I'm fairly new here, so if this has been a topic before, I apologize.

There seems to frequently be disagreement as to the importance of arts programs (music, art, dance, drama, etc.) in schools. Many programs suffer budget cuts, and some are wiped out altogether. Sports programs, however, are always thriving. School systems seem to focus on sports (they bring in money) and strong academics (which, ideally, bring in high standardized test scores). Personally, I think the arts are very important, and they give kids an opportunity to express themselves creatively while establishing a well-rounded background.

So, are arts programs in schools necessary? Do they enhance a child's education? Is it fair to kids to cut out these programs to focus mainly on academics?

These programs are not necessary from a pragmatic point of view.
From a spiritual point of view, music and art enrich life immeasurably.

Maybe they will have to be held after school, like sports. Maybe students will end up having to sell candy for art class as well as for band. But I think they should be part of the regular curriculum. Parents can opt to have their children take something they think will help the kids find jobs after graduation.

If you want to have art and music programs as a regular part of the school curriculum, vote Democratic.

what all is art, and why do you have parts of your brain for its use. I think cutting stuff like this will hurt society alot in the long run, not only that but i dont want to think about children running around with partially developed brains(should be a study). I was doodler in my childhood, i could get pretty close to comic books, but i stopped, i plan to start making electronic type music soon, i think that its of fair importance to any society. Further more i think it is healthy for the people.

Since I was raised by two music teachers, and both my sister and I are professional musicians, my answer to this should be fairly obvious.

Kids who study music do better in school

List of sites to confirm the first one.

But keep in mind that the determination to keep art and music programs in school is construed as a liberal idea:

tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend, etc.

I believe paying for art and music in the schools is preferable to financing an unending war.

I am unapologetically for the aesthetic/spiritual dimension that art and music bring to an education.

California is in big financial trouble and, if I'm not mistaken, our sports programs are just as 'at risk' as our art and music programs. To me one is no more dispensable than the others and I think this is a huge shame for our kids.

If your state is contemplating getting rid of the music and art's in your schools it's probably only a matter of time before sports is the next thing to go.

Others have already pointed out their educational value but I wonder if lawmakers have considered how much these programs have positively impacted the lives of so many kids that might otherwise have turned to drugs or gangs as a way of fitting in or as a cure for their boredom and angst.

The working town i live in has its own newspaper, and in this newspaper it posts local stuff, like childrens drawings. I am always amazed to see the little to no difference between first and fifth grade artwork.

Art is everywhere. Much of everyone's life is art. Without art our lives would be depressing and boring. Should we make school depressing and boring? Making school depressing and boring won't raise test scores and it won't prepare you for the real world.

I am an artist. From a strictly pragmatic viewpoint, there is a strong demand for the arts. Curriculum should reflect that demand and provide instruction in the potentially lucrative field.


Not true. Case in point, ME

I can support art at higher than the current level, but not crafts. Glue and macaroni on a paper plate just doesn't seem productive to me, except possibly as an occasional diversion from studies. Art and Art History should certainly be taught in conjunction with history so students can gain an appreciation for what it meant at the time and why certain art has survived, while other types have not. Certainly we should have our children learn how Art has been used by the throne of royalty and alter of the church as a tool of propaganda.
I can support PE, but not sports at the level where there is competition between schools. Too much money has been wasted on sports, especially on coaches who either can't teach any other subject or do it poorly.
Certainly the spiritual/aesthetic that Paladin Elspeth mentioned gets short shrift in our schools, not referring to religious issues here, tho. Thinking and understanding are not encouraged enough, just those things that lead to being a good worker bee seem to be important to public schools.
Colleges no longer teach the liberal arts as they once did. Perhaps we could shift some of that into the High Schools, especially since we can now vote at 18. If a non-violent revolution was to ever occur here in the USA, it would most likely be through a seriously improved public education curriculum.
Politicians probably fear the educated, informed, and thinking voter more than anything else.

All of the fine arts, art, music, drama are important aspects of education and they should not take the backseat to athletics, which is also important. Humanity has progressed and these subjects seem to have been an important aspect of this progression.

