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...
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
