An abundance of studies prove that teaching & encouraging student participation in the arts improves other skills.
Yet the arts - as everyone knows - are the first classes and programs cut. The effects on scholastic arts of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the America Competes Act (ACA), & a nose-diving economy that demands cutbacks in school budgets, have been decimating.
We could debate whether, in an environment of austerity budgets, continuing or instituting arts activities would mean more overcrowding in classes or fewer texts, or still higher taxes on an already-overburdened tax base. We could parse the cause & effect of political art movements, such as the Socialist Realismmovement instituted by Joseph Stalin in the USSR in the 1930-40s.* But let’s not.
Certainly no one here opposes educating students, from kindergarten through high school, in the broadest spectrum of subjects & activities. So why should Daily Kos, a site devoted to partisan Democrats, care about whether students are taught the arts?
Does studying art make better Democrats?
Some of the benefits of studying the arts are listed in this article in the online magazine for the California Teachers Association.
Clearly, education in the arts is an inherently and productive no-brainer. So why are arts programs always the first to be slashed?
The online magazine of the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), a wellspring of information and views on the topic, examines this conundrum in a March 2008 article, Reinventing schools to meet the challenges of the global innovation economy (March 2008):
A little over a decade ago, a study by the Lila Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund found that while eight of 10 Americans believed the arts were life-enriching, only half as many said the arts had much to do with their daily lives. This attitude, which has improved somewhat according to more recent polls, pervades the thinking in most of our schools and in the public arena as well. Thus when budgets are cut, as increasingly they are, the arts are often the first to go.
Before considering the relationship between arts education on grooming future active Democrats, consider the effects of policies like NCLB and ACA on arts education. According to another AASA article, Bucking Trends: Expanding the Arts, Kathi R. Levin writes:
The arts and music have been unintended victims of the No Child Left Behind Act. Several reports point to sharp reductions in student access to K-12 arts education...
"The statistics show that we’re getting disproportionately harmed by NCLB because students are being denied access to music and the other arts as a part of their education," says John Mahlmann, executive director of MENC: The National Association for Music Education. "There is an increasing understanding on the part of administrators and parents of the need for a comprehensive education that includes the arts, and this legislation seems to fly in the face of that realization. We work to ensure that young people have programs taught by qualified teachers in their schools."
Richard Deasy, director of the Arts Education Partnership, notes that "the fundamental problem we confront in making the arts an unquestioned part of the learning required of students and teachers is the position of the arts in the broader culture." Deasy suggested what’s most valued in America is "muscularity" or toughness. The math and science curricula carry with them this sense of muscularity through their inherent formulas, truisms and theories. By comparison, the arts experience seems less tough, softer, more anecdotal." [emphasis mine]
In addition to the disastrous NCLB Act, Deasy's article calls out another Bush act that decimated education in the arts, the America Competes Act of 2007:
"The bill authorizes $151 million to help students earn a bachelor’s degree in math or science, $125 million to help math and science teachers get teaching credentials, and additional monies to help align K-12 math and science curricula to better prepare students for college."
Sounds like a good idea, to focus the country's education on math and science - but at what cost?
In a commentary quoted for the Reinventing schools article, Not By Geeks Alone, (The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2007), Chester E. Finn Jr.
and Diane Ravitch , both assistant secretaries of education in the first Bush administration, "complained loudly:
[The ACA Act] is a mistake that will ill serve our children while misconstruing the true nature of American competitiveness and the challenges we face in the 21st century," they argued.
"Worthy though these skills are, they ignore at least half of what has long been regarded as a well-rounded education in Western civilization: literature, art, music, history, civics and geography."
Richard Kessler, executive director of the Center for Arts Education, a nonprofit group...cited Department of Education statistics showing that "30 percent of schools citywide lacked an arts teacher last year, up by 10 percent from the year before. And the budget for supplies has been cut $7 million."