This simplistic and myoptic view of politics is a big reason we have the low level functioning government we have today. Support people who are reasoned and have thoughts of their own and do not blindly vote for people because of a label.

I do agree voting for people who support art is an important issue when you vote, especially school boards.

You can tell a great deal about a culture by studying their art. For example when we look at the cave paintings at Altamira or Lascaux or the venus statue at Willendorf, there is a lot of information about paleolithic culture that can be deduced.

This is true for each culture that we study, and by looking at the subject matter of the art, the artist (if known), the form and methodology, and the context of the work, we can enrich our knowledge of history. Works of art are very much like documents, and in some cases such as the paleolithic era, they are the only documents that we have.

People who dismiss art are dismissing history and culture.

At the very least, in schools, we should be teaching art history (a subject that has been ignored for the most part), but if we are concerned with allowing culture to thrive than I think it's important for kids to have a place and time to create their own works. Creativity should be encouraged, and it helps in more realms than just art or music. Successful CEOs have to be creative too. Art serves a practical purpose in nurturing this part of the brain.

Additionally, I would disagree with Bill55AZ when he says that he can support art but not crafts. During the younger years, crafts are an important tool in developing hand eye coordination.

Incidentally, I think the word you're looking for is myopic. And I've got to agree with you on that.

Good on you, Gray Seal; I thought no one was reading my posts because they usually get a lukewarm-to-no response.

Perhaps I should have included a symbol to indicate that my statement was intended to be just that, tongue-in-cheek. It just felt good to make a somewhat irresponsible blanket statement (to my view) for a change.

I am amazed at how many Republicans and self-avowed Conservatives who would not want to pay taxes for better education will tout to the rafters the "sacrifices" we must make sending our soldiers around the globe chasing terrorists but not managing to catch them (i.e., Osama bin Laden and Saddam--whom I consider a tyrant, but not a terrorist)!

I hope you will continue to enlighten us of simplistic statements in other threads, and by other posters. I don't want to develop a complex over this!

If a 5 year old hasn't already developed sufficient hand-eye coordination to feed and wipe himself, no amount of crafts will serve that purpose.

I heard the hand-eye argument about video games, around 1982, from an educator no less, and his point was that it would help them (his 3 boys) become better fighter pilots. I suggested that he would be better off encouraging his boys to do better in school, as the military does not let anyone but college graduates fly their fighters. The 2 older boys did not go to college, don't know about the 3rd, but it appears that I was right about the first 2. The video games did not enhance their lives one bit. At 25 the oldest was still an unskilled laborer, living at home, and using one of his parent's vehicles to go to and from work, on their auto insurance of course.
I suppose crafts serves some purpose, but let's not overdo it. My wife is a teacher, and one of her younger co-workers in the same grade level is way out in left field with the creativity aspects of education. The kids in that class are not getting enough of the basic requirements done due to lack of time after the creative writing exercises that he insists on doing.

I'm curious Bill...do you see any benefit at all from sports programs in schools like how they might possibly help kids learn things about life that they don't learn by reading books in a classroom or doing repetitions of pushups at P.E? Such as personal interaction, fair play, the desire to achieve goals and the self esteem that comes with it, learning how accept winning and losing gracefully, healthy living habit's like what a difference cigarettes, alcohol, or drugs can have on a body that's active in competitive sports. Or how to stay active and keep from becoming obese or just keeping kids off the streets and out of trouble. Not to mention the benefit's it has on ones ability to concentrate and sleep better and the decreased chances of suffering from clinical depression. The friendships and the teamwork...are any of these things valuable? There are so many benefit's to these programs that it's hard for me to believe how quickly some would cut them just to save a few bucks. And this is supposed to be the richest country in the world. If that's true we sure don't invest in our youth like we should.

