args

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

“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.” My opponent argues that there are some schools which have a higher per-pupil spending on core courses, suggesting that these courses carry more costs and could as easily be a candidate for budget-trimming. The principle of the claim of the pro side in using this evidence is that if a non-core course is cheaper than a core course then it should not be considered for cuts until core courses have. However, reading, writing, and mathematics are important and basic courses that every student needs. These courses are taught to every student, which means a school district will spend more money on these courses so that there are enough classes taught in these subjects. Not every student needs, or is required, to acquire musical and artistic skills to perform and function in the workplace; therefore, it is harder to justify that these are essential courses that a school district must spend money on. “Con also argues that science, mathematics…they do teach skills that can be very useful in the future, but not all students are going to need these courses.“ The pro side writes, “but not all students are going to need these courses.” I disagree. Students are not going to need all (science, mathematics, engineering, and technology) courses. Our national economy has grown profusely around exponential improvements in technology, the expanding utility of information, and the need for more technologically proficient workers. Employers today require that students today have some proficiency in technology. Even basic skills such as performing mail merges, advanced data analysis in spreadsheets, and database management are minimal skills that require technical proficiency among any professional or technical field, including that of the life of an average music teacher. According to a recent Educational Testing Service survey, 61% of opinion leaders and 40% of the general public identified skills in math, technology, and science as the most important ingredients in the nation’s strategy to compete in the global economy. According to a report issued by the Labor Department, many students never make it into the STEM pipeline, because of inadequate preparation in math and science or poor teacher quality in their K-12 systems. Thus, every student will need these courses, which makes it imperative that schools reconsider offering music and arts programs in exchange for more technologically and scientifically focused curricula. “If schools are so strapped that they cannot 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.” The pro side asks, ‘“how are schools going to hire after school staff” if they are so “strapped” that they cannot have a music program or art classes?’ Since both myself and the pro side are engaging evidence from the same website (education next), I will begin there. Pro refers to Figure 1. Let’s look at Figure 2. This figure suggests that non-core teachers, which would include music, art, gym, and foreign languages, are paid roughly $23,000 more in regards to median salary of elective non-core teachers versus core teachers. This was a $5,000 difference according to the average salary figure. However, school districts make financial decisions, not schools. I further my argument that districts may consider cutting back music programs to after-school hours and hire part-time music educators. The median salary of a non-core teacher is $77,800. A district may decide to convert to a part-time position. Let’s say that this salary is $30,000. The school district just saved $47,800 on one teacher. Let’s assume that a small school district has 2 high schools, 3 middle schools, and 6 elementary schools. One music educator works in each institution. Given the figures above, the district would save over one-half million dollars. This example does not factor in such things as itinerant teachers (who travel to more than one school), seniority of teachers, geography and cost of living, and inflation; however, it does illustrate that making even modest cuts in a school district can have a substantial impact on its budget. Pro asserts that my argumentation is circular by establishing what it is I am trying to claim. Pro, for example, writes, “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. So this reason con gives does not solve the problem in his previous argument.” First, the salary of a music educator may be less upon the relocation of a music program as an afterschool would be less. However, an institution has already budgeted a teacher’s salary; therefore, the relocation of an arts program to afterschool would also coincide with the reduction of a teacher’s salary--not the addition of an afterschool teacher’s salary. Secondly, in my previous argument I did not attribute any weight to costs associated with an arts program. I stated, “these programs are typically resource intensive as they require not only teacher salaries, but incur significant facility, equipment, and travel costs.” To further clarify the second point, the most significant costs to an arts program is the teacher hired to teach the program and the capital costs involved in adding square footage to a building to ensure teaching space for music and art programs. My opponent above cited that equipment is needed to produce an arts program, which has a cost impact but not the most significant impact in my view. Pro previously provided evidence that fundraising can be accomplished to provide necessary equipment for these programs. Thus, the argument that after-school relocation of arts programs or private/public partnerships and their impact on reducing costs is still viable even given the considerations of my opponent. “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.” Pro makes a good point that the well-being of students should not be thwarted when a school district makes choices about its own fiscal situation. Costs should only be one consideration. However, I contend that I have suggested that boards should consider students well-being by offering evidence above that science and technology programs will have a larger impact on the future success and fitness of students in the workforce than music and art programs. “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…proving that those involved in music vs those who are not is more significant over time.” Pro continues to make the assertion that there is a connection between music and how we learn, and music and math. However, pro has yet to demonstrate that music has a causative relationship to academic performance or the improvement of intelligence. Pro’s evidence from the U.S. Department of Education states that it has determined that students who were “highly involved in music programs...showed higher levels of mathematics proficiency by grade 12.” However, that does not mean that being involved in music causes students to increase in mathematics proficiency. It only proves a relationship. PLEASE SEE REST OF ARGUMENT IN COMMENTS SECTION.