Merriam-Webster dictionary simply defines creativity as “the ability to create.”(Merriam-Webster) This can take shape in any subject or medium- from science to math to foreign language to the arts. However, when most people think of creativity, they tend to gravitate towards the arts such as music, dance, theatre, and visual arts. For many adolescents in school, the arts are their main outlet of creativity, allowing a chance to take a break from strictly structured classes. It is not to say that children are not creative in other subjects, but the arts are extremely important in their education. For years now, public schools in America have been cutting funding for arts programs in order to free up money in the budgets for more sports, science, and math. This is affecting the children involved, and they are suffering because of it. Due to this decrease in funding for the arts, students’ creativity is being limited by the school system.
In most public schools in the United States, the curriculum consists of language, mathematics, science, social studies, physical education, and the arts. However, schools often place an emphasis on math, science, and English language arts, making students feel as if they need to excel in those subjects to be successful. There is less of an emphasis on subjects such as visual arts, music, and theatre, which is stifling creativity in adolescents. Within the past 10 years, science, technology, engineering, and math, also known as STEM have been made out to be the most important classes for students to thrive in, and while they are important classes to take, I do not believe it is fair to say that they have more value than an arts class. Every person’s brain is wired differently, and someone who is good at algebra, for example, may not be good at painting, just as someone who enjoys learning French may not take interest in U.S. history.
Schools with grades K-12 have been limiting education opportunities for students due to the fact that institutions are focusing more on test grades and literacy. I am in no way diminishing the importance of literacy, however, the push for high test scores are damaging America’s youths and causing them to simply learn to regurgitate information as opposed to absorbing and gaining knowledge. Creativity is suppressed in courses where tests are administered and you can only have ‘one right answer.’ By not allowing students to think outside of the box, they are being conditioned to believe that creativity is frowned upon. In arts courses, creativity is heavily encouraged. There are many ways to create a painting or a dance or a piece of music, and these courses often contain less testing and less focus on perfect grades.
Due to this push for high test grades and success, arts courses that do not prioritize that are suffering. More funding is being granted to core classes in writing, math, and science, and funding is being taken away from arts courses. The zero sum game theory is a theory that states that one person or group can win something only by causing another person or group to lose it (Merriam-Webster). This is an economic theory, and proves itself important in the understanding of school budgets. If a school has a fixed budget allotted to them for a given year, and more money is given to the math or language department, the arts department will end up with less.
In 2017, the United States Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, proposed a cut to federal spending on education of 13.6% across all aspects. More specifically, $27 million was to be taken from arts funding (Ravitch). These cuts would not only affect the students, but the resources available for schools as well. Some schools are unable to pay music teachers full time, so they will only have a music teacher two to three days per week, as opposed to a geometry teacher being at the school for a full five days a week. Materials and equipment are also affected by the funding, leaving schools with outdated instruments and art supplies, where students do not have the ability to work to their fullest potential due to the resources they are given. Especially in public schools located in underprivileged neighborhoods, this is a prominent issue that only continues to get worse as federal and state funds for arts education decrease.
On the other side of the argument, there are many people who would disagree with the fact that a decrease in funding for arts education programs in US public schools limits’ students creativity. Subjects such as music, visual art, and film, for example, are not the only courses in which a student can demonstrate creativity. Creativity can also be shown in subjects such as math when finding a new way to solve a problem, or biology when completing a lab assignment. It could also be argued that arts are simply “extra” and not a necessary part of an education. However, students are provided with a different experience in arts classes, one in which their minds are expanded to view different world perceptions and other ways to observe reality (Heilig). Arts classes open up young minds and provide them with a sort of escape from the mundane day to day testing.
In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act authorized US public schools to test in English language arts and math from third to eighth grade, and into high school, and focused on these test scores in order to determine how schools were advancing/improving. The Act did mention other core subjects of education including history, geography, and the arts, but chose to completely prioritize English, math, and science (Chapman). The federal government overseeing this was clearly not creating and viewing standardized tests for subjects within the arts. In fact, after this Act was implemented, 349 public school districts were surveyed and it was found that instruction time for arts education was cut by about 16% in order to make more time for English and math, due to the districts wanting high standardized test scores for those subjects (Heilig). The decrease in instruction time ultimately leads to a decrease in funding, due to this lower instruction time making the subject appear less valuable on paper.
As for the students, the arts allow them to be freely creative, and if they are unable to take these courses, their mindsets will be affected. For example, let us say that Student A takes a visual arts class and an algebra class back to back, and student B takes à music class and à biology class. Student A enjoys painting, and finds themself having maximum creativity in that class, in which they are allowed to express themselves. In Student A’s algebra class, they are required to solve math problems using certain techniques, memorize information, and go through standardized testing that does not provide the student with a sense of being creative. Student B taking a biology class feels that they can be creative when completing assignments and creating diagrams, and succeeds in this subject. They may not have the same inkling for the arts as Student A, and that is normal. Not every student is the same, and it is foolish of government officials and school leaders to believe that they are. By decreasing funding for the arts program in this hypothetical school, Student B may not be as affected, but Student A’s creativity will be stifled due to the lack of consideration and care for students in the budget cuts and policy making. It is unfair to assume that a lack of arts funding will not impact the creativity of the student.
Underfunding of arts education programs is unfortunately not a new trend, and I don’t believe that it will improve under the current administration in 2018, either, due to recent proposals for education cuts, as previously mentioned. This decrease of funding proven by statistics and surveys is harmful to the mindsets of students in US public schools grades K-12. They are being limited creatively by the resources and arts programs they are provided, as the schools continue to care more about test scores as opposed to the wellbeing and well roundedness of the students. If funding continues to decrease, creativity will only continue to be limited.