This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2011, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
We have received a lot of lip-service from lawmakers and education officials on the importance of the fine arts in American education. Why then are the arts being de-emphasized and even cut from our school schedules?
I find it quite ironic that Japan and China are racking their brains to get more fine arts training for their children so they can be more creative like their American counterparts. We, on the other hand, are passing our Asian counterparts moving the opposite direction.
Three years ago, I attended a lecture by David McCullough, the author of 1776. McCullough alluded to an event that happened some time ago in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. For some reason, probably budgetary, the arts programs in their public schools were on the chopping block. Eventually the issue ended up in the courts and a judge was left to make the decision as to the fate of the arts in Massachusetts schools.
The Constitution of Massachusetts states: "…it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools, and grammar-schools in the towns…"
The judge's decision to save the arts in the schools in Massachusetts dealt with one word… cherish. One can't learn to cherish without the arts.
Instead of looking forward to some utopia where all children can pass cookie-cutter tests in cookie–cutter schools, we should look back to the time when American schools were the envy of the world. Then, children were nurtured and allowed to be creative. English was "language arts." Math and science were the gateway to innovation and discovery.
In the social sciences, the students were given time to explore the past, analyze the present with an open mind and dream of the future. The arts were more than "filler" to plug in a student's schedule when there is nothing else to do.
Aesthetic experiences are elusive, wonderful, magical, amazing, powerful, spontaneous and essential. The elements that form aesthetic judgment cannot be measured, but they must be nurtured. They cannot be touched, but they can be felt.
If we forget how to feel, the true meaning in our lives is diminished. The aesthetic experience is as real and vivid as taking a breath and to some it is as necessary. Please remember that arts educators were the first to develop national standards. But where has it gotten them?
Even if all students do not choose to take extra arts classes for elective classes, the fact that they have been required to take a few of them will enrich their lives. My fear is that the students who would like to take more than the required arts classes as electives are having those opportunities severely limited. That would certainly be a shame on us.
Opportunities for artistic (aesthetic) growth throughout society enrich all parts of society, even if not all people choose to participate directly in them. All students are enriched either directly or indirectly when a full and unfettered fine arts curriculum is available to all students, even if they don't take those classes themselves.
However in the world of test, test, test, true creativity and aesthetic understanding is not a valued commodity because it doesn't generate data.
What is at stake here? Are we just a group of music (arts) educators trying to protect our turf? Or, could we damage a generation of kids? You decide for yourself.
Richard M. Heath has been a music educator for 34 years. He lives in Kaysville.