Why Funding for Art Education is too Low essays

Why Funding for Art Education is too Low essays Why Funding for Art Education is too Low Many public schools have significantly reduced or completely cut funding for art education programs. Officials at state or city levels may feel the need for art education is not as significant as the need for more academic based programs like mathematics, history and science. Officials see art education as something that is impeding on their student's academic careers, rather than helping them flourish. Many who argue against funding arts education need to take a closer look at what art education does for a child. At a School Board meeting, Mr. Whyte (1996) first heard an argument against art education in schools: A well-dressed, well-spoken woman stood to complain that children graduating from schools were inadequately prepared to take their places in an ever more demanding labour market. Too many resources and too much instruction time, she maintained, were wasted on frills like music. Not enough attention was being paid to math and the sciences, computers, and technology, which she cited as the future keys to employability (p.13). The emphasis on academics is indeed important. Preparing students in certain subjects helps them achieve the standards set by school or government officials. Standardized testing has become the "golden rule" of school systems in the curriculum taught. Children are required to learn the curriculum and pass these tests in order to meet the standard of knowledge, or even to graduate. By funding these teaching methods and standardized tests, schools become accredited and therefore eligible to receive more funding for the school. The "real world" is not always composed of multiple choice questions, and rarely is there a certain right or wrong answer. Students who participate in art programs apply acquired thinking skills learned through art, to exceed in standardized testing as well as many other subjects in school, and life practices in genera...