I understand what you're saying, Bill55, but video games and art is not comparable... Although Mr P insists the same thing as your educator friend, and plays nintendo to 'hone' his skills as a fighter pilot

Artistical (and musical ) expression exercise the right hand side of the brain (the intuitive portion), unlike most other curriculums. Creativity is crucial to the learning process, and applicable in many practical fields of study. Architecture, engineering, cytotechnology, physics, chemistry, higher order mathematics, and more all incorporate creative expression of thought. Of course, it can be overdone, but it is at least as important as any other vocational study.

If PE and sports were actually approached with your goals in mind, I could agree. But my experience in school, and the schools of my children, gives me the impression that our school administrators, coaches, and even parents are not so high minded.
The High School PE I attended consisted of a bunch of us being practice dummies for those who were on the "team". The coach barely knew the names of most of us.
My son was on a swim team, where he learned that his very overweight coach could barely swim. But then his main job was football coach, so it didn't matter. Same son now teaches 8th grade science, AND coaches on the side for a very small amount of extra pay, in an K-8 school. In the High School, his main job would be coach and teaching would be the part time effort.
If your local schools are doing sports as you describe, you are very lucky.

I understand, Mrs. P, that they are not the same, but I was responding to the alledged commonality of hand-eye coordination. Does Mr. P actually needs the extra practice?
Or is it a way of tuning out until he is ready to shift gears from work to home?
You know him best.
Of our 2 children, both test equally high everywhere except creativity. The boy was off the charts high, the girl barely got on the chart. He can compose lyrics and melodies and has about 50 songs that I wish he would try to market. The daughter can play piano/keyboard better than the boy, but never has come up with anything original. She did play Jazz Band in High School. Both have their talents elsewhere, as well.
But the boy's creativity was there when he started school, and there was never a program that helped him develop it. A poetry class would have been nice, to help him with lyrics. He wouldn't have signed up for it, tho, being a boy. Or structure of music, basic composing, or something similar. He took a painting class, but had to get it after hours at the junior college. The public schools do not work with the kid's actual talents until High School when band, drama, etc. are offered.
My point? I don't think creativity can be learned or taught. It can be developed by good teachers, but it has to be there first.

Bill55AZ, please don't post two posts in a row. If you post something, you can go back in and edit your post with the edit button. I think the "edit window" is open for twelve hours. If you go beyond that window, then you can add in a second post. Thanks.

YES, YES, YES! The arts are essential to education in schools, as much as English and History. If you cut arts funding in education, then you are sending the message to kids who may want a future in the arts that their passions are not important. And what would this world be like like without music and dance and theatre? I shudder to think of an uncreative world. Arts programs in school fuel the creativity of children, and quite frankly, it's fun to study something other than Mathematics and Science. Just as society emphasizes the role of scientists, and doctors, and lawyers, we should emphasize the importance and necessity of writers, and actors, and musicians. I have a bumper sticker on my car, and I think that it's approproate to share it here:
"The artless are in charge of funding the arts."
Enough said.

But can you draw a distinction (other than "it's obvious") between arts and, let's say, sports?

Both are outlets for creative energies.
Both are of interest to students who may not be wholly "academic".
Both can lead to careers.

In another thread, Shelly, you want to cut funding for sports. Here, you advocate the arts. Which is it? Why fund one and not the other?

The two are not mutually exclusive as sports activities already receive tremendous funding. Cutting those funds back does not imply erasing them entirely.

Please, Amlord, it's SHELLEY, not Shelly. I believe that I have corrected you before. Admittedly, I am biased, as I am an artist, and I work in the arts. Cutting funding for sports would allow private groups to provide funding, such as Boosters, parents, etc., if it's so important . But there are not that many private groups contributing to arts programs. I am not saying that sports should be completely put out and done away with---as I also posted in that thread, health and physical education is necessary in schools. But this debate is on arts programs in schools, not sports programs in schools. I would just like to see the arts get the same amount of attention and emphasis that say, the football team gets. Because, while playing football, softball, etc. stimulates the body, the arts stimulate the mind. Just as an excellent baseball player has the opportunity to sharpen and improve his batting skills, a budding writer or musician should also be granted an equally supportive environment to mold his or her craft. Believe it or not, I was on the varsity softball, basketball, tennis, and track teams in middle and high school. But, my passions were writing, and theatre, and music. And believe me, I was revered more as an athlete by my fellow students than as a poet, actress, and pianist. My argument for THIS topic is that arts programs should not, under any circumstances, be eliminated from the educational system in this country. We need to encourage students to use their imaginations, and to not be afraid of their creativity.

