the practice of art education || toward equity in funding of secondary art programs

National Art Education Association

Toward Equity in Funding of Secondary Art ProgramsAuthor(s): Michelle KraftSource: Art Education, Vol. 52, No. 3, The Practice of Art Education (May, 1999), pp. 54-59Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193805 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 18:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:43:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193805?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THIS NOT S U LEGAL TES ER FPt ALL DESBTS, PUBLIC AN PRIVATE

Toward Equity in Funding of

Secondary Art BY Programs

KRAFTrograms

During the years that I taught secondary art in the public schools, I was astonished by the

inconsistencies present in the funds available from school to school for the same programs. Most notable to me, of

course, were the differences in budgetary monies available for art programs in individual secondary schools within the same school district. While some art teachers, like myself, had a fairly sizable budget for a relatively small high school art program, other teachers at the

secondary level were barely scraping by with less than a third in annual budget dollars of what had been allotted for my program.

Numerous art programs within the nation are struggling with the dilemma of underfunding as their biggest consistent problem. Between the years of 1980 and 1990, federal funding for education was reduced 14% - this,

A ART EDUCATION / MAY 1999

I

I:: !



after consistent increases during the previous two decades (Verstegen, 1994). While many teachers of secondary visual art realize that their programs are underfunded, the question still stands, are they at least underfunded equitably? Most would not be surprised to find that different districts within one state fund their art programs differently-just how differently, though may be a surprise. Even more teachers would be surprised to find out how differently the art programs belonging to various schools within single districts are funded. Often, with disparities that exist from school to school within single districts, it is the predominantly minority schools that seem to be suffering the most (Kraft, 1995)1, a point which is the focus of this article.

INEQUALITY IN FUNDING FOR SECONDARY ART PROGRAMS

One of the most tangible and important resources for a quality education is available funding. With federal aid to education dropping for over a decade, it has been difficult for states and individual districts within the state to pick up the slack. Verstegen (1994) explains:

Because federal aid provides benefits to special student populations, such as economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, linguistic minorities, and underrepresented population groups, these children and youth bore the burden of federal aid reductions over the past decade. (p. 109)

If there exist disparities within a district between funding for predominantly minority and predominantly Anglo schools (or even

between schools with higher standardized test scores and lower standardized test scores), it is these same students who will suffer.

According to Calabrese (1991), a large number of school districts possess a low commitment to minority schools. He characterizes many minority students as more likely to possess low self-esteem, more likely to be suspended, often relegated to the lower classes, and less likely to receive teacher attention. These same students, if attending a predominantly Anglo school, may tend to get lost in the shuffle, as well. In addition, many students attending predominantly minority schools are usually of lower socioeconomic background. These very students, perhaps more than any others, should not have their educational opportunities limited within the public school because of underfunding. Jonathan Kozol (1991) points out that "when relative student needs... have been factored into the discussion, the disparities in funding [between wealthy school districts and poor ones] are enormous. Equity, after all, does not mean simply equal funding. Equal funding for unequal needs is not equality" (p. 54). This provision for equality should apply to all educational opportunities, including educational opportunities in the fine arts.

In a study that included three Texas school districts of similar size and racial demographic makeup (Kraft, 1995), many secondary art educators stated that funding for secondary art programs within their district depended upon the number of students enrolled in the program and that the formula for determining budgetary dollars was consistent throughout the district. Actual numbers submitted by

secondary art teachers proved otherwise. In one school district, two middle schools with the same number of students enrolled in art did not, in fact, receive equal funding for their programs. The teacher at School Number One, a primarily Anglo school with just over 140 students enrolled in the art program, received $1000 in budgetary money for the 1994-95 school year. The teacher at School Number Two, a predominantly minority school with an art program of the same size, was allotted a budget of $781.50 for the year. This came to an average of $4.34 per day for 144 students. The art teacher with the $1000 annual budget was allocated $5.55 per day for four less students. While on the surface, this does not appear to constitute a tremendous difference in budgetary allotment- only $1.21 per day-the art teacher at School Number Two was operating with 78% of the funds as the teacher at School Number One. Because the two schools are within the same district, this is a difference that seemingly defies explanation. There are even greater discrepancies that occur between campuses. Within another of the school districts, annual per pupil averages ranged from $2.42 to $14.67. Richmond (1992) explains:

When the state provides robust educational opportunities for children in one district of the state while providing minimal or inadequate education to children living elsewhere in the state, it denies equal protection of its laws to the latter groups of children. Typically, such constitutional challenges are framed in terms of

MAY 1999 / ART EDUCATION



Table 1: When asked how they would imagine their annual budgets to rate with other schools within their district, the art teachers at the primarily Anglo schools responded as follows:

Much Better 17%

Somewhat Better 39%

The Samne 33'%

Somewhat Lower 11%

Much Lower (%

Table 2: Responses from art teachers at the predominantly minority schools to the same question:

Much Better 0 %

Sonmewhat Better 38%

The Same 15

Somnewhat Lower 23%

Much Lower 8%

disparities in per-pupil spending between districts within a state. (p. 237)

The same may obviously be said for individual schools within a district, as well.

Art teachers in the study were asked to rate their annual budget in relation to the budgets of other art teachers within their district (see Tables 1 and 2). A comparison of these responses reveals that the art teachers at the primarily

Anglo schools appear to be more confident and optimistic in regard to their annual budgets than are the teachers at the predominantly minority schools. It is also clear that the art educators at the predominantly minority schools suspect that their budgets are indeed lower than those of their colleagues within the same district. While it is interesting to note art teachers' attitudes in relation to their yearly allocation of funds, it is also important to recognize that, to many instructors, budget monies are a private matter. Many of the teachers

surveyed stated that they did not discuss budget information with other art teachers within their district, much like they would not discuss their personal paychecks. Perhaps for this very reason, 15% of the art teachers at the predominantly minority schools failed to respond to this question in the study; they simply had no idea of how their budgets related to others within their own school district. Because secondary art teachers are less than candid with each other in relation to their yearly budgets, and art teachers are not aware of what others within the same district receive in their allotment of public taxpayers' money, their programs may be suffering by comparison (financially) to other programs within their school district.

Such budgetary concerns do affect what is taught in the classroom. Most of the teachers questioned agreed that there were media that their students needed to work in, but this could not occur with the present allotment of funds. Many of the secondary art educators wished to work in more three-dimensional media, and jewelry was of great interest. Painting was also mentioned as an area in which teachers wished their students could gain more experience, and several stated that they would like for their classes to work in oils or higher quality watercolors. "I would really like my students to see what tube watercolors can do," stated one art teacher (Kraft, 1995, p. 18).

In addition, many of the art teachers at the predominantly minority schools added more funds for field trips to their wish list. Educators at these schools know that many of their students are economically disadvantaged. Because of this, their opportunities for exposure

_ ART EDUCATION / MAY 1999



Art teachers should, perhaps, shoulder

some of the responsibility for the funding discrepancies that exist within single school districts, and it would benefit

many of the secondary art educators

within a district if they would share with

one er:on some-level--,e, ' ,am ount of their yearly budget allotments.

.

?

. . . . * * i;*

to avariety of places, things/ and areas of artwillbe somewhat limited. It is, therefore, up to the public school system to reveal to students concrete examples of.what they are learning in the:classroom and how this information relates to everyday life.

SUPPLEMENTATION OF DISTRICT BUDGET FUNDING

Along with regular yearly budgets, there are often additional resources to which the art educator can turn in order to supplement the regular yearly allotment. Many districts offer such additional monies in the form of capital outlay-type funds. This money is often used for such expensive, non- consumable items as kilns, classroom furniture, etc. Usually, this money falls within a priority of need basis. An art educator could conceivably ask for items that he or she may not receive from year to year. Often, teachers request a specific piece of equipment

for several consecutive years before actually recei'ving it.

In addition to this somewhat unreliable but invaluable source of funds, many secondary artteachers supplement their budget shortfalls by

,..,,issuing supplylists to students or; ,, assigning lab fees: Many of the ^ '; instructors at the predominantly minority schools, however, may not have this resource as a viable alternative. Since many of these students come from poor socioeconomic backgrounds, teachers are reluctant to ask these students and their families to supplement in this way. Often, too, at these schools, the administration may discourage or forbid the issuing of supply lists or lab fees, claiming that the additional financial burden would be too difficult on many of these students and their parents.

Of course, freebies and donations are always welcome in public school art programs. There are many public and private entities that offer free materials to public school teachers. In addition,

art instructors have been known to approach businesses for donations. Such donations can be monetary (and with many of the current adopt-a-school programs, not necessarily so difficult to come by) or of materials, such as varieties of papers from printing companies, etc.

THE ROLE OF GRANT WRITING AS SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING

Grant writing can also prove to be an invaluable resourcefor;additional ,

fuiding of programs. Therele: .. i countless state;,federal, and privatei entities that have money specifically set aside to allocate in theform of grants. While grants may require much;. - research and work, they are oftenwell worth the effort. '

:,lapplying for grants, it is important foritheart:educator to remember that inlyspgcific programs or plans:are_ funided;The teacher cannot simply! make a blanket request for money for more classroom art materials anid ;

.expect this proposal to be funded. , Innovative.programs and ideas'that involve outside sectors of the :: community are the initiatives most often funded.

It is often true that the numerous smaller "mini-grants" that exist are overlooked in favor of the more substantial allocations. Not all teachers, however, need to make application for the large grants. Smaller grants, alternatively, range in available funds from a few hundred to a (very) few thousand dollars. They are ideal and many times more accessible to the art teacher in need of only a few hundred dollars to fund an innovative idea. Many of these mini-grants are provided by larger funding sources, but a number are also supplied by local entities that




will be more familiar with and must always be "approximate" and budget would average $17.36 per sympathetic to the secondary art cannot possibly be perfect But the student for 180 days of classes. This teacher's needs within that community. imperfection falls in almost every translates to less than 10 cents per day

case to the advantage of the per student. A teacher with this same TOWARD FUNDING EQUITY privileged. (p. 175) teaching load with a $1000 budget

Fairness in funding is an important Just as the equitable allocation of would average $6.94 per student per component to student achievement funds is important to all disciplines, it is year or less than 4 cents per day per within a discipline. Verstegen (1994) important to the arts, as well. All student (Kraft, 1995). stated that, "School revenue was found students throughout a given state (and Art teachers should, perhaps, to account for one-third of the variation district) deserve equal opportunity in shoulder some of the responsibility for in proficiency student test scores on the education. This applies to equal course the funding discrepancies that exist National Assessment of Education offerings, including offerings in the within single school districts, and it Process (NAE. T"(.e ,13, Whif veisualarts.This.alsoincludes.eqiial . -.would benefitmany of thesecondary

fundmg hasotibenishownto be r teseprograms.States- ai tedctorli disinct if they

sigifi ti outcme inbasic hd tustha tequitpreohminbatie lschool ' sc d would-stiare with one aothern some :1 /*--tt-2; ;,-R! s_ ,X S a .i A ? X Ma 1 fi.V , .M v^^- i^' P^ ? ^ _X i 1. (. `d 'a A ab A f6 A i. - , v skills tests, itstillholds thf6at avalable distcts deelop a frm for the evelunt of theirye arly budget

money;doesplay apart in the learning equitable distribution offundsr the allotments. If art teachers are retcent thaftispro for the student same progyn`s wiithin a raisoricut reveaing the sizesof heir

81000 to 8 2 5 0 0 a nnually. In budgetses, theyhp mighbtrveeone th et onl ye Acc rid zol (1991), itise uity specified focrmula in place, iuin g for budgets, they might reveal hemoiily witffiexcellenc thatremamnsfe ideal, art programs wouldremami consistent to their art coordinator who could, in butitisequity (or areasoiiablme from schonolto school throughouiet fhfirie the n t average amount facsmile as defined by the powers tr_at distric-io a dollar range of$2.42 per proideliall the surrounding

beat is the goal usually n seon. tudentco $1;67 perstudentwithin seonday schools. Then, along with tHe ns C)aj n o r 7 1 hi 2 1D one isticl tlaidof t th e coordinator, the artc

Whiatthey nmean, what they W exas secondary rtteachers who fell well belowthe

;prescnbe,;is so6TMething that ,-: teachersiine|oi d prevuslere average budget amoint could, wita

esemblesequity but never reaches it:, askedhowmuclii their opimon,ithey good basis, ask the adminsistraton for ysomethiyngcleose e ,teq e ybrilda t o such comparablefundin frtheir 'silgnceciptiism'i ' ngi th st a th p s- justice, but far enough from equity schools, their answers varied widely While there are ways to supplement to guarantee the benefits enjoyed by with a range of $1000 annually to the underfunded art program, those privilege. The differences are $12,000 annually. Within the involved in secondary art education justified by telling us that equity predominately Anglo secondary must fight, to the best of their abilities,

schools, 56% of the art educators stated for adequately funded programs. While that they could provide the program many barriers to teaching cannot be they desired with a budget range of removed, funding (at least in some

-Wh"lffitw "|se " "||"l x.R_ $1000 to $2500 annually. In the cases, perhaps) may be one that can be predominantly minority secondary dismantled. All schools within the same schools, the art teachers were even school district should receive equal more conservative; fully 84% of them funding so that all students, regardless

2000 * said that they could offer the solid of whether they are enrolled in program they desired on a yearly predominantly Anglo or minority budget of the above amount. For a schools, possess equal opportunity to junior high or middle school art class of the educational experience, including 24 students-the average class size for the aesthetic experience. The art

200 1 !this secondary level for schools participating in the study-and with six classes taught dally, a $2500 yearly

ART EDUCATION / MAY 1999



educator must "politely, but relentlessly, confront in person, by telephone, and by mail those empowered to raