On Arts Education

Since my previous post had an art theme, I figured I might as well continue on this path for today's post, on arts education and the funding cuts it is experiencing. For starters, I'll mention a great post by Angie Villa on her artwork blog. Angie, an artist and public school teacher, provides a lesson plan for elementary-school students based on the book Tar Beach by Faith Ringgold, and makes a strong case for the use of art as a way to teach across the curriculum. For instance, young children drawing a cityscape learn about math (2D vs 3D, proportions), architecture/geography (because of the buildings in the Ringgold book and similar buildings in the children's environment that they can relate to), history (because the Ringgold book is set in the late 1930s), and many other concepts. 

Because of the economic situation, funding for arts education has come under increased scrutiny for decision-makers looking for budget cuts. As an example, last May "the PA House of Representatives passed its version of the budget bill with a 70% cut to the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts (PCA), reducing the PCA's grants to the arts budget down from $8.4 million in FY2010-2011 to $2.5 million in FY2011-2012."

The Americans for the Arts blog provides information for the funding situation at the federal level, for instance about the amendment sponsored by Rep Tim Walberg to reduce the NEA's endowment to its lowest level in 16 years - this amendment was thankfully defeated in July - and about the "Setting New Priorities in Education Spending Act" (HR 1891), which "was introduced for the purpose of eliminating 43 existing federal education programs" and on which a vote is expected by Thanksgiving.

Although times of fiscal difficulty certainly call for sacrifices, it is not clear cutting art by such a large amount is the right way to proceed, especially when school administrators continue to be hired at a significantly higher salary than a lowly art teacher. While art education is a "nice thing to have" for children in middle- or upper-middle-class families whose parents can expose them to art outside school, it is important for schools serving mostly underprivileged students to offer their charges an education in art so that they can find their own voice and express themselves while learning about creativity and discipline.

While it is hard for late-bloomers in science, math or English to catch up, students can take up art at any age. It is also an egalitarian field, where the honor's roll students who shine in traditional courses might struggle with art, trying to find the exactly right answer when there is none. Art, one might argue, is an excellent way to counterbalance the tendencies to teach to the test and to produce students who ace the SATs and crumble when they have to show independent thinking. It can also help disenfranchised members of society feel less alienated and express their "outsider-ness" in a productive fashion.

I would argue that many professional artists feel like outsiders in some way. (If you are happy with the mainstream, you rarely feel the urge to give it your own personal twist.) They - especially through the program Arts in Education, which has recently come under threat - can thus serve as role models for struggling students who would otherwise retreat from school. Of course, not all underprivileged students will become artists, but art teaches skills such as patience and planning (through visualizing and creating a painting) that are useful in a wide range of career paths. In addition, art is a good way to engage at-risk students who would otherwise feel left behind and might then slide into a life of petty crime.

This is not feel-good fantasy: the impact of arts education on criminality was analyzed in "A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Arts Education for At-Risk Youth" by Tony Silbert and Lawana Welch, who argue that "by implementing strong arts programs for at-risk 4th to 12th graders, the state [of California] can recover one and a half times its investment through savings to the criminal justice system and increased tax revenue", in a report they wrote for their Master of Public Policy at the University of Southern California. Because the report dates back from 2001, it would be interesting to see if these numbers can be updated, and also if similar numbers also apply to other states. Those numbers do suggest arts education deserves far greater respect and support from legislators than it has been getting so far in this budget cycle.

Comments

[Ilyaquant.wordpress.com]

Not sure I agree here. From memory, I mostly hated art class as it was always a mess with smocks and paintings looking like utter garbage. If you want to teach art in this day and age, I say you should go with graphic design. Things like tablets, photoshop, and web page design.

But odds are, you can't teach that to toddlers. And, well, there's a very justified reason for the phrase "starving artist".

IMO, there are other, more productive, left-side-of-the-brain ways to teach creativity than the subjective and luddite left-sided dead zone that is smock-and-paper art class.

We aren't in the 19th century anymore, and it's time to move on from art and music on paper and instruments.

Now, revolutionizing all of that in a *technological* way so that while learning to make computer-aided pictures, kids learn technology and career skills in graphic design, audio editing, etc... is another thing altogether.

But frankly, I think that may be harder to teach than even the math and science that these right-siders so dread.

[Aurelie Thiele]

Ilya!

I'm really sorry that you can't understand the value of arts education for K-12 students, especially in elementary school. Developing creativity and teaching across the curriculum should be two important features of today's education so that students can approach problems in innovative ways and add value that rote learning cannot bring. I find that art is a great way to achieve that goal.

Also, the statement that "it's time to move on from art and music on paper and instruments"? Outlandish. I've got to make you work on your communication skills!

How are things with you otherwise? I'll venture the guess that you're not making art/playing music in your free time.

[Ilya Kipnis]

Haha Prof. Thiele =P

Anyhoo, working on the Stanford coursework, filling out UW PhD apps, but stuck on the mission statement. Really not sure how I get across the fact that I come seeking applied knowledge and want to use that knowledge to put it to use in making better algorithms in the private sector rather than being a professor.

Not to mention my mentor is a professional quant, so it's pretty apparent that I'm not exactly motivated by some sort of enlightened quest for learning, but for more...mercenary...reasons. I wonder how to hide that while making it clear that I want applied knowledge for application's sake.

[Aurelie Thiele]

Seriously Ilya, where did you get this idea that you had to say you were motivated by the quest for learning or wanted to become a professor to get into engineering PhD programs? Admissions committees know many (engineering PhD) students won't become profs. You want to convey the impression you have clear goals that you have thought carefully about. Explain your end goal of making high-performing algorithms requires a PhD. That's it.