The Instigator
quarterexchange
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
cwalke3408
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Public Schools Should not Fund School Bands.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,857 times Debate No: 15854
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)

 

quarterexchange

Pro

I will be arguing that school bands should not be funded by public schools and Con will argue that school bands should be funded by public schools.

No semantics here.

When I mean public school I mean a school funded by tax dollars and when I say school band I mean a band that practices at the school and plays at school events.

I don't think that the school should be using money to fund school bands.

Whoever accepts this will argue that schools funded by tax dollars should fund school bands and all of their uniforms, instruments, etc.

The first round is merely acceptance.
cwalke3408

Con

I disagree with my opponent, for I believe schools should fund high school bands. I am glad to take this challenge because of the topic.
Debate Round No. 1
quarterexchange

Pro

First of all, band is an extra curricular activity for those with interest in it. It is not a hard science or mathematics or course nor does it have the importance of one.

It is very hard to make a living off of playing the clarinet, flute, trumpet, piano, etc and only a few ever become great and do make a good living off playing an instrument.

Cutting funding for band would allow the school to spend that money to hire more teachers to teach worthwhile classes such as Physics, Calculus, Biology, Chemistry, Statistics, and so on and give students with promising futures to learn a much more valuable skill that could greatly benefit society a better learning environment with less students in a class and more available positions to take such a class.

Band on the other hand requires that students have instruments, music books, uniforms, band teachers, etc. And if the students don't pay for it, the school ends up doing so.
All of these can cost up to several hundreds of dollars per student.

Playing an instrument is a hobby one does in their spare time more than it is a worthwhile trade or skill to learn while making a living like mathematics, science, language, etc and the school should have no buissness using tax dollars to fund a hobby.
If school bands should continue to exist and be funded then it should be on their own accord and should either be funded by parents of the students, charities, performances, etc.

The people of the United States should not be funding a hobby that is not a likely skill to need to make a living except for the exceptional few when the purpose of a school to equip and train the youth the necessary skills and know-how to become valuable members of society.

While there are still crowded classes for hard science courses and mathematics or schools were such classes aren't even offered, the bands at those schools should be cut and the money should go to a worthwhile course that students have a much greater chance of taking advantage of to get into better schools and eventually earn better jobs.

Band classes serve little purpose other than train students to play a noisemaker, a skill that nearly all of them will never ever need throughout their lives.

Solid science and math courses should have number 1 priority and since schools across the country are having severe budget cuts one of the first things to go should be band classes in order to make sure more valuable classes are available and well equipped
cwalke3408

Con

Reasons not to cut funding for band are provide students scholarships to college, one of the more popular extracurricular activities, teach students a talent they can use in the real world to get a job to make a living, and even make students smarter. Band is costly but schools do not fund all the cost to run a band. Some bands make students pay to get in and many fundraisers are use to raise money to supply the band needs.

Band is not just a hobby, it is one of the many extracurricular activities (activities performed by students that fall outside the realm of the normal curriculum of school or university education[2]) most schools provide. Band is one of the more popular extracurricular activities in public schools today. Hundreds of students participate in this activity. Out of all the other extracurricular activities why does band have to be the one cut in funding. I know schools can need more teachers and supplies but band helps students become more smarter in core classes. Band help students more mentally than other activities like sports or cheer leading. Studies at the University of Sarasota and East Texas State University both found links between the number of years of band instruction and significantly improved academic achievement as measured by standardized math, science and language tests (3). In this link (http://oakleafband.com...) study shows music make brain grow, show students get higher SAT scores with a music background, and it raises students math conceptual scores. The reason why schools fund band it is not because so they can teach students how to play a noise maker but it help students develop their minds so they can become smarter.

Another reason why band should be funded because students can use these opportunity to gain a scholarship to college. A scholarship that can help someone advance their education to set them up for the best possible spot to get a good career.

My opponent opinion is that it is very hard to make a living off playing a musical instrument. But the fact is, people can make a living off their musical talents. There are many jobs out there where someone can make a living off playing a instrument. Musicians can find jobs at churches, in the entertainment industry, music teacher, or join the military band where they can make a salary from $24,605 - $65,693 (1). Becoming one of these occupations is not easy nor is it any easier to become any other occupation. For any one who wants to work in their preferred career has to work very hard. Just like athletics have to practice to become a professional or a student studying hard to become an engineer, musicians have to practice and study and get a degree to become successful.

(1) http://www.payscale.com...
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3)http://oakleafband.com...
Debate Round No. 2
quarterexchange

Pro

Extracurricular activities are hobbies.