As a rhetorical statement of passion, I agree. As a categorical statement, I disagree. If it comes down to eliminating art programs or eliminating reading programs, art goes. I'm just pointing this out in order to highlight the dangers of unexamined categorical arguments. It ain't nuttin' personal, since I don't advocate eliminating art programs in public schools on the basis that they aren't "useful."

Huzzah, huzzah!

Okay, first, in Accordance With the Addy Protocol:
During my days as a whippersnapper, I participated in the school music programs for 7 years, and in a variety of non-athletic competitive activities. I never participated in competitive athletics (no Frisbee golf or Ultimate teams )

With regards to Bill's dismissal of "crafts", sorry, but I don't support his notion. While much of what passes for "craft" in the primary grades is insipid, it also lays the foundation for the more sophisticated arts and crafts that come later. Furthermore, limiting the "arts" to the fine arts of music, theater, dance, poetry, painting and drawing, at the exclusion of the "crafts" (metalwork, woodwork, sculpture, stonework, glasswork, ceramics, sewing & fashion, quilting, etc) is doing a disservice to those who would rather create in three dimensions than two, who want to work with their hands and have something practical as a result, rather than a "statement about the world." (Yes, I consider myself a craftsman, not an artiste.)

One of the big distinctions that everybody is overlooking between arts and sport isn't how they impact upon those who directly participate, but rather how they impact upon the COMMUNITY. A football game is a heckuva lot more fun, a lot more community building, than an art exhibition. Drama and music have the greatest value to the school community, because they really do involve greater participation AND teamwork. Nobody is going to show up for a pep rally for the art competition. Another difference relates to the role of competition, which, unlike what a few seem to think, is not automatically a bad thing. Unfortunately, competition in the arts is scored much more subjectively, whereas in sport, there's not nearly as much room for subjectivity. Did he or didn't he cross the goal line? This relative clarity of results makes sports much more amenable to vicarious participation.

REAL Team sports have a significant value in school that individual sports lack. I exclude from this definition sports where one player's PERFORMANCE is not dependent on another's. Golf, Singles Tennis, Gymnastics, etc, none of them require teamwork. To illustrate, in football, when a blocker misses his assignment, somebody's gonna get creamed. Compare that to golf. If your teammate screws up and ends up in the sandtrap, how does that affect you? It doesn't. Music and drama both are "team sports" in this sense, whereas little of the visual arts qualify.

I don't think arts should be singled out for cuts, nor do I think it should be exempted either. 'Twere I the American Emperor, I would make a few changes though...

I'd require the athletic teams to attend the arts competitions. The entire football team would be required to be at the Marching Band competitions, in uniform, supporting THEIR bands. The basketball teams would have to support the Pep bands. The dance teams and cheerleaders would be supported as well. When the Choir goes to Region or State, a contingent of support from the school would be dispatched to accompany them, etc. Reciprocity is the paradigm of the day.

Unfortunately, (or perhaps fortunately), I'm not the American Emperor. Which means that here, in the real world, we have to always consider the costs. Costs are nothing more than tradeoffs. Funding the Arts in schools to the level that some folks would like means that somewhere else, something doesn't get funded. It may be the public library that takes the hit, or roads, or the prescription drug benefit, or endangered species, or human counter terrorism intelligence efforts, or.... These are just the funding tradeoffs, because there are other tradeoffs as well. If we cut sports for the arts, what is the impact on health in schools? Aggression? Teamwork? "school spirit"? How about we cut the school's transportation budgets, reducing the number of buses. More students have to get to school on their own or via their parents, which drives up the number of vehicle miles driven, with concommitant increased traffic, pollution, etc.

