Written by Ryan R.
When schools are facing financial hardships and money must be re-distributed, it is often the fine arts department that gets the short end of the stick. In fact, if the entire department is not completely cut, it is usually left hanging by a thread.
My colleague Jose pointed out in a blog post last week that “… it is up to the state and local governments to distribute the money [received by the federal government]. Federal funds are only set aside for national programs such as Reading First, ESL, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act…” This is important to remember because while some cities and states are able to properly relocate funds for underfunded arts programs, this is largely due to the people in the community advocating for these changes. In states where there is no income tax, community advocacy is even more important because there is less money to be distributed to arts programs.
According to an article by Mary Tamer, former Director of Marketing and Communication at the Harvard graduate school of Education, the origin of fine arts departments being underfunded can be traced back to the 1950’s, when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik into space. Tamer quotes Steve Seidel, current director of Harvard’s Project Zero, a program focused on learning and creativity in the arts: “Science in schools was pushed to the forefront, and the notion that we might not be up to par [vis-à -vis] the Soviet Union brought intense scrutiny. More funding was put toward science in education.”
In the context of the space race between the United States and the Soviet Union, it is easier to see why arts programs began to lose funding here in the United States. However, what is not as easy to see is why there are still places in our country that are not able to provide classes in arts programs. For example, the Oklahoma Policy Institute published a study that found in 2018, the state of Oklahoma had 1100 fewer arts classes than four years prior to the study, and 28% of all Oklahoma public school students did not have access to art classes at all.
One answer to tragic cases such as this would be a more centralized approach to education, with the government providing more direct funding towards schools and allowing voters to decide on the amount that should be invested. However, this is quite an unlikely scenario with our current political landscape. So what are some useful ways that states could redirect money to arts departments? In 2009, the state of Ohio had 30% of its cigarette tax directed towards funding Ohio public school art programs. Creative solutions like these would be welcomed in today’s world, where public school budgets compete with federal budget inequalities, such as excessive military spending.
Thankfully, here in Austin students are able to access visual and performing arts at every Austin ISD campus. According to a statement made by superintendent Stephanie Elizalde in April of this year, Austin ISD is exploring options to expand arts programs at the middle and high school levels.
Sources
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/09/06/chopping-block-again
https://okpolicy.org/fine-arts-education-matters-how-shrinking-budgets-deepen-inequalities/