args

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

Refutations to Con's Arguments: "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." Con argues that music programs are significant financial costs but this is just a matter that differs from district to district. In some districts they spent less per pupil on core courses like math, reading, etc... but in others they actually spent more per pupil for these courses and less for non core courses or electives. On http://educationnext.org... in figure one they break down the costs for courses in a district. The break down shows that less money is spent on core courses but the electives are bundled into one cost. So for ALL electives it costs more per pupil not just music, or art, or one non core course separately. If the district were to break down those non core courses separately they may be less than some of the core courses. Con also argues that science, mathematics, engineering and technology classes are for national economic advancement and self sufficiency. This may be true, these courses can be very good for younger students with the hopes to improve our economy in the future and they do teach skills that can be very useful in the future, but not all students are going to need these courses. Not every student grows up and goes to college to be an engineering major or a biology major, some students will sit through these math and science courses and never use those lessons or skills for the rest of their lives. I guess you could say the same for music and art, that most students wont continue with those courses, but at least music and art also introduce students to culture, which is something everyone could use a little bit of. "These courses are typically resource intensive as they require not only teacher salaries, but incur significant facility, equipment, and travel costs" Con argues that these music courses involve a lot of equipment that the district has to purchase. This once again is an argument that differs among district. I myself attended a district where most of the instruments were privately owned or rented by students, there were some donated instruments that the school owned for some students to borrow but most of the instruments were not purchased by the district, yet the program was still in jeopardy. Most of these programs fundraise to pay for the equipment, the money for the equipment comes directly from within the program or from business that are willing to donate. So some districts do not even pay for the equipment. What the district does pay for is the teacher salary, but in most districts there is only one maybe two teachers for these courses where there are more teachers for core courses like reading or math. Con adds on to his argument that there are "travel costs". What travel costs not all schools non core courses go on trips or go anywhere and if they do the district isn't paying for all of it, normally when students go on trips they pay for their ticket or for where ever they are going, I can't remember a trip I ever went on where the district paid for all of transportation and for the actual trip. Where are these students traveling? Music and art classes are like any other class, they don't have to leave the classroom. "Art and music programs, rather can be achieved through various programs including partnerships with private non-private non-profit music and art organizations or hiring after school/extracurricular music instructors that do not place heavy demand on salaries" Cons arguments are not in fully cutting music programs, this argument suggests that they keep the programs or make new ones that are after school, they aren't fully against my argument that music and art programs should not be cut. If schools are so strapped that they can not have a music program or art classes or in some cases even sports teams, how are they going to hire after school staff to run these programs. Yes the salary may be less for an after school staff member but if some schools can't afford some of these programs during the day or can't afford coaches for sports teams after school, how are they going to pay for these after school salaries. Even if the programs are moved to after school and the salaries for these teachers are less, there still needs to be certain equipment like crayons, paper, instruments etc... So this reason con gives does not solve the problem in his previous argument. "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." Con makes a good point by saying that school boards should consider the cost, and relative economic impact of the program; but one thing he forgot to mention was that the board should consider the students. Why should they cut music and arts programs and keep other things. In a study it has been proven that music calms, relaxes and stimulates parts of the brain we don't normally use. The arts like music, acting, and art are all career paths and without them in the schools there may be less students introduced to it, and less opportunities for students that may want to go into that career path. My arguments: Music has been proven to increase test scores, mainly in math but also in reading. There is a connection between music and how we learn. In an analysis of US Department of education data on more than 25,000 high school students, researchers found that students who were highly involved in music programs throughout middle school and elementary school showed higher levels of mathematics proficiency by grade 12; proving that those involved in music vs those who are not is more significant over time. Not only in math did students who were in music programs succeed but also in other subjects like language. Both music and language are processed in the same part of the brain and they both share similar patterns and structure. Those students involved in music programs often times develop a greater language capacity. Other studies also prove that student involves in music programs score higher on the SATs in both math and language. Without music classes, or without even the option of a music class could possibly affect the success of some students. If students aren't introduced to music and the arts in earlier years because the programs are being cut then they may not be as successful other core courses. Other sources: http://www.winmentalhealth.com... http://educationnext.org...