In short, "don't cut the arts" may be emotionally satisfying, but real tradeoffs have to be made somewhere. Perhaps its will be the arts, perhaps not, just try to make the assessments realistically, and most of all, be prepared to adjust when the results don't turn out as planned, or the Law of Unintended Consequences rears its ugly head.

It may be true that tradeoffs need to be made, but it's also true that some things get an excess of money, while others get below par funding. Maybe to ensure that important programs don't get cut, funding needs to be more evenly dispursed. Anything is possible if you're just willing to give it a shot and work hard...but usually people aren't. When arts programs are in danger of being cut from schools, and someone cared enough, the money could be found somewhere. Or, people in the community could raise money to help the continuation of these programs. However, it shouldn't have to come to that. I know I'm rambling a bit here, but my main point is that maybe if people cared a little more, many more things would be accomplished and we wouldn't have to have this debate in the first place.

EB,

People do care, its just that not all of them care about the arts in school. Some care about sports in school, some care about technology in school, some care about this, that and the other thing, in school, or out. And everybody only has so much time, money, resources, and emotional energy for "caring." Some folks spend it all on themselves, some on others, but we all have a limit. Beware casting it as an issue of "caring", because it is insulting to many people to either state or imply that they don't "care." Insulted people tend to be less than helpful.

The arts in school are actually in far, far better shape than what used to be known as "industrial arts," i.e. metal shop, woodshop, etc. Aside from the gutting of IA in schools, the arts has a thriving very, very visible presence in popular culture. Not so for welding....

Bikerdad,

I guess what I was trying to say is that there are people who, when programs like the arts (this can apply to other things, too, but since we're talking about arts here...) are in danger, say, "Well, I want my child to have art in school. This is an outrage!" (or words to that effect), but never actually do anything about it. There are plenty of situations where people complain and protest, but nothing changes because no one takes the time to try and change things. It's okay to complain about how schools are losing programs, but it's a lot more constructive to take action and try to save them.

First off, let me just say that I think that the arts are a very important part of life, and that definitely includes in our schools.

I know that the arts have been an outlet for my energies and creativity in school and have helped me grow immensely. I hate to think that this outlet might not be available to coming generations.

It's perfectly fine, great even, if for another student, that outlet is sports, or both, or another thing entirely. But at least put every program on equal footing to have the chance to touch a child's life.

And yes, many arts programs take place (at least in part) after school just like sports. And yes, I myself have done fundraising to support the arts programs at my school. But what are you supposed to do when your own city, your own county, your own sate, won't give these programs a place in school? Then there really isn't anything to support, is there?

I know people care, but you have to do something about it. Caring does not substantiate change. And of course not everyone agrees on what is most important (if we did, we wouldn't have this website). But can't we at least provide a choice. If the idea that the arts don't need to be funded more than sports or any other program, than the reverse, in all fairness, should be true as well.

[Just two little side notes that didn't seem to fit into this post but I did want to add...
1- academics should be the priority in schools (to a healthy extent) since the purpose of these institutions is to learn. But science and math and such do not always produce a well-rounded individual, and everyone deserves to learn a little about art and/or sports.
2- I would think macaroni and glue are a perfectly acceptale activity for the appropriate age group. You can and should do other things in an art class too, but 5 year olds do not need to be concerned with painting like Rembrandt. ]

Arts in school is very valuable. Not everyone is a basketball player, football player or baseball player. There are those who are very artistic whether it comes to their words, photography, drawing...in other words creativity. I was a very big supporter of our Arts Education in my school system. All four years of high school I was in some sort of art program. It helped me realize my true talent, and let everyone else see it as well.
For those students who aren't physically active or do not wish to participate in sports...Art is a very good way of expressing themselves.

Academics are very important as well, but if we can get good teachers in our arts program. Those teachers who not only know art, but also know science or any other subject, they can help those who are artstic with their academics. -I guess I was spoiled at my school, we had wonderful teachers.

Nowhere does it say that art and academics are mutually exclusive. My dad teaches math in high school, and he requires an artistic assignment of every geometry student he teaches. There are a lot of artistic applications of mathematics (music being the foremost). I think to teach a math class without exploring its implications in other subjects is inadequate.

