McGinn AlemiMrs. ValdezPeriod 1January 12th, 2018Table of ContentsTitle Page………………………………………………….
.……. page 1Table of Contents…………………………….
..………………………………… page 2Arts and Music Budget Cuts in California (Cause and Effect) ……………..
..… pages 3-4Third Party Financial Support (Bubble Map).………………………………
……page 5 Government Proposal & Debate (Bubble Map) ……………………….………..
.page 6Government Proposal & Debate vs. Third Party Financial Support (Compare and Contrast) ..……………………………………………….
….…page 7Argument Towards Government Proposal/ Debate..
………………………….…page 8Works Cited Page ……………………………………………………………….
. page 9Arts and Music Budget Cuts in California (Cause and Effect) Arts and music budget cuts are a problem in society today because students in public schools aren’t getting the legal arts education they need. Arts and music budget cuts are the losses or “cuts,” from the budgets of arts public schools.
Students in California do not have access to arts education. Stated by the San Diego Union-Tribune, “We are calling attention to the possible loss of all our instrumental elementary music teachers who reach 11,000 students each year in 131 schools.” 11,000 students in over 131 schools will be affected negatively by these cuts. Particularly, if trustees sign off on the government’s proposal, all elementary music education in the San Diego Unified School District will be ended, except for one program that does not rely on visual and performing arts funding.
According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, “The district’s visual and performing arts curriculum faces a $2.8 million cut from its $3 million budget this year as officials try to fill the projected $120 million hole in the district’s $1.2 billion operating budget.” There is a reason behind the cuts as shown. The district is trying to fill holes in their operating budget, which could be for examples such as infrastructure, community development, or parks and recreation. In essence, budget cuts are happening, and will continue to happen if we don’t do something about it.
What are the causes of these cuts, and how can we prove that they are? One cause for arts and music budget cuts in California is that the administration of the local government and district do think that the arts are equally as important than other things the cuts could be used for, and want to focus more on academics. As indicated by the LA Times, “Arts programs across California have waned in the wake of budget cuts and a sharpened focus on academic subjects measured on standardized tests.” This shows that most district and government officials would choose academics over art and music, presenting that they do not think it is important. Another cause for arts and music budget cuts in California is that the money could be used for other purposes.
As stated in the previous paragraph, the San Diego Union School District is trying to fill a $120 million hole in their operating budget, which could be used to build up impoverished communities, as well as other equally important things. As stated by the KQED Arts Newsletter, “It’s a significant blow,” says California Arts Council director Craig Watson. “Our fear is that even a loss of modest funding will have a ripple effect through local neighborhoods, and the neighborhoods that are least able to afford those losses.” Above all, arts and music budget cuts in California has serious causes with serious effects. The effects of the lack of arts and music in California schools are so destructive because arts and music in schools are vital to a child’s upbringing and artistic exposure.
One effect of arts and music budget cuts is that arts and music teaching jobs will be lost. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, “Under the proposed budget, 10 art teaching jobs would be cut and more than 45 music teachers — some of whom are part-time — wouldn’t return next year to the district’s nationally-recognized music education program.” This stems from the cause of government and district officials not thinking that arts is important. Another exemplary effect would be that future students do not think of arts as a career or even an exceptional hobby. This is because of their lack of arts education. As The San Diego Union-Tribune writes, “Cutting elementary music education could also have the same “trickle-up” effect it did in the ’80s, when the music programs at several high schools dried up because there were no students feeding into them, said Ann Marie Haney, co-chair of San Diego’s Community Council for Music in the Schools.” This explains that students also lose interest in the arts quickly as they grow older.
Unquestionably, arts and music budget cuts in California has stemmed from several different examples shown above, and those stems have created effects which lead to our issue.Third Party Financial Support (Bubble Map)Third party financial support provides an economic connection to the neighborhood in order to subsidise the losses due to arts and music budget cuts in California. Today, arts students, staff and families are creating fundraisers and charities in communities that are losing their arts programs in schools. Unlike other funding systems, third party financial support gives children the ability to take back their arts education.
Can you imagine a school without theater, art or music programs? Without a single paintbrush? There isn’t any money left for arts funding from the government, which has lead the district to start asking money from the parents, similarly to private and Catholic schools. Another prominent reason arts don’t get funding is because government officials and the schools districts do not think it is important. As stated in the Los Angeles Times, “Arts programs across California have waned in the wake of budget cuts and a sharpened focus on academic subjects measured on standardized tests.” To clarify, the district cares more about their students’ grades than their students’ interests.
Truly, that is what third party financial support is trying to prevent. This solution is trying to ensure that every child has the choice to take part in an art-inclusive school.Third party financial support works through several ideas, such as the Advocacy Plan, collaborations with outside recruit programs, and parent-provided arts activities outside of school, which all help to save arts and music in schools. The Advocacy Plan was unsuccessful because the idea was put in place too late.
This solution was supposed to set the best people to plan before the time comes, but the time already came. According to SeattlePI, “An advocacy plan provides beginning steps to approaching the most influential people about budget cuts to the arts.” Basically, this quote explains how the advocacy plan works and how it could have worked. Parent-provided arts activities were mildly successful because it furthered arts education in students without using the schools arts funding. “Schafer (Paul Schafer, a veteran arts educator) joined parents, teachers and educators who offered solutions, such as providing outside training and publicly disclosing every school’s compliance with state law, states The Los Angeles Times. This shows that people can band together to expose the wrongdoing people and create new honest purposes for a meaningful cause.
Above all, third party financial support is generally unsuccessful because of their approach to the subject. If they approached it in a different way, it may have been successful.Third party financial support is known for campaigning to save arts and music in schools in California.
This is important because kids aren’t getting the legal arts education they need. Through the arts students’ and staffs’ efforts, they are impacting districts and schools by connecting with the people on an emotional level. Today, arts students and staff are supporting districts, schools and children who miss out every day on arts education. Can third party financial support really solve the problem of arts and music budget cuts in California? Although third party financial support can work, there is no definite chance it will work every time to solve arts and music budget cuts in every public school in California. According to the California Department of Education, “Core Reforms Engaging Arts to Educate (CREATE) is a statewide coalition of agencies and organizational partners on an education reform movement that views arts education as an essential part of the solution to the problems facing California schools.Government Proposal & Debate (Bubble Map) Government proposal/debate provides a strategic and serious solution to arts and music budget cuts in California.
Arts parents, staff and students are proposing multiple solutions to local government officials. Unlike other government strategies like trials, government proposal and debate allows the people of the community to get involved while still having a professional outlet to rely on. Can you imagine your creatively expressive child getting the one thing they love and thrive in in life taken away from them for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week? The only reason arts does not get funding is because of a typo in a legislation. According to the LA Times, “Educators told lawmakers that while more than 170,000 students take theater and dance in California, the state does not offer a separate credential for either subject. The reason, they said, was a typo in legislation that required credentials for music and art, instead of music and arts.” This quote is self explanatory. Indeed, government proposal and debate can be a fundamental solution to arts and music budget cuts in California. Equally important, these cuts are going to the neighborhoods that can afford them the least.
Government proposal and debate is self explanatory. The concerned people of the community go to local government officials in power and either propose a new solution, or debate the existing ones. As stated by the KQED Arts Newsletter, “In total, the NEA split $7.8 million among 119 grantees in California this year (2016-2017), while another $1.
2 million went to the California Arts Council. But grantees have to match every dollar from other donors, in part to demonstrate public support for their programming or artworks. Groups say they can leverage an NEA grant nine times.” This quote explains that it is not hard to leverage a grant, which is a big step in the right direction.
Government proposal/debate is usually successful when a strong case is represented. According to the LA Times, “State law requires that schools provide music, art, theater and dance at every grade level. But the law lacks teeth and few districts across the state live up to the requirement.” This quote is representing a loophole in the arts education system that allows schools to slack off in their departments. This is an opening for a strong case to bring back arts and music education in California public schools professionally in the government.
Overall, we can agree that government proposal/debate can be successful in several ways, and there are more legal opportunities to grasp at every day. Government proposal and debate has efficiently presented itself as a solution towards arts and music budget cuts in California several times. Arts students and staff are proposing new ways to save the arts in their schools to local government. This is happening in California public school communities that are losing their arts programs. These communities plan to do this now and in the future. How can arts be so deprived in schools that the people of the community have to go to the government to fix it? All things considered, government proposal and debate is an exceptional solution to work with when trying to solve the dilemma of arts and music budget cuts in California.Government Proposal & Debate vs.
Third Party Financial Support (Compare and Contrast) Government proposal and debate and third party financial support have many similarities. A commonality between these two topics is their cause. These solutions both fight the good fight and connect art students, staff, and parents for a better future in the arts education programs. As stated in the San Diego Union Tribune, “Before a school board meeting last week, student musicians from elementary schools from SDSU performed to highlight the possible cuts.
” Art students bind together to save a program that they love, as well as for a good cause. Another commonality between government proposal and debate and third party financial support is that they were both mildly successful in the past. As said by the KQED Arts Media website, “With the official release of President Trump’s proposed budget on Thursday, arts leaders in California weren’t surprised to see the elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) among the cuts…
This is the beginning of the battle.” As you can see, both of these solutions are somewhat political. Indeed, both of these topics have similarities between each other when tackling the problem of arts and music budget cuts in California.There are several differences between government proposal and debate and third party financial support. Government proposal and debate has less options within the solution and is more direct in the different ways it can be put into action.
There is one option through government proposal and debate, which is to create a legislation articulating assured funding for arts and music in schools. As stated by Carl Schafer, a veteran arts educator, “All of these efforts, and my own, have been to persuade. Persuasion has not worked and persuasion will not work in the future. The only situation is to require compliance.” Contrarily, third party financial support has more options and more breathing room to create a new solution within the topic. Some choices are fundraisers, charities, and donation programs. On one hand, government proposal and debate is more present-oriented.
On the other hand, third party financial support is more future-oriented. In fact, according to The San Diego Union-Tribune, the only reason theater and dance don’t get funding in public schools is because of a typo in the legislation, entailing funds to ‘art’ programs and not ‘arts’ programs. Another difference between government proposal and debate and third party financial support is parent involvement. With government proposal and debate, there is less parent involvement. In summary, government debate is unique when compared to third party financial support.
Compared to government proposal and debate, third party financial support is more creative than the former, which is more law-heavy. Another difference between these two solution is their government orientation. Government proposal and debate is more government-oriented. Conversely, third party financial support is less government-oriented. They both involve parents of the art students into the solution. Overall, these solutions have similarities and differences, but they both work to solve our problem.
Argument Towards Government Proposal / Debate In regards to the issue of arts and music budget cuts in California, government proposal and debate can help decrease the pushback of government towards replenishing the arts and music funding in public schools. Government proposal and debate is a way for the government to take us seriously. The LA Times article named ‘Only 35 L.A.
public schools get an A in supporting the arts’ states, “For the first time, L.A. Unified in September completed a detailed accounting of arts programs at its campuses that shows stark disparities in class offerings, the number of teachers and help provided by outside groups.
” This quote frames that when a governmental proposal is used, there is a majority of success. Secondly, government proposal and debate can support solving the issue of arts and music budget cuts in California by publicly revealing their level of obedience with state law. According to the LA Times issue, “This year, L.A. Unified asked all of its schools to complete surveys detailing class offerings, the number of arts teachers and the help provided by outside groups for arts programs.” This evidence displays that the solution is already in prosperous effect.
Undeniably, government proposal and debate is held at a higher standard and is more desirable than third party financial support when trying to construe the controversy of arts and music budget cuts in California. While it is true government proposal and debate is a more professional trajectory, third party financial support unites the people of the community for a better cause. Third party financial support is a simpler way to connect with the people of the community and get them donate. According to the Law Street Media Website, “On a larger scale, state initiatives can greatly improve art education in schools. California’s Core Reforms Engaging Arts to Educate (CREATE) is a large-scale project to bring arts back to the classroom, bridging the gap of budget cuts.” The fact remains that arts and music budget cuts in California is real, a big problem and expanding all over the state rapidly. This must be solved immediately.
Although third party financial support has benefits, the advantages of government proposal and debate are much more likely to create success when struggling with the issue of arts and music budget cuts in California. Overall, third party financial support can be successful and desirable when dealing with our issue. Looking at the high number of public schools in California that do not offer sufficient arts and music programs, currently arts and msuic Works Cited