in ways never thought of before. There are firm believers in both sections of the argument, to or to not fund the arts. It seems as if the pros outweigh the cons. A solution to try and please everyone is to give more control to local and state levels. With more control within the state, hearing the voices of the citizens becomes easier. Whatever it takes to get the arts funded, is what is necessary.
As the world becomes globalized, people need to learn to stand out amongst a crowd. There are a myriad of ways to improve the way society looks at one another, take back labels and show a sense of individuality. While funding the arts in schools allows children to express themselves at a young age, they learn to carry their accomplishments with them. With advancement in life, experiences come along as well, being able to apply what the arts in new aspects of life. I hope to find further research on this topic, and hopefully, a change in attitude towards the way the arts are funded. In time, people should take the aspects of the arts and what they accomplish into consideration, and set a goal toward getting these programs the funds they deserve.
There has been a great debate whether or not the arts should be funded by the government. Opponents believe the money spent on art programs is being wasted. Many believe that the arts, whether it is a career or hobby, do not directly benefit the country. On the contrary, others conclude that a …show more content…
sense of culture and creativity is being diminished without these programs.
In addition to declining school funds, federal funds are being lost as well. President Obama has taken the money for the arts and put them into programs that cover health education, financial literacy, foreign language, and physical education. Although President Obama has recently added funds back to the National Endowment for the Arts and the Kennedy Center, the program for Art in Education was cut because of a lack of funding. Government funding is not centered around education, as it used to be.
Why fund the arts? Asking why we should fund the arts is like asking whether or not people want to be successful in life. The arts allow people to take what they have learned and transform it into ways that can push them through life. The arts teach skills in expression, creativity, diversity, exploration, and the human experience. If these skills are acquired at a young age, they will most likely continue to carry on. Creativity allows for a great sense of individuality, to have each and every student be who they want to be. Being able to express one’s self is a privilege that is difficult to come by, yet has become a necessity to move forward in life and school. According to the Education Fund, a public education think tank, teachers have proved that the art programs in their schools have brought a new level of creativity to the field. It has allowed for the children to find themselves and figure out what they desire out of life. It has been shown that through the arts children have channeled other thoughts and feelings into their art, creating a network that allows them to focus.
There has been a lot of discussion on the campaign trail about the need to provide a free college education for everyone. There is even a quote that has been making its way around the Internet. “The cure for cancer could be in the mind of someone who can’t afford and education”. We can take that a step further and say how do we know if we are missing out on the next, Van Gogh, Beethoven, Mark Twain or even Steven Spielberg. If these cultural giants were never inspired to pursue their dreams with arts education at a young age, we would live in a boring world. Government funding for the arts is and always will be a polarizing topic. Proponents say it makes communities more vibrant and desirable. It promotes tourism. It puts people to work. It can even enhance property values. Opponents bring up such arguments like, they will survive on their own without the funds. They argue that it promotes pornography, and that it discourages other charitable gifts to the arts. They believe that people will think that if the Government supports the arts then why should I? But the question is not really about should there be funding for the arts, but where should the funding be coming from? Should funding be coming from the Government or should it come from the private sector? Why can’t it come from both? Why can’t government, on the local, state and federal level provide funding for the arts in all public schools? In fact, this topic is frequently a topic that Hollywood takes on with such great films as “Mr. Hollund’s Opus” which shows just how impactful a music teacher’s lessons are on this students or “Music of the Heart” which tells the true story of a school teachers struggle to teach violin to inner city students in Harlem, New York. Research confirms that there is positive relationship between arts education and academic success with better grades, higher IQ’s and increased standardized test scores. Additionally, the arts helps those students from both economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds achieve a better education and increase the likelihood that they will go on further their education after high school. Why can’t the public sector, through donations, sponsorships and fundraising efforts take on the responsibility for their respective communities to make sure music, art, dance and literature are showcased and highlighted for their citizens? Every city has prominent and successful business that should be encouraged to give back to the very community that has made them so successful. Corporate sponsorship of venues, exhibits and events not only provides the public with the opportunity to be exposed to art, literature and music, but also promotes that very business that provides the sponsorship. Each year the “public funding” debate rears it’s ugly head when congress tries to come up with the nation’s budget.
The National Endowment for Arts” seems to be the lightning rod when congress wants to find an organization on whose budget to cut. According to The NEA or The National Endowment for the Arts, it is an independent federal agency that funds, promotes, and strengthens the creative capacity of our communities by providing all Americans with diverse opportunities for arts participation. The NEA works with more than 20 other federal agencies, state and local governments, state and regional arts agencies, and private nonprofits on projects that provide opportunities for thousands of Americans to experience quality arts programming throughout the
country. The crazy part is the NEA only accounts for one one-hundredth of federal discretionary spending and that just $1 dollar in NEA grants garner another $9 in additional monies from both other public funds and private sections. So the question should be is benefit of cutting one one-hundredth the Federal budget worth the huge cost of not having a programming supporting the arts in this country? One of the most public arguments on public funding was given center stage a few years ago during the 2012 Presidential debates. The candidates were discussing the budget and the subject of funding for Public Television was raised. Specifically, on what the candidates’ budget cuts would do to Big Bird and Sesame Street was pretty vocal that although he loved Big Bird he was not about to borrow money from China to pay for his yellow feathers. Fast forward a few years and Sesame Street has packed up their Muppets and garbage cans and moved from the very expensive real estate of 123 Sesame Street on free public television over to 123 Sesame Street at the headquarters of the pay TV service of HBO. Now, only those that pay to subscribe to HBO will be able to watch the first runs of Sesame Street. The good news is that those brand new episodes will be available for free a mere nine months later. I also doubt that the very kids who watch Sesame Street will know the difference between a first run episode and a repeat. From what I understand, I certainly didn’t know which Barney episodes were new, but I’m pretty sure my parents did.
Now the move to HBO can’t be blamed entirely on the money that was cut from Corporation for Public Broadcasting. A lot can be blamed on the dwindling demand for DVD’s and the explosive growth of the “I” devices that capture the imaginations of our kids and the quantity of children’s shows on TV. When Sesame first premiered there were only two shows geared to children, Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers. Now there are 96 and counting. As the arts go without funding, there’s an important section in education being ignored. The arts provide a type of learning that can help children express themselves in ways never thought of before. There are firm believers in both sections of the argument, to or to not fund the arts. It seems as if the pros outweigh the cons. A solution to try and please everyone is to give more control to local and state levels. With more control within the state, hearing the voices of the citizens becomes easier. Whatever it takes to get the arts funded, is what is necessary.
As the world becomes globalized, people need to learn to stand out amongst a crowd. There are a myriad of ways to improve the way society looks at one another, take back labels and show a sense of individuality. While funding the arts in schools allows children to express themselves at a young age, they learn to carry their accomplishments with them. With advancement in life, experiences come along as well, being able to apply what the arts in new aspects of life. I hope to find further research on this topic, and hopefully, a change in attitude towards the way the arts are funded. In time, people should take the aspects of the arts and what they accomplish into consideration, and set a goal toward getting these programs the funds they deserve.