In the past few decades, the funding for instrumental music programs in public high schools have been on a steady decrease. Funding for art programs have been decreasing since 1995 and there have been no dramatic actions to stop the decrease. Between 1995 and 1996, there was $60 million cut from arts funding which was 40% of its total funds (Arts Funding 7). With money decreasing at a fast pace, music programs are not able to purchase new instruments or music for their students to play and perform. Many public schools have been forced to cut their music education due to insufficient funding and lack of support. To counter act the dwindling budget of instrumental music programs, public high schools are going to take 50% of the athletic program’s budget and funding and use the money towards the instrumental music programs, which would be implemented at the beginning of the 2012 - 2013 school year.
A large problem in today’s society is that there are many programs that are not getting the necessary funding that are important to students’ development. One of these programs is instrumental music. Many people would say that the lack of funding for instrumental music education is not a problem at all. These people would include: athletes, parents of athletes, high school coaches, and non-educated americans. These people would say that music is not important to their students’ education and sports can cover everything their students need to be successful. In response to their comments, not everyone is good at sports or cannot physically play a sport. Also, it has been proven that music education raises students’ standardized test scores and makes students more employable. Sports do give students the fundamentals of teamwork, discipline, work ethic, and physical fitness, but so does instrumental music. In the marching band activity, students also learn about teamwork, discipline, work ethic, and physical fitness along with musicianship, performance, and leadership when learning the visual aspects of marching band and the music aspects. Instrumental music needs funding because the government does very little to support the arts in school. The government in total, including state, local, and federal governments, give only 5% of arts total funding in public high schools. Most people do not know that “the largest sources are individual donors and so-called earned income - revenue derived from sales of artworks or tickets to performances” (Arts Funding 2). Even though there are private donors, it does not mean the arts programs get a lot of money.
What people do not know about instrumental music is that it also helps students in other areas of their education. It is proven that students in music classes score higher on standardized tests and tests in specific subjects than students who are not involved in music. In the midwest, south and east, “schools with exemplary music programs scored significantly higher on both English and mathematics tests than their counterparts from schools with deficient music programs” (Hodges 76). More than just higher grades come out of music education. Music students also tend to be more employable due to the fact that the students gain more work ethic through music than ordinary students. In the article "An Education Politics of the Particular: Promises and Opportunities for the Quality of Higher Music Education" by Geir Johansen, Johansen proposed that “music students’ employment outside their formal studies can enhance, rather than hinder, their learning and may thus contribute to the quality of their teaching and learning” (Johansen 34). The skills that go into employability are being able to present oneself in a positive manner and being able to work hard. Music provides both of these skills to students. These students also have more creative minds than average student which can also place them in better jobs than other students. Music has been scientifically proven to enhance a persons creativity “in such fields as acoustics and the psychology of hearing, and how things work in music is the primary agenda for music theory”(Hope 42).
To assure that students get the fullest education possible and do not miss any opportunities, schools are going to take 50% of the budget and funds from the schools’ athletic programs and put the money into the music department’s account. In a majority of public high schools, the athletic programs are more heavily funded and supported. The point of taking 50% of the athletic programs‘ funds is to keep the athletic programs around and the more money given to fund the athletic programs, the more money both of the programs get. The transfer of the money would take place with in the school by the financial office.
With this solution, there will be a large amount of people who oppose the solution like athletes, parents of athletes, sport coaches, boosters, and anyone who funds the athletic programs. The largest complaint from these parties would be that the school is taking the money that they specifically gave to the athletic program and giving it to others. They would also say it would kill the athletic programs and their child’s future at being successful in athletics. To tag along with that, coaches would say that the teams could not buy new equipment for their athletes to keep them properly protected.
What these naysayers do not know is that for many schools, the athletic programs get so much money that they have extra that they use for unnecessary things or do not use it all. If there is extra money, it should go to the programs who cannot get large amounts of money easily. Also, sports teams do not need new equipment every single year. Sports equipment can last years without threatening the safety of the athletes. This would save thousands of dollars which could be used to buy new instruments to replace 30 year old instruments that are literally duct taped together which have not been able to be repaired because the music programs are working on an extremely small amount of money.
This solution would also not kill public schools’ athletic programs. The athletic programs will still receive 50% of the money which can still be very useful. Lets say the athletic programs get $100,000 in funding, they get to keep $50,000 which is still plenty to run athletic programs. If the athletic programs get $170,000 in funding, they get to keep $85,000 which is close to doubling the other amount. Athletic programs get an average of about $100,000 a season which is more than plenty to run a program off of while music programs get an average of $10,000 a year which can barely pay for two instruments (Kalahar). To rebut the thought of students losing the chance to be successful if this solution takes place, athletic programs will still be around and the athletic programs would only have to make minor changes if any to use the money given effectively. Students will still get the same opportunities as before and if the parents think about it, they are actually giving other students opportunities that they did not have before.
