args

Schools need music classes or other art classes and they should not be cut.

Music and art programs have some of the highest cost per pupils, which strains the budgets of school districts. Not only are there significant financial costs, but these programs also distract school districts from offering courses that are necessary for national economic advancement and self-sufficiency such as the sciences, mathematics, engineering, and technology classes. School districts also have the opportunity to offer art and music programs through private/public partnerships or through after-school and extracurricular activities Therefore, schools should have the option to fully or partially cut funding for music and art programs that are currently part of a school’s curriculum. It is apparent that, as some school districts face financial insolvency, music and art programs are the first to be defunded or cut back from existing budgets. These programs are typically resource intensive as they require not only teacher salaries, but incur significant facility, equipment, and travel costs. For example, instrumental music programs require the purchase of instruments such as pianos, drums, woodwinds, brass, and string instruments. Instrumental curricula, like this, requires the storage of these instruments, the purchase of sheet music, and a facility that will prevent significant disturbance to other academic courses such as history, literature, or algebra. In 1996, analyst David Monk determined that courses in foreign language, music, and scientific instruction incurred the highest per-pupil expenditures among six different New York high schools. This excluded special education funding. Music and art education programs have had some of the lowest enrollments in their classes, thus increasing the cost of per-pupil expenditures on these programs. The largest share of school district expense is teacher compensation, which includes ever-increasing salaries and rising health care costs that are placing crippling burdens on the budgets of school districts. Thus, these programs place a large burden on school budgets. Elective courses such as music and art also have an impact on the ability of schools to offer critical courses that will directly affect earnings outcomes for students such as classes in technology and computer science, natural and health sciences, engineering, and mathematics. According to an investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Science Education and Research, the United States economy is in volatile flux and continues to shift to an economy with an increasing reliance on technological innovation and proficiency, information management, and service. Thus, the need to be technologically proficient will be a universal economic need of all high school graduates. Students, as a result, will need more instructional hours in these courses. Furthermore, I do not contend that music and art programs lack any inherent value nor lack educational worth or benefit. Art and music programs, rather, can be achieved through various programs including partnerships with private non-profit music and art organizations or hiring after-school/extracurricular music instructors that do not place a heavy demand on salaries. A 1995 report from the U.S. Department of Education had shown that 98.7% of seniors from less affluent schools reported that extracurricular arts opportunities were available to them. It is very possible to make participation in arts programs viable with a combination of these strategies that place less stress on budgets and less stress on the academic curriculum. In rebuttal to my opponent, the author for the position that schools should not cut funding suggests that doing so would deny students the ability to relieve academic pressure and relax and have fun. First, there are a number of activities and programs that may help students achieve the relief of academic pressure including dedicated lunch times and/or recess, which do not require the presence of music or art programs. Additionally, the relief of academic pressure is not as important of a factor that a school board should consider when it questions whether it should preserve the arts curriculum or not. As previously stated, the ability to substitute a program, the cost of a program, and the relative economic impact of a program should be prevailing factors in the consideration of its preservation or abandonment from the academic curriculum. More specifically in schools with significant low-income populations, there has been significant evidence that private-public partnerships have worked with students who live in lower socio-economic circumstances. Additionally, lower-income communities would most want to manage costs to the school district while finding strategies to provide the greatest amount of access to music and arts programs. Often, low-income communities pay more property taxes than more affluent school districts, since school district expenditures are often uniform among various districts. This means that more residents must pay more taxes to maintain the basic level of functioning in the school district, which requires a larger portion of their income than wealthier school districts. Therefore, music and art programs may not be financially feasible for these neighborhoods. http://nces.ed.gov... http://educationnext.org... http://www.sfasu.edu... http://online.wsj.com... http://science.house.gov...