Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Funding for Arts in Education
The cause I am strongly in support of is funding for the arts in education. Because of the fact that subjects such as music and fine arts are not "testable" subjects, the funding in them has been greatly decreased under the No Child Left Behind Act. Schools who have subpar grades on tests and are losing funding as a result make cuts in the budget of art programs because they do not improve upon test taking skills. However, I don't believe that a life can be measured in the tests that are taken and possibly failed. In an increasingly scientific and mathematical world, creativity is hard to come by. If all the classes which encourage creativity are eliminated due to cuts in funding, very few inspiring new creations will exist. Education is supposed to prepare students for life, and life is not tested by scantrons or essays, but by experiences. Art creates for more valuable experiences than math or science. However, math or science can easily be converted into questions for a standardized test, so therefore they are more important than art. At least, in the eyes of education policy makers thats the case. I do not believe that because music and theatre and drawing cannot be graded through a scantron they are any less important. In fact, that makes them more important. The purpose of those fields is simply to educate- not to prepare for a test. Students participate in arts because they have a genuine enjoyment or will to learn. In order to remain a society of independent, free thinkers who follow what they want, the arts need to remain well-funded and supported.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I did not know that music and fine arts "are not 'testable" subjects." I know a lot of music and FA teachers who are always testing their students and even require research papers. They even use scantron and multiple choice tests.
As I read your blog, I think about my high school experiences. I attended a small school. Never had a music class or an art class. I took violin lessons and sang in the church choir. I loved classical music, but never learned the technical side of it. Same with art. I can enjoy viewing a painting, but I could never articulate why, because I never learned the vocabulary and technical terms, that is the tools needed to convey my thoughts. In fact I went all through college without ever taking an art or music appreciation class. Would my life be different if I had? Perhaps so.
Do I feel deprived for not having such classes made available to me? Sometimes, yes, I do. So where did I learn to love classical music, art, and crafts? Oh, in the home, and just by being curious. I also learned through reading literature of all kinds.
Although I never had any classes, I believe that such classes should be offered. However, we have to change the way people view these classes. You write the material cannot or is not tested. Well that's not accurate.
Perhaps what we need to do, is to argue that they are subjects that offer lessons that can be found in history, math, science, and literature. That in art and music, we teach students another way to analyze, to listen, to compose, to express themselves. Both music and painting depend upon scientific and mathematical concepts. Just as history contributes to math and science, so does it contribute to the arts. We learn about mankind through the study of art and music. Where would we be without the ancient drawings on cave walls?
Our arguments need to be refined. And perhaps the pooh-bahs needed to be reminded that tests for music and art do exist. :)
I too strongly believe in this cause. i loved your line,
Education is supposed to prepare students for life, and life is not tested by scantrons or essays, but by experiences
This could not be more true. I have learned significantly more through school activities and experiences outside of the classroom that will benefit me more in live. (Sorry Ms. Hassenplug) Things such as music and theatre have helped to shape the person I am and should without a doubt be funded.
to theteach:
What I meant by "testable" was the talent fostered by art and music education, not necessarily the skills acquired. For example, one could learn to read music and be tested upon that by scantron, but the sound of a trumpet cannot fill in bubbles with a number two pencil. And one could learn what cubism is and fill in "Picasso" as option b, but the ability to paint cannot be graded as "7 out of 10 answers correct". The technical side of art is not the side that should be emphasized. Art education should foster an understanding and an appreciation moreso than a technical list of terms.
Yes, I agree that "Art education should foster an understanding and an appreciation moreso than a technical list of terms."
Glad you clarified your statements!
Post a Comment