The same goes for literature taught without emphasis in poetry or theater. Both are fine arts which contribute greatly to the sphere of literature. My English teacher required everyone to write sonnets, prose, and enact a scene from a play in class. All of these are ways of including art in a curriculum without devoting an entire class to art.

The point I am making is that schools which are forced to cut funding for art programs should restructure their existing curricula and include more art in each class.

As far as the sports funding vs. art funding question, sports like football and basketball will never lose so much funding they have to be cut. Booster clubs and parent enthusiasm for these sports is enough to keep them running. Arts, on the other hand, lack popular support, so there must be funding for them to exist. Both sports and art are important parts of a high school education.

I agree. Although I wouldn't want art funding to be cut in the first place... But if it is, other classes should supplement the loss in some capacity. (Although they probably should be doing that anyway...people learn different ways, and a more hands-on, interactive approach to academic material may help some kids learn better.) JMHO.

I think we all have heard the argument that as long as tickets are sold for the football and basketball games, those activities will remain in the school system. Instead of lamenting that the arts don't get the same break from the system, perhaps we could suggest some creative alternatives.

In Midland, Michigan, there is an art gallery on Main Street. Art students at Northwood University can sell their paintings, sculptures, etc. on consignment.

In art shows at the high school level, I have seen a lot of beautiful artwork over the years. What if schools juried some of the student's artwork, and offered to keep a few pieces for sale on consignment. They could be displayed in the school store, the office, the board of education, or some prominent public building. A student might be very pleased to take home cash instead of another painting to lean against a basement wall. The school system could keep a commission for selling it.

A book could be compiled of poetry, drawings, paintings, photos, etc. representing work by Seniors, and published locally, with proceeds going to support the arts in the school system. In a tourist town, it might make a unique souvenir.

An annual Art in the Park sale could be organized, with the fees charged to professional exhibitors being routed back to teaching arts in the school system.

Any other suggestions out there?

IMO, the arts are definitely needed and should be funded through the cash cows of sporting events. After all, the sports programs depend greatly on gifted art students who produce attractive and customer producing ad campaigns.

I feel that the arts in school are extremely important. And yes I do believe they enhance a child’s education and it is unfair to cut these programs. Since I believe music tremendously shaped my future, I am only responding to that specific art. I must note that I believe all forms of the arts are necessary in developing a child academically and creatively.

I was fortunate enough to have a fantastic 1st grade teacher. She realized that while I had extreme difficulty in reading and writing that I was not “slow”. She recommended to my parents that I be tested for dyslexia and other visual problems. It turned out that visual tracking and visual memory were my primary problems but there were others too . The course of treatment was intensive vision therapy for 2 years. I started playing the piano when I was 9 and I believe music enhanced my ability to succeed in academic subjects throughout my education. In my opinion reading and playing music was sort of my ongoing visual therapy.

link *the link will not take you directly to the source, you will need to first click on the "vision and learning tab" then "learning disabilities" on the drop down menu*

Evidence shows that while performing (and to a lesser degree listening to) music a person utilizes both sides of their brain. So I would say that music bridges the gap between the creative “right” side and intellectual “left” side of their brains, thereby encouraging both sides to work hand in hand.

Organizational and multi-tasking skills are strengthened. Children need to be able to process the information provided and apply that information through their instrument. If they are playing with a group this needs to be done simultaneously with the other members of the group.

Aside from the intellectual advantages of learning music at an early age I feel the advantages are carried forward to their adult lives. For example, in order to learn an instrument one has to practice. One needs discipline and motivation to succeed. Doesn’t that sound like the same requirements for someone successful in career? I believe that if you ask any successful person in their chosen career how they got to where they are today, they would come back to those very same qualities.

Finally, I don’t in any way knock sports education. I believe sports (competitive too) offers a student areas that will help them creatively and academically. If a child's interest lie in music and not sports then why hold them back from this?

reference
Music Education Facts and Figures
Parent Source
Left and Right Brain

edited for typos....