For the second year in a row, the President of the United States has proposed the elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts.
Even though the NEA’s $150 million a year budget is but a tiny fraction of the federal budget, it has been under constant fire from many politicians ever since it was established 50 years ago as one of Lyndon Johnson’s many Great Society programs.
Much like a similar attempt initiated under President Reagan 37 years ago, Trump’s attempt to defund the NEA in last year’s budget failed – in fact, Congress approved a small increase in NEA funding for FY 2018.
Both critics and supporters of arts funding recognize it as being at the core of a liberal arts education.
That’s because studies have repeatedly shown that strong funding for the arts and humanities lies at the core of a liberal arts education – improving students’ aptitude in other subjects, and enriching a student’s quality of life outside the classroom.
Yet attacks on the NEA and arts education funding more broady persist year after year in our current political atmosphere – one vastly different from the one in which the NEA was founded more than 50 years ago.
In Washington D.C., the John F. Kennedy Center for Cultural Education stands as a vibrant hub of creativity and free expression, and as a memorial to a president who put the arts front and center in his administration.
As President Kennedy said with typical eloquence, “I am certain that after the dust of centuries has passed over our cities, we too, will be remembered not for victories or defeats in battle or in politics, but for our contribution to the human spirit.”
Yet just as our history books today often focus obsessively on military and political affairs, to the exclusion of the cultural, many politicians today believe the arts to be a distraction from a focus on preparing students to enter profitable careers.
Increasingly, the educational system is encouraging schools to push students in the direction of a technical, specialized education.
As North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory said of his new college funding formula, “It’s not based on butts in seats but on how many of those butts can get jobs.”
One might imagine that President Obama, whose administration produced a 2011 report titled Reinvesting in Arts Education: Winning America’s Future Through Creative Schools, which lauded the achievement gains made by schools with strong arts education programs and declared that “an education without the arts is incomplete,” would boldly stand up to protect arts programing within the educational system.
Yet even President Obama proposed tying funding of federal colleges in part to earnings after graduation, encouraging college leaders to undermine funding for the arts in favor of academic programs which provide a more immediately measurable economic impact for students.
Minnesota has traditionally been a leader in prioritizing high quality arts education in the public schools, and since 1985 we have had a state agency dedicated to supporting and promoting arts education – the Perpich Center for Arts Education.
The state agency was established in 1985 at the urging of Governor Rudy Perpich, a longtime supporter of arts education who had seen the possibilities of integrating a robust arts curriculum along with traditional academic coursework while living and working in Europe.
Across the state, and especially in cash strapped Greater Minnesota school districts, funding for arts education remains meager.
A 2012 Perpich Center analysis of the state of arts education revealed that while over 99% of Minnesota schools provide access to arts education, most schools don’t meet the minimum requirement of three arts courses, and funding is meager (less than $10 per pupil per year).
Across the state, and especially in cash stapped Greater Minnesota school districts, funding for arts education remains meager.
As a result, nearly half of Minnesota schools charge exclusionary fees for extracurricular arts activities, and a majority rely on non district funding for such activities.
Even though funding for arts education is already so small, it often finds itself on the chopping block as school administrators face tight budgets and prioritize spending in other areas.
For example, even in liberal Winona, school administrators forced to propose some 1.7 million in budget cuts earlier this year have aimed their sights squarely at critically important arts programming. Horrified students and community members have pushed back against proposals to axe all middle and high school music lessons, eliminate fourth grade orchestra, trim back the theatre department and eliminate staff positions.
Even the Perpich Center itself is under threat as many legislators, citing declining enrollment, financial mismanagement and increased competition from charter schools, have become increasingly determined to abolish the agency.
A proposal to do just that passing the legislature last year, but Governor Mark Dayton vetoed the plan and was able to preserve the the agency, though it was forced to sell off its middle school, Crosswinds School.
“I insist that the school remain open,” Dayton said in his veto message.
“A school devoted to arts education is a statewide asset. And I will not permit you to desecrate the memory and legacy of one of Minnesota’s Governors.”
While an obsessive focus on short term post-college job prospects may suggest a financial incentive in prioritizing investment in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) over the liberal arts in general, the long term financial incentive is much less clear.
Many analysts expect the technological automation, which has already enabled the outsourcing or elimination of many once good paying jobs, is likely to transform the economy over the coming decades, causing significant job loss in many sectors.
According to Pricewaterhousecoopers, 40% of U.S. jobs could be lost to automation over the next 25 years.
Thus, the technical educations which provide strong value and lead to good jobs today may be of less value in the future – but the worth of a liberal arts education, centered around a strong fine arts programming which encourages creativity, flexibility and ingenuity, will surely increase.
Given the likely future demand for creative thinkers and lifelong learners, investment in arts education and an increase in funding for the arts in general is necessary not merely to enhance the quality of life our the populace, but for economic reasons as well.
Even the meager amount of funding put towards the arts today supports a much larger creative economy.
According to analysis by Minnesota Citizens for the Arts, over 100,000 Minnesotans are employed in the creative economy, which has an annual economic output of some 2 billion dollars.
With additional funding and investment, an even more robust creative economy could help to replace some of the anticipated job losses under an automated economy.
Perhaps the time has come to fulfill President Kennedy’s dream of “an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft.”