The Arts should not be the first group of activities cut after budget cuts
Debate Rounds (3)
Why not though? Sports cost hundreds of dollars a year in some places. In my high school, the more popular sports like football and cheerleading buy new uniforms every year. Most of the time it is not because they are old or no longer wearable, they just feel like changing the design! Yes, they do fundraise, but not enough to fund all of their needs. There is also the fact they have to rent places to practice if there is no room or proper equipment in the school, then pay any instructors that also help out. You also have to pay for transportation to away games and scrimmages since teams travel together. While supplies for visual arts can be bought in bulk. If it is an instrumental class, many students own their own instruments. So the school is not providing for every student as it would with an athletic activity.
Now, I do not believe the Arts should be saved and the Sports cut, or vise versa. Neither should have to be cut from funding completely. I stand by an opinion that the activity with more funding should have part of their money taken away to help with funding for elsewhere in the school, instead of all money being scarped away.
It all boils down to a couple of key factors.
1. What percentage of the student body participates in these activities? e.g. if 10% are in the arts and 40% in sports (made up numbers) how will that effect the budget office's decision
2. How does each program benefit to a students education and well being?
According to a U.S. News and World Report study on the High School athletics in 2011, there are over 7.6 million high school athletes which is 55.5% of the total number of high school students. Even more stunning is the fact that sports participation has increased for the past 22 years (in 2011). A separate study childtrends.org in 2011 as well showed that only 38.9% of high school seniors participated in performing arts or school music programs. If 1000 dollars were to be cut from the athletic program it would affect over half of the students whereas if the cuts were made from the arts programs it would affect less than 4 in 10. This information shows clearly that cuts to athletics will hurt more students than cuts to the arts programs, but that is not enough a basis to substantiate cuts to the Arts. While I agree that the Arts are important, sports programs are crucial to many children's lives. For example, obesity is a major problem that is sweeping the nation and increased interest in athletics helps to keep kids fit and healthy. A more healthy America is crucial to the future of this nation. Sports also are one of the easiest ways to help many kids make good friends and learn valuable life lessons such as hard work, determination, and teamwork. Now, I'm not saying that kids can't learn life lessons and make friends in arts programs, but sports teams form an immediate brotherhood (or sisterhood) of close friends. Also you mentioned that many sports programs get new jerseys all the time even if there is no need. From personal experience where I live most if not all of our uniforms were purchased through fundraising if we wanted new ones. In sports like baseball, football, and wrestling uniforms are worn out very quickly. Most of the funding in sports goes towards upgrading facilities, training aids, or replacing equipment that is no longer safe. Upgrading facilities is beneficial to the whole community, especially for youth sports teams. For example, if funding is used to build a baseball batting cage, that will not only help the high school team for years to come, but also the hundreds of other youth sports teams who take advantage of it. You brought up the point about every student owning their own instruments. Do you think that it should be different? if the school bought instruments for all of the students it would cost a fortune and the students would not be able to take their instruments home to practice. If they did take it home to practice and it got broken, then who would pay for it? Then you also said a general statement : "The school is not providing for every student as it would with an athletic activity". Although you have no evidence to support that claim I wanted to address it because you are coming off as if the schools have it out for the arts programs and are saving the athletic programs. The truth of the matter is that both programs are important and sometimes budget cuts need to be made. When the time comes to decide what should be cut, it is the arts programs because they are less popular in schools and will hurt the overall student body more. It does not make any sense to cut the programs that help a majority of the student body.
As a former athlete I understand the perks of participating a sport. Like you said; friends, discipline, hard work, which you said but also others such as professionalism and respect can also be taught through the Arts. You mentioned Obesity being a problem in the nation, which playing a sport can help solve by keeping kids active. That is the same reason gym classes are required in every grade. Now you can argue doing more outside of gym is more productive in helping the situation, but, a kid will be active if they want to. If they chose a sport, then yes that helps, but they will do something else to stay active if a sport is not an option for them.
As for a school who supplies instruments to students. Some students will own their own and will be responsible for anything that happens to them. If a student borrows one from the school they would be responsible for some repairs, such a strings. The school would take major repairs unless the student did something that could have been prevented. In that case the school and student's guardian would split the money or work something out. If each student who is borrowing does not share with another student, which they rarely do, they can indeed take it home to practice. Once the students graduate their instrument would go to the next incoming students. Even if the cost starts to run up, which is should not if everything is planned out carefully, then they can do a fundraiser for the extra money like sports. They should not have to fundraiser every cent though because their money was taken away without a second second spent on the idea.
Now as I closed my last argument, I think every activity should be looked at evenly. If you are going to cut a budget of about $1,000 during a year, split it. Each sports season, so 3, would take $250 each season and distributed among the sports evenly to see who loses what amount. The remaining $250 can then go to the Arts and distributed among them for how much they lose each. My main argument is the Arts should not be the first program cut in case of a shortened budget, but instead of every program and activity looked at and treated evenly and with the same respect.
anthonyb43 forfeited this round.
anthonyb43 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
You are not eligible to vote on this debate