The next step of making this solution possible is to implement it. To make this possible, music directors will first have to present the issue to the school’s principal and the district to show how important music education is. Once these two are on board, the solution can begin to work. First, the principal and district will be aware of the money transfer that will take place, but will wait till all the funding comes in for the athletic programs to begin the money transfer. Second, once the money has accumulated, the financial office will transfer 50% of the money to the music department without telling the boosters or the other people who are funding the athletic programs. After a few weeks and both programs are running full time, the school will then inform the boosters and donors. The opposition would say that it is immoral to not tell them where their money is going, but if they know before hand, they will not give as much money to the school. They will be informed later after progress has been made to show that this solution actually works and that they should keep supporting it. This solution will target music students, music directors, athletes, coaches, and athletes’ parents. It will target the music students by giving them more opportunities to play and enjoy music. The music directors will be involved because they need to prove to the principals and the districts that they need this money and this is the only solution to supply the necessary money. Athletes are involved because they may not get new equipment or jerseys every year like they did in the past. Coaches are targeted because they need to see where some money is not needed so they can make arrangements with the budget cut. Lastly, the parents of the the athletes are targeted because they are usually the ones giving the money to the athletic programs and it is their money that is being dealt with.
This solution will take place in the next school year of 2012-2013 and will last until the music program can create a functional booster program that can earn the necessary money on its own. The donors will have problems with this because they cannot decide when their money is being used for its intended purpose, but this will help build the programs so they can both thrive. There is no intended amount with this solution. The only defined number is the 50% that is taken away from the athletic budget and given to the music department. Many people will argue that 50% is a large amount, but it is not fair if one program gets more money than the other, especially when both programs are equal in academic value. The people who will be paying will still be the same people who were paying before, but instead of all of their money going to the athletic programs, it will be distributed to the music department too. These boosters will argue that it should not be just their money that is being transferred, but if both programs do very well under this solution, more boosters and donors will take part in it. To make this work is quite simple. All that needs to be done is that the band directors, principals, and the schools’ districts all need to be onboard with this solution and need to see the benefits of it. The only difficult part about making it work will be getting the districts to approve of the plan. Most school districts are more sport supporting heavy and getting them to be on the music departments‘ side will take some effort. As long as the music directors present a compelling case, the district will be on their side.
The problem of instrumental music programs not having enough money to do what is necessary to educate their students is very imperative. Music students are missing very important opportunities of performing and learning that are essential to their education. If schools do not fund or cut their music programs, they run the high risk of lower standardized test scores and grades which will hurt the school in many other ways. The solution of taking 50% of the athletic programs’ funds would solve the problem because instrumental music programs would get the funding needed to be successful and it would not involve extra money at first. This solution would also show communities that athletic programs do not need as much funding as they get and many other programs can make good use out of that money. The implementation procedure justifies the solution because it is in a reasonable time frame and does not involve too many steps. Realistically, this solution is not the best way to handle this issue, but it is important to know that instrumental music is in desperate need of funding. Instrumental music matters because instrumental music education is vital to students’ education and without it, students‘ lose post high school and employment opportunities. If schools and communities fund their instrumental music programs, schools can increase their test scores and have overall better success. This issue can be simply solved if communities donated just a little bit to their high school music programs.
Works Cited
“Arts Funding." Issues & Controversies On File, 18 July 2005. Facts On File News Services. Web. 4 Apr. 2011.
Hodges, Donald A., and Mary Luehrsen. "The Impact of a Funded Research Program on Music Education Policy." Arts Education Policy Review 111.2 (2010): 71-78. Academic Search Premier.Web. 25 Mar. 2011.
Hope, Samuel. "Creativity, Content, and Policy." Arts Education Policy Review 111.2 (2010): 39-47. Academic Search Premier.Web. 31 Mar. 2011.
Johansen, Geir. "An Education Politics of the Particular: Promises and Opportunities for the Quality of Higher Music Education." Arts Education Policy Review 110.4 (2009): 33-38. Academic Search Premier. Web. 31 Mar. 2011.
Kalahar, Gary. "High School Athletic Departments Feeling Effects of Budget Crunches | MLive.com." Michigan Local News, Breaking News, Sports & Weather - MLive.com. 08 May 2010. Web. 13 Nov. 2011.
References
Cane, Susannah. "Collaboration with Music: A Noteworthy Endeavor." Music Educators Journal 96.1 (2009): 33-39. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Apr. 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment