Music Education In Crisis
by Joseph Pergola, Retired National Education Company Director of Education and Arts Development
jtpergola@optonline.net
ments are suffering from severe financial shortfalls which have resulted in severe budget cuts. The brunt of these budget cuts are falling on public service institutions par- ticularly our public schools. In some cases funding cuts are endangering the very ex- istence of music education programs in our schools. The largest source of funding for pub- lic schools comes from property taxes. In the current recession people find themselves in financial crisis. People are not buying homes and in too many cases, they are abandoning or losing their homes to foreclosure. In this type of fiscal environment, state and local governments do not collect the revenue nec- essary to properly fund local public schools. The unfortunate reality is this: state and federal money to schools continues to decrease; yet the cost of operating schools continues to rise.
T
Sad but True: If a school does not recognize the
value of music education, the risk of music suffering serious budget cuts is heightened. Too often school leaders and parents lack a true understanding of the importance of music education in a child’s development. Music education provides private and public benefits. Private Benefits:
• Enriches the quality of children’s lives • Promotes cultural awareness • Creates social bonds • Makes schools better places to learn • Promotes pride of accomplishment
Public Benefits:
• Promotes responsibility • Raises student achievement
TEMPO
hese are trying times for music educators across the nation. Our state and local govern-
• Develops self-discipline • Develops greater tolerance • Provides constructive entertainment In the current state of economic reces- sion, public schools are losing a significant portion of their funding. This forces school districts to make serious choices about pro- gram funding. A loss in funding too often translates into less money to support elec- tive courses in music. Program cuts of this nature are usually accompanied by lay-offs and job cuts. It’s sad but true that students attending
wealthier school districts have a greater op- portunity for a well rounded balanced edu- cation then lower income school districts. Recent legislation with it’s obsessive fo- cus on testing in reading and math has dis- qualified some students from participation in elective music programs and has left little time in an already overcrowded school day for music. According to The National Assess-
ment of Educational Programs in the Arts, student exposure to the arts education in schools has steadily declined since 1997. It is not uncommon today to see the elimination of elementary instrumental programs, district wide string orchestra pro- grams, grade level choruses and theory class- es. It is estimated that a majority of Fine Arts Departments in public schools have adopted funding and/or program cuts since 2010. Everything except core academic sub- jects is starting to be considered a perk. In spite of all the concern and outrage
over increasing taxes and proposed program cuts, public response has not stopped the erosion of music education programs. We as music educators have miscalculated pub- lic response. There has been no universal public outcry about defunding music edu- cation. We must not mistake concern and sympathy for advocacy.
42
Result:
Whenever school budgets need to be cut music programs and music teachers are
the first to go! Question:
Why is it so difficult for so many in- dividuals in decision- making positions to understand the importance of maintaining a strong music program? The answer is simple! We must face the
fact that we collectively and as individuals, have not done a good enough job commu- nicating the value of music education for our children’s future and for our nation. We have not effectively communicated and convinced the academic world, society in general, the people who control the levers of influence and the people who make the crit- ical decisions regarding educational funding for the arts.
Lessons from the Past: Unfortunately, the facts show that we
have learned little from past problems. Al- though educational music associations have unveiled broad based advocacy plans, most are nothing more than glorified public rela- tions programs placed in the hands of an or- ganized leadership as opposed to an inspired grass-roots movement emphasizing preven- tion. Music educators must learn to be pro- active. Too often we don’t see the threat to music education until it’s to late! Too many school boards believe that cutting or eliminating music programs will ease budget restraints with little or no detri- mental effect on students. It is the responsi- bility of every music education advocate to be able to effectively dispute this claim. Whenever program or funding cuts
are made to music programs, school boards always claim that the arts are not being un- fairly targeted. They will site cuts to other programs beside music. But the truth is
JANUARY 2014
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92