I have already discussed the benefits from providing students a fine arts education through the school, so I would like to take this chance to address a more complicated issue. Why are schools cutting fine arts programs, and why are they the first to go?
The main reasons that schools cut anything is because of budget deficits. It is a well known fact that in America, public schools never have enough money to run and colleges and universities are expensive. Since the days of classical philosophers and apprenticeships, the education programs have completely changed for our culture, and has now become a huge part of the financial discussion.
One part of the reason fine arts are the first to cut is that they are not the most obvious money maker. At my high school, our fine arts program was very successful, and we had a concert band, a marching band, and a choir, as well as a dance and theater program. All of these programs had multiple groups that all had many performances a year. Most of the performances cost two or three dollars to get in, and if a hundred people came, then obviously, each concert made a couple hundred dollars. We also had festivals with groups outside of our school performing that paid to attend, and also most events featured concessions, which was even more money than just the concerts made alone. My high school however, is not typical in that aspect. Many schools do not charge for these events, and a lot of fine arts is being cut at the elementary or middle school level, as well, where concerts are not put on for financial benefit, and don’t charge for entrance.
Because of this, schools are cutting much of the fine arts because they won’t bring in as much money as sporting events. Football games were all $5 to get in, and if a thousand people go, that’s much more than a couple hundred dollars that the concerts were bringing in. Schools use the programs that make money to fund other programs, such as their actual academic necessities, such as textbooks and technology.
Another reason that schools are cutting their fine arts programs is that the fine arts programs require a large percentage of the budget. But then again, doesn’t education take up a large percentage of the budget? It is an education budget after all. So why are education programs the first to be cut, and not extra-curricular activities like the sports programs? I know that in many high schools, football is the best funded program (or other sports depending on the individual school districts). So why not cut funding equally to all programs to keep them, although slightly smaller, still existent. I think that would be much more fair than just mainly cutting funding to the fine arts education programs.
One final thing to consider: a lot of high school and middle school sports programs require participants to pay a certain amount in dues. I know that a lot of fine arts programs don’t. One way to make up the deficit here is to increase the dues for kids in sports and to create dues for the fine arts programs.
There are other programs that could be cut, all programs could be equally cut, or programs could be funded by other means before fine arts education is cut.
I remember in my high school, the theater crew played Phantom of the Opera, and they got a full house after selling tickets for about $30 each. But then again, that may have been because we had a relatively small auditorium. And even then, the sports games made a lot more money. I think they chose to cut funding to the fine arts rather than sports just because the majority of people choose to go to a football game rather than a play, and they are just trying to be fair to the majority, and cutting out the minority. But I get what you’re saying though.
fwb, I don’t agree with your view that art made the Renaissance. I believe the Renaissance was a time of advancement in science and engineering. The art was really more of an indicator of scientific advancement. I support the arts, but more emphasis should be placed on STEM education, in my opinion.
I think it’s valuable to also note that people don’t think of arts as viable or valuable. We live in a very analytical society, so when the time comes to make budget cuts, anything that doesn’t have a really tangible effect in a students’ life will be cut. For example, football teams can win championship games. People can get trophies and hang their championship wins in the gym. Art gives students a way to express themselves and can create an incredible sense of pride in students. Sure student artists create pieces of art, but the most recognition student artists get is when the professor hangs their art up in the school hallways (if they do that). Because football gives schools something to brag about and a very easy way to compare themselves to other schools, it is placed ahead of arts, which only give the students the benefits.
I like your view but sometimes we have to look at things purely economically. You do address that, however, most of the time the arts simply do not bring in the money that is spent on them.. its an economic decision… do we have the money to keep this program? will this program bring in the money we spend on it? can we use the money from other programs to support this one and is that responsible spending? the answer is usually no, and thusly its a sound decision to cut the programs. While I do understand the numerous benefits of having the arts in schools that students can benefit from even in the classroom, when the money is not there, schools cant spend it.
Having been in choir, band, and the drama program at my school, I definitely see where you are coming from. It isn’t fair that the arts programs are ALWAYS the first to get cut when funding gets cut. However, I was also on the rugby team, the cross country team, and was a volleyball manager. The sports programs at schools are extremely important for many reasons:
1) Sports promote exercise. Keeping kids, teens, and even adults healthy is a big goal in America due to the obesity problems we face here. So, keeping sports in school helps aid this progression towards a healthier country as a whole.
2) Being on a sports team helps adolescents make friends and learn to work well together with other people. I personally found that I made my best friends on my rugby team, and I was able to interact with many different types of people I wouldn’t have otherwise done. I gained a lot of teamwork skills and was given new insight on how teams (both on and off the sports field) work together most effectively.
