giacinta critical reflection one - arts ed

Funding for arts programs, such as music, fine arts, creative writing, and drama, has been consistently and repeatedly cut back from the budget of many public schools for decades now. Understandably, and unfortunately, public schools must make cuts yearly in some facets. Unbelievably, however, very few people in charge in local, state, and federal governments believe that the arts are important enough to consider allocating funds for. Instead, in the eyes of budget makers, funding must always first serve the “core” subjects, that is to say, science, mathematics, social studies, and English. Though I certainly do not believe funding should be cut from these main courses, I also do not necessarily believe, for example, that my time spent trying to understand Sequential Math/Course III’s circumscribing of angles lessons has proved beneficial, either. I am not here to take the stance that the arts should be integrated into curricula as more important than our current four required courses, or that they should receive more funding, or even that their need for money should supercede these other classes, I am simply unsure as to where in time this turn in thought came.
Things were not always this way. At one time, the arts were in fact considered core subjects. Children spent as much time, if not more perhaps, on the studies of poetry, painting, and making music. They were well versed in the ways of oration, persuasion, and recitation. Students practiced these artistic endeavors and they grew into our forefathers – and mothers – people who helped shape our country, politicians, revolutionaries, and great artists alike. Museums are filled with the works of these students and we owe the creation of some of our great documents to these schooling methods. The skills these people were taught are still useful and practical today. So how then are we to continue with these great American ideals weighing heavily on our shoulders if we do not learn from our past and follow some examples they have set?
Today, I believe that students may need the arts more than ever and yet funding is still being cut at great rates. According to Glenn Cook (2008), “in a year in which overall funding is flat, 47 programs are on the chopping block, including ones that encourage arts in schools” (p.6). In the violent worlds in which most of my students, and many other urban public school students, live, they are faced with the paradox of growing in a society that allots a budget for the equally violent yet legal Pentagon as high as it was post-World War II (p.6), but are not given an opportunity to learn to express themselves in non-violent ways. They suffer terrible emotional and mental pain when they lose friends and family to nonsensical violence. They suffer physical pain when they themselves become involved as victims. They grow deeply calloused when they engage in these activities willingly, as many eventually do. These students need to be taught ways of expressing themselves that do not involve holding weapons. Instead, why not arm these growing individuals with paintbrushes, pens, and musical instruments. If someone is willing to take the time to teach and engage them, many of these students prove to be very receptive to the sometimes-new idea of creating instead of destroying.
This is where art therapy, yet another (and very important) aspect of arts programs, comes in. According to St. John, as cited by Joseph Graham (1994), there are two distinct types of students who could possibly benefit from art therapy. Those whose “emotional development is immature and impedes learning and functioning” and those whose “physical, neurological, and developmental needs are prerequisite to benefiting from the regular…curriculum” (p.115). According to Cook, however, amongst those previously mentioned 47 programs facing cutbacks are also programs that “provide mental health services to students” Though I would not expect every school to implement an actual art therapy program, nor to write art therapy into their budgets, I would hope that officials could understand the need to use art as a form of healing. This will help, I believe, not only the students, but the schools’ budgets in the long run by saving the money they would inevitably have to spend after vandalism and fights on restorative action instead of these preventative solutions.
This is not to say, of course, that art can heal every student or create a perfect world. However, art has been a staple of society since the cave paintings. People have wanted to make music since they listened to the sounds of crickets chirping at night. Individuals have written their histories and their desires since the birth of language. Human beings have an innate urge to express themselves to others; people want to be heard and understood. Why should the privilege of knowing how to do so be taken away from them?
Overall, I believe more money on a national level should be allotted to funding public schools than there currently is. As for individual school districts allocating their own funds to programs, I believe the arts should be considered. Nationally, Bush’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has changed our focus to stressing the importance of teaching sciences and maths and detracted from the one-time equally as important arts programs (Uy 2008 p.6). Since American students tend to fare worse at math and science standardized testing than students in other countries, we are trying to compete. However, our attempts at making our students better in these two subjects should not come at the price of allowing our students to become worse at others.











References
Cook, G. (2008). Bush budget provides disappointments, few surprises. American School Board Journal,6-7.

Graham, J. (1994). The art of emotionally disturbed adolescents: Designing a drawing program to address violent imagery. American Journal of Art Therapy, 32, 115-121.

Uy, Erin. (2008). Experts: Arts, humanities drive nation's
competitiveness. Education Daily, 41, 6-16.