So, um, hi Ethan. (Hey, love your albums!) The pianist for the way-cool Bad Plus jazz trio, writing a typically lengthy response to the David Byrne piece on arts funding linked last week, asks,
Aren’t education budgets the easiest things for government planners to cut corners with — especially arts education budgets? If you took the Ring money and gave it to the schools this year, what do you bet that in two years there’s no money for either Ring cycles or schools? Isn’t it harder to cut the opera budget, since so many of the rich and powerful are invested in making themselves look good within the construct of City Hall? Is high-end classical music perhaps a bit politically defensible after all, just as a way to keep serious arts money in state budgets somehow?
…before continuing, “Ian David Moss: you’ve linked to Byrne’s piece, got anything to say about this?”
Here’s what I got, bro. First, without statistics on national arts education budget trends at the ready, I can’t really comment on whether the assumption/perception that they are the first things to get cut is actually true or not. They may be the first things to get cut relative to other subjects taught in K-12 schools, but the comparison here is with high-budget professional performances. The difference, of course, is that arts education in K-12 schools is entirely funded by the government, typically, whereas it’s quite rare in the United States for public funds to account for more than a small percentage of a performing/presenting institution’s budget. So it’s a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison to start with. That said, it’s probably not too far off the mark in a very general sense to say that (grand) opera funding is less vulnerable than arts ed funding, for exactly the reasons Iverson describes. The crux of this line of thinking, though, is the last question: whether this translates into defensibility because it keeps money in the arts. For me, I think the answer is no, because the argument puts the cart before the horse. Serious arts money in state budgets is a means to an end, not an end in itself. If the only way to keep the money there is to fund things that arguably don’t need the money and leave out things that do, then as a taxpayer I’d rather see my dollars go somewhere else (including, perhaps, back to my pocket, so that I can make my own decisions about what needs the most support). Ethan does make some good points about the weird anti-intellectual bent in Byrne’s piece, but with respect to the philanthropic wisdom of this investment, I couldn’t agree more with DB.
4 Comments
Just a quick clarification on your assertion that K-12 arts education is (typically) funded entirely from government spending… that’s just not the case. Beyond the sweet anecdotes of a PTA holding bake sales to restore a school’s music program (http://bit.ly/7x7ugf), there’s a lot of solid research showing that outside funding for arts education programs in k-12 public schools is the rule rather than exception.
I’ll point to two (of the best) state studies of access to arts education. New Jersey’s Arts Education Census Project found that nearly 42% of the total spending on elementary arts education came from non-government funding (http://www.artsednj.org/survey.asp). In California’s Unfinished Canvas study, funded by your Hewlett Foundation, researchers found that only about half
of California elementary schools use general funds as the primary funding source for arts education (http://bit.ly/6mQSUD). Studies from Washington, Colorado, Illinois, Ohio, and Kentucky all echo this trend in a growing reliance on funding from parent groups and private foundations for arts education in public schools.
Also, I’d say that Byrne’s “anti-intellectual bent” is in spirit of Arlene Goldbard’s (Marxist? Multiculturist?) critique of what became of the movement for democratization of the arts. It’s not so anti-intellectual as it is anti-rich-white-men’s-definition-of-culture.
That’s just my two cents. Other than that, great post.
Thanks so much, Sarah. I happily stand corrected. The government numbers for arts ed are still a lot higher than they are for arts producing/presenting institutions, but your point is well taken and it illustrates how much I still need to learn about arts education. Many thanks for your contribution.
I can second Sarah’s comment from personal experience if not academic research -
I work at a public highschool managing a very complex theater that just got built. Here the funding structures are kind of complex – the building itself was built with bond measures – taxpayer money, approved by taxpayers. However, my salary, along with the salaries of the drama teacher and the chorus/guitar teacher (not sure about the jazz/concert band) are paid solely through private fundraising by our school foundation. The foundation also raised money for a lot of theater equipment.
So, the funding is a little unique. But it’s true – state funding goes MUCH easier to a program to lift 9th graders from a 3rd grade reading level to a grade-appropriate level than vice versa.
I must also agree with Sarah; I don’t think Byrne’s intent was anti-intellectual. The point is that art happens (or should happen) at every level of society, especially local. However, without supporting creative exploration and education in schools we will be doomed to let art be defined by the majority and the elite, whoever they are. Art will be something we must always buy a ticket to, instead of enjoy as part of a public site or event. This isn’t to say that the big ticket art experience is never worth it, it is just that everyone deserves art as part of their life experience, community, and environment.
I work in the arts education field and can site report after report on how art helps students learn (math, science, you name it) and build emotional health. I prefer, however, to give the perfect example of my husband who is a physicist at JPL- and a jazz pianist. The experience of being creative has fueled many a scientist in helping them “think outside the box”, including my husband. According to my him, many of the denizens who are employed at JPL are creative in the arts on their own time. It would be interesting to embark on a study of successful scientists, doctors etc., to see how much art they had as children and how it affected their learning and life. I would hazard to guess that most of them had extensive art experiences as children, whether they are actively involved in art at present or not.
So to bring this full circle, the art that interests me the most happens in places such as the Pomona Arts Colony, or the Highland Park Art Ride. These local gallery exhibits and art experiences happen because a community of people/artists want to share a part of themselves. In my humble opinion, attending art walks (or art bike rides) are the most interesting art experiences I’ve had. Arts education is an important part of this community experience, because the schools are usually involved in exhibiting the art of their students. And today’s youth experiencing artistic creativity is tomorrow’s artist- or physicist or doctor or engineer…
Excellent discussion. Thank you for posting.