3) Communities come together because of sports teams. Whether it’s the team moms who meet when their young children are on a soccer team together, the parents of the senior football players, or the community lining the streets to watch the homecoming parade, there is always a sense of community that comes with sports. Family, friends, and neighbors want to come together and support the teams that work so hard in practice to accomplish their goals and “perform” for their fellow classmates and families.
I am in no way disagreeing with your point that the arts programs are important and need to be considered and cared about more when cutting funds for schools, I just think it is equally as important to step back and critically think about what benefits everyone the most!
This is important to a lot of people in America. It seems that the arts are just simply losing value as a form of study. I think the importance of arts directly correlates with periods of renaissance. People no longer value arts because of the domination of music as a form of creative expression as well as TV/movies to the exclusion of all else. Artists and dancers ect are not making money like they once did so a lot of people view them as professions that are no longer practical/important.
Money. It all comes down to money. Classes should be a separate discussion from the extracurriculars, in my opinion. That said we have an obligation to teach the whole child. If we’re truly interested in pursuing the original goal of education–to educate the citizenry–then I think we can’t ignore all the areas that make for a well-rounded citizen.
Arts and sports in the extracurricular sense? It’s a sad state that those might have to be funded through fees. This would shut out kids whose families can’t afford them.
To be honest, if a school needs to cut funding then I would much rather it be the fine arts then any other part of a child’s education. I would expect people interested and successful in a type of fine art would go to performing arts high schools and would further their education there. Fine arts are important and worth keeping if a school is able to support the department financially. As another student mentioned, I think it would be very beneficial to compare the importance of fine arts to the importance of science and math subjects.
I definitely think that Sam has a good question. How should we value different courses? I am always going to be an advocate for STEM over everything. I believe getting involved with community arts groups is how to best pursue your interests. I play Trombone, and ever since high school I have been in a non school related Orchestra. That being said, students who are not interested in STEM should have a place to go to pursue their passion. I sort of think that is what conservatories are for though, right? Competition is steep, but there are schools out there that specialize in fine arts education. Not everyone will get to paint in school, but those with talent and passion will have the opportunity to excel.
Even as an athlete, I definitely agree that extracurricular activities should be the first to have their budgets cut if a school loses funding. Academics should be the top priority of the American school system, which was founded to give kids an education, not give them an opportunity to play sports or be in a chess club. The problem is, however, that many schools, including my own high school, have cut the athletics budget basically to the bare minimum (in all sports except football, of course) and still run into a budget deficit. In a hypothetical situation, supposing that all extracurricular funding has been eliminated and the only thing left to do is cut funding to educational programs, how do you think it should be determined which programs lose funding? I think this is the direction we are headed if our nation cannot garner more support for funding education more heavily, and we are going to have to start making difficult decision to prioritize some departments over others. I’m not saying this necessarily means cutting fine arts funding over STEM funding, however I think for the next blog you should make a case for the importance of fine arts compared to science and math subjects, not just compared to extracurricular activities.
I enjoyed your piece. I think that attempting to raise profits from talented fine arts students is good idea and should be implemented. That being said I do question three of your points. First off, I believe a clear distinction should be made between curricular activities like music class, art class etc. and co-curricular activities like football. Things happening in school, during school hours must be funded by the government (I think). Also, charging dues for students to participate in ceramics, choir, band, etc. may prevent disadvantaged students from participating. With that in mind, I don’t believe that is a viable solution. My second problem is really more of a question. Are these performing groups at your school from a class, or do they do this on the side? Again, if they are students from a class, I don’t think they should charge people to watch them. After all, people pay taxes that pay for their education. Shouldn’t every tax payer be able to watch the fruits of their investments? If these students are performing on the side, then I would strongly support charging for tickets. A vibrant co-curricular arts program greatly adds to the education a school offers. It also allows for greater community involvement and a greater appreciation for the arts as a whole. I would even add that co-curricular arts gala’s should exist and charge for their art to raise money. My final question is on the practicality of reducing funding to all programs equally. Math teachers seldom get new books or resources, and so the costs of a math program are almost exclusively teacher salaries. How would you take a percentage from the Math department? Would you cut salaries, because I am fairly certain that isn’t allowed under contract. That being said a greater distribution of the burden is definitely a fair stance.
I think the best way to fix this problem is to do as you said and make students pay a base fee to take part in these activities. Although I think it would be terrible if this policy had to be enacted, I think it is the only possible solution. It doesn’t make sense to cut programs that are bringing in money for the district and are essentially self-funded. I think extracurricular sports have to remain to promote exercise and activity as well (especially with the American obesity problem). I don’t really know what other programs could be cut either. My high school was pretty big on fundraising, so that could also be an option. Regardless of the solution, I totally agree with you that something has to be done to fix this problem before all fine arts are cut. I think it would be extremely difficult to bring them back if this were to happen.
Remember that these blogs are supposed to have sources.