An activity or interest pursued outside one's regular occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure. [1]
Some schools have debate clubs, robotics clubs, political clubs, track, basketball, etc. These are all hobbies.

All of the other extracurricular activities/hobbies should also have their funding cut on the same basis in order to provide for the improvement of solid academic courses.

The Federal Government also funds nearly 10% of the budget of public schooling.[2]

The schools use that money to fund extracurricular activities such as band.

Artcile 1 Section 8 of the U.S. constitution states what the Federal Government has the right to fund. [3]

As long as the U.S. government funds public schools in such a large amount the public school certainly doesn't have the right to fund school bands. It is in blatant violation of the U.S. constitution.

If the Federal government cut the funding it gave to schools, which amounts to nearly 10%, I can gurantee you that band will be one of the first to go. Band has no buisness being funded.

My opponent states that schools don't even put forth all the funding for a band.

My response is that then there shouldn't be a large negative consequence to the school bands. If bands end up being entirely self-sufficient then good for them. But so far they need federal funding which the U.S. constitution does not allow for.

If music helps students brain develop there is nothing stopping them from playing or listening to music. They can listen to music in their free time.

There are many ridiculous scholarships out there. There are scholarships for just about every talent, ability, etc ever concieved, and organizations are willing to provide tens of thousands of dollars for them.[4]
Promoting Veganism = $10,000
Making a prom dress out of duct tape = $6,000
Using a skateboard = $5,000

I don't think the federal government should be using tax dollars to fund skateboard lessons simply because there are scholarships out there for it.

The pay for a musician is good, but it is very hard to become one more than it is to become an engineer if you take the proper courses.

That is why most of the top schools in the country support engineering which require mathematics and science. [5]
These schools include;
Massachusets Institute of Technology
Stanford Universtiy
University of California-Berkeley
Harvard University
Princeton University

And while there are good schools that offer music, they usually specialize in other career paths.

Rochester for instance is ranked as having the best music school, however, Rochester is known for its psychology, engineering, economic, and biology programs. [6]

In conclusion

1. As long as the federal goverment gives a substantial amount of funding to public schools, public schools have no constitutional right to fund school bands.

2. There are many valuable scholarships offered for a variety of useless talents, it doesn't mean the federal government should fund classes for those "talents" as well

3. It is much more promising to go forth with a career in science or mathematics, and with those classes being cut, band should be cut instead to fund those solid academic courses.

Seeing that more schools and scholarships appeal to students who have strong backgrounds in mathematics and science, those courses should come first rather than band.

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(Definition of the word "hobby")

[2] http://www2.ed.gov...
(The Federal Government funds over 8% of public school spending, see fact 4)

[3] http://www.usconstitution.net...
(Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution)

[4] http://www.collegedegree.com...
(Various scholarships for various talents)

[5] http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...
(List of top engineering schools)

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
(shows what the top musical school actually specializes in)
cwalke3408

Con

My opponet gurantees that band would be the first to go if the goverment cut funding to schools. Is this really true? There no evidences to support this claim.
My opinion is if Federal government cut funding it gives to schools the first thing that would good would not be band but maybe a smaller extracurricular activity like the chess clubs. What I am trying to say is that many students participate in band. So why cut funding for something that many students seem to enjoy and help them mentally more than other extracurricular activity.

Another reason schools should fund band is because it would good on your college application. Ofcourse academics is one of the most important things colleges look for when students are appling for college but colleges also look at what extracurricular activities ,like band, students participant in. Students that are involve in extracurricular activities shows colleges that they can make a worthy contribution toward something, maintain a long commentment, and shows that a student can manage their time and priorties [2].

My opponent miss understood the music help students smarter. My opponent said "They can listen to music in their free time." which he thought listening to music help improve people intelligents like playing music. What I meant in my first argurment that playing music like singing or playing an instrument improves your knowlege not just listening to it. Learning how to play music is quite difficult, you have to learn the different notes, technique, how to read time signiture, and etc. After learning quarter, whole, half, and eight notes 2nd and 3rd graders scored 100% higher than their classmates in fractions [1].

And in your arguement on "Acticile 1 Section 8 U.S. Constitution states what the Federal Government has the right to fund" which I could not find in the source you gave us.
How schools funding band uncontititonal?

[1]http://oakleafband.com...
[2]http://www.collegeboard.com...
Debate Round No. 3
quarterexchange

Pro

Many schools are already cutting band due to severe budget cuts across the United States and many more are seriously considering doing so. I thought this was widely known. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][etc]

So while bands aren't always necessarily the first to go, they fit in the category of school sports, which are also facing school budget cuts.[9]

Yes chess clubs, those are the projects sucking up so much school money.
Do you know how much a chess board costs? Do you think schools have their chess players playing with hand carved diamond Rooks and Knights? A typical chessboard at a school costs less than 10$.[10]
Decent instruments cost hundreds of dollars.

Band is being cut all across the nation due to severe budget cuts along with clubs and athletics. In order to provide for better solid academic courses, band has to go.

Again the Federal government funds almost 10% of public education spending, yet my opponent says that band will be able to stay in the event the federal government cuts their funding, despite the fact that many schools have been forced to cut band, athletics, clubs, and even solid academic courses.

The fact that students enjoy band is irrelevant. There is no money to pay for it and still be able to fund academic courses in the cases of most schools in the nation.

Many studies show that simply listening to classical music constantly can increase your IQ several points. [11][12][13]
Simply listening to classical music can increase one's IQ has many as several points. Students who love music, such as is the case with students who participate in band, will not have any negative intelligence consequences since:

1. They can listen to music in their spare time which does make students more intelligent

2. They can play music in their spare time with their own funds and borrow from others

Students can play music in their free time as well. Either by renting an instrument, borrowing one, or buying one. There are few people who are so dirt poor they are not able to get their hands on an instrument. And again, you said schools do not fund all the costs of a band, meaning you claim that bands are somewhat self sufficient and able to get a hold of instruments without necessarily needing funding.

Many extracurricular programs would look good on your college application. But you miss the point.

Public spending recieves 10% of it's budget from the U.S. government, which is a blatant violation of the United States Constitution since Article 1 Section 8 does not list public schools as a legitimate project for the U.S. government to fund.[14]

Public schools across the country are already cutting bands despite this contribution on behalf of the U.S. taxpayer.

If the U.S. Constitution was upheld the U.S. government would not fund public schools forcing public schools to go without 10% of their budget. This would effectively vaporize the existence of most school bands at public schools.

Article 1 Section 8 states what the Federal Government has the right to fund. Whatever is not listed in Article 1 Section 8 is not allowed to be funded by the Federal Government.[14]

The U.S. government unconstitutionally funds 10% public school spending, which in turn fund school band.

With many schools cutting or seriously considering cutting band, if the U.S. government stopped unconstitutionally funding public schools completely, forcing public schools to go without 10%, nearly all school bands across the U.S. would undoubtedly vanish.

In conclusion

1. Due to severe budget cuts many schools are already cutting or considering to cut band as well as athletics, my opponents fallback.

2. Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution clearly and vividly states what the U.S. government has the right to spend U.S. taxes on. The U.S. Government spends 10% on public schools.

Public schools are not listed in Article 1 Section 8, much less extracurricular activities for public schools, much less band.

Therefore as long as public schools use federal funds to fund projects such as band and knowing very well that the existence of band in every other public school that hasn't already had band cut, literally hinges on the fact that the U.S. government unconstitutionally funds public schools, school bands at public schools have no right to exist.

3. The Federal government funds almost 10% of public education spending. [15] With many schools already cutting or considering to cut band and other extracurricular activities, there is not a snowballs chance in hell that band would last if the Federal government cut that funding.

Vote Pro

[1] http://www.signonsandiego.com...
(Music is cut in school due to budget cuts)

[2] http://www.theindychannel.com...
(Music is cut in school due to budget cuts)

[3] http://www.weac.org...
(Music is cut in school due to budget cuts)

[4] http://napavalleyregister.com...(School fears they will have to cut music to budget cuts)

[5] http://losangeles.cbslocal.com...
(Music is cut in school due to budget cuts)

[6] http://www.startribune.com...
(Music is cut in school due to budget cuts)

[7] http://wellesley.patch.com...
(School fears they will have to cut music due to budget cuts)

[8] http://www.wkyt.com...
(Music program crippled after school budget cuts)

[9] http://www.eduinreview.com...
(Schools fear they will have to cut athletics due to budget cuts)

[10] http://www.thechessstore.com...
(The cost of a typical plastic chessboard)

[11] http://www.geniusintelligence.com...
(listening to classical music will increase your IQ)

[12] http://www.peakgenius.com...
(listening to classical music will increase your IQ)

[13] http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu...
(listening to classical music will increase your IQ)

[14] http://www.usconstitution.net...
(Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution)

[15] http://www2.ed.gov...
(U.S. government contributes nearly 10% to public schooling. Fact 4)
cwalke3408

Con

My opponent said funding band is unconstitutional and said the Federal Government has no right funding band. He got this idea from the Article 1 Section 8 which he said whatever is not listed in the Article is not allowed to be funded. In Article 1 Section 8 (http://www.usconstitution.net......) states what Power the Congress can do. The Federal Goverment does not have the power to fund schools but the State goverment those. Schools are not directly funded by the Federal goverment, the money is given to the States and the States distribute the money umong the distrincts[1]. If it was uncontitutional to fund band, then we would not be having this debate right now.