Related and recommended reading on this subject include Research Round Up: Field Trips Down, Ignorance Holding Steady, Museum Visits Booming by Philip M. Katz, assistant director for research at the American Association of Museums (a Web Exclusive article published in April 2008), and Why the arts deserve center stage.
Okay, I imagine you saying, education of and participation in student classes and activities is great, and we knew that; the economy sucks and budget cuts will unfairly and stupidly target arts programs. But why does any of this matter to this partisan Democrat reader?
Because studying and practicing the arts makes people better citizens.
In the first chapter of Terri Lynn Cornwell, Democracy and the Arts The Role of Participation, Cornwell offers her personal story of how studying music lead directly to a political career:
My first experience making an impassioned plea for more arts funding - the first and foremost task of an arts advocate - came when I attended a local school board meeting to request $25 for costumes and makeup for the students in my drama club. I must have been effective. The school board gave us $50! Never again would I see a doubling of an arts funding request.
Years later, I often remembered that incident as I wrote testimony for members of Congress who advocated increases in the more than $150 million budget of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)-a figure that is often considered so small that it is rounded to zero and virtually disappears in the context of dealing with the more than $1 trillion federal budget. Obviously, my background in both arts participation and advocacy creates a definite bias in the way I view cultural activities in a democracy. In writing this book, I attempted to look at the relationship between the arts and our political system in a fresh way to add to the cultural policy debate.
In response to - and in spite - draconian cuts in educational, non-profit and citizen-supported projects are struggling, yet succeeding.
The mission statement from one notable program, The Center for Civic Participation Program: Arts & Democracy (CCPPAD), defines how these groups are using the arts to shape young citizens and further progress within diverse communities:
The creative power of arts and culture—especially among those who have been traditionally disenfranchised—is a catalyst for action. The Arts & Democracy Project builds the momentum of a cultural movement that draws on a rich history of arts activism, social justice organizing, and grassroots engagement. We are engaging the following questions:
·How do arts and culture play an active role in our democracy?
·What forms of cultural expression move people to participate in decision-making?
·What forms of activism and organizing are best linked to arts and cultural work?
·How can this work become more strategic, effective, and sustainable?
The project catalyzes and supports cross-pollination between sectors, cultures and generations, and the linking of practitioners, policymakers, educators, and activists.
Recent CCPPAD projects and partners include:
ALLGO (Austin Latina/Latino Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Organization); Albany Park Theater Project; All-ages Movement Project; The Allied Media Conference.
Twenty minutes on the Internet brought up lots of organizations that use the arts to cultivate good citizens, such as: NURTUREart; Art Creation Foundation for Children; Artists For Humanity; First Book.
And of course, there’s DonorsChoose.org, the organization dedicated to "addressing the scarcity and inequitable distribution of learning materials and experiences in our public schools. We believe this inequity is rooted in the following factors:
- Shortages of learning materials prevent thorough, engaging instruction;
- Top-down distribution of materials stifles our best teachers and discourages them from developing targeted solutions for their students; and
- Small, directed contributions have gone un-tapped as a source of funding.
DonorsChoose.org will improve public education by engaging citizens in an online marketplace where teachers describe and individuals can fund specific student projects. We envision a nation where students in every community have the resources they need to learn."
These arts-based programs and organizations foster acceptance of human diversity; establishing and working within grassroots organizations; creative thinking; neighborhood actions; personal introspection. They lay the roots for active, caring and involved citizens. Just the kind we want.
Finally, let’s consider the corollary: does education in math and science make for better Republicans? Do Republicans foster mathematicians and scientists who engage in activities that are beneficial to humankind?
Consider one egregious action from a Republican administration:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Politics & Science:
"Until the summer of 2002, the National Cancer Institute posted an analysis on its web site concluding that the current body of scientific evidence does not support the claim that abortions increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer. The analysis explained that after some uncertainty before the mid-1990s, this issue had been resolved by several well-designed studies, the largest of which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997, finding no link between abortion and breast cancer risk.
In November 2002, however, the Bush Administration removed this analysis and posted new information about abortion and breast cancer on the NCI web site. The new fact sheet stated:
[T]he possible relationship between abortion and breast cancer has been examined in over thirty published studies since 1957. Some studies have reported statistically significant evidence of an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had abortions, while others have merely suggested an increased risk. Other studies have found no increase in risk among women who have had an interrupted pregnancy."
Doesn’t sound like good science to me. What do Republican platforms have to say about science?
From the Alaska Republicans's [sic] Party Platform:
"...We support daily recital of the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words "under God," proper display of the U.S. and State flags, and active promotion of patriotism in our schools. We also support teaching the accurate historical Judeo-Christian foundation of our country and the importance of the Declaration of Independence, federal and State constitutions, and other founding documents.
...We support requiring active, written parental consent prior to teaching any sex education curricula. Any such curriculum must be abstinence-based. We oppose teaching or promoting homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle.
...We support teaching various models and theories for the origins of life and our universe, including Creation Science or Intelligent Design. If evolution outside a species (macro-evolution) is taught, evidence disputing the theory should also be presented."
Say what?
From the Republican Party Platform:
"... We renew our call for replacing "family planning" programs for teens with increased funding for abstinence education, which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and expected standard of behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS when transmitted sexually. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception..."
YIKES!
What exactly is the relationship between evangelical-fundamentalist-born again religions – who represent only one of numerous demographics effecting education – and the Republican Party? [I hope that, if there are any members of these groups out there, that you won’t take personal offense. Or maybe not; you’re such easy targets, what with the dinosaur thing, and Happy 6,000-10,000th Birthday, Earth! (snark). Nonetheless.]
The Barna Organizationis a Christian ministries research group whose vision is:
"To provide leadership and unique, strategic information and resources that help facilitate spiritual transformation in America... to be a catalyst in moral and spiritual transformation in the United States."
A February 4, 2008, articleon that site examines the relationship between evangelicals and the Republican Party:
A subset of the born again population - evangelicals - has remained firmly committed to conservative ideals and, to a lesser extent, to the Republican Party. Across the nation, 43% of registered voters are aligned with the Democratic Party and 24% are registered as Republicans. Among evangelicals, though, 56% are registered Republicans and just 22% are Democrats.
Ideological leanings reflect a similar disparity. Among all voters, half say they are somewhere in the middle of the ideological spectrum on most issues, with 29% describing themselves as mostly conservative and just 14% claiming to be mostly liberal. Yet, among evangelicals, three out of every four (72%) describe themselves as mostly conservative and a mere 2% say they are mostly liberal. Just one out of four evangelicals (24%) says they are in the ideological middle ground....
...Overall, 90% of them [said they were] interested in the presidential election, making them among the voter segments most interested in the race... 98% of them say they are concerned about the moral condition of the country...
OMFG!
The Pew Research Center, a more nonpartisan organization, also examined this religious/political relationship:
Evangelicals and the GOP: An Update by Scott Keeter
(albeit from 2006, but the information quoted is still valid)
...From 1999 to 2004, the number of evangelicals identifying themselves as Republicans grew dramatically, rising from 39% in 1999 to 47% in 2001 and peaking at 49% in 2004 and 2005. Given how slowly party affiliation in the American public tends to change, this level of movement among evangelicals was startling...
...President Bush received a striking 78% of the votes of white evangelicals in 2004, up 10 percentage points from 2000 and by far his highest level of support from any demographic group in the population. As he began his second term in office, the president had an approval rating of 72% among evangelicals, compared with 50% in the public as a whole....
I’m not a professional educator, but IMHO it seems clear that among the evangelical demographic – just one of those that strongly endorses the Republican mission and views towards education – lie abstinence-only demanders, homophobic information-witholders, proof-to-the-otherwise science deniers.
These kinds of programs foster acceptance of divisiveness; dull thinking; spurious beliefs; religious and political lock step. They lay the roots for proselytizing, selfish and ignorant citizens.
Just the kind we don’t want.
_
*For lots of fun with Socialist Art, see also Komar & Melamid here and here.