My opponent said band should be cut out and students can just play at home. The consiqusies with playing music on your own time and not having band at school is the fact the student does not have a band to play with. Playing in with a band helps students music skills in ways playing by your self or with a few friends could not do. While playing in the band students have to listen to each other to know how loud or soft to play or what tempo to play.

Also, if their no band for a student play for a extracurricular activity, their no chance for the student to list this on their college application. Again from my previous argument, partcipanting in extracurricrlar activties shows colleges that you can manage your time, maintain long time commentment, and show they can make contribution for something[2].

Schools across the country are cutting teachers in order to keep their budgets while making class room sizes larger. If students are having old times in classes because the classes are larger than students can do the same thing my opponent said about playing your instrument home. Students can hire toturs in their spare time and study harder and it could help students prepare for colleges where some classes with over a hundred students.

My conclusion for why public schools should fund band is

1. students can recive schoalorships to play in band in college

2. playing an instrument increases people intellengents

3. students can take their musical talents and become an muscian to make their living

4. performing in band makes your college application look better a improve your chances getting into college

[1] http://www2.ed.gov......
[2]http://www.collegeboard.com......
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zach12 6 years ago
zach12
There's no point trying to put money toward the hard sciences etc. when unions make getting rid of bad teachers impossible. You'll just end up paying for more teachers who shouldn't be doing anything other than pumping gas. At least extra-curriculars give scholarship ops and improve students' in-person social skills, something that has been diminishing with facebook and texting.
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
You didn't read the rest of the debate did you ilovedebate?
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
I'm simply making the argument that solid science and mathematics courses deserve more priority. For instance at the school I go to, we had to cut AP Physics because we can't afford a teacher to teach that class. Meanwhile we have classes like robotics, band, etc that do have teachers. It's ludicrous.
Posted by KeytarHero 6 years ago
KeytarHero
I'm a professional musician by trade, Quarter. It's very hard to make a decent living at being a musician, but it's also very hard to make a decent living as a teacher (which is also what I want to do -- I want to teach high school band). I'm putting myself through college, going for a degree in music and credentials to teach.
Posted by ilovedebate 6 years ago
ilovedebate
i thought cheer leading was a sport
Posted by josephie 6 years ago
josephie
im just saying school bands need funding some how
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
Sometimes when I debate, I sometimes argue for the side I don't agree with so you really don't know my true stance. However this time I am arguing for a position I believe and yes, budgets for school sports should be cut.

However in my argument I make the case that since many schools are having their budgets slashed solid science and math courses should be much more of a priority than band.
Public schools are funded by tax dollars, tax dollars shouldn't go to fund a hobby.

Just by chance, do you make a living as a musician?
Posted by KeytarHero 6 years ago
KeytarHero
I hope you would also support cutting funding for sports, for the same reasons you would support cutting school funding for band.

Also, kids in band statistically do better in school. However, I'm not the one debating here. I am a musician, though, and all I can say is you're no friend to public education if you feel band should have its funding cut.
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
I need to stop making debates 3 days long.
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
"High school and college students are more likely to have had competitive debate experience."

Also, this is the internet.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by askbob 6 years ago
askbob
quarterexchangecwalke3408Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: jar banned his votes removed
Vote Placed by detachment345 6 years ago
detachment345
quarterexchangecwalke3408Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument regarding the constitution really won me over and it makes sense that since a school wouldn't fund bands if they lost a lot of funding, and since the funding is inherently unconstitutional, bands had no good reason to be funded
Vote Placed by ilovedebate 6 years ago
ilovedebate
quarterexchangecwalke3408Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro's contention in round 2 is all opinion based while i know for a fact that doing band does make you smarter to some extent and does other help learn other daily essentials in life
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
quarterexchangecwalke3408Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Well presented by Pro, Con should have pushed harder on band increases performance on math, SAT etc. as this weakest defended by Pro. 2 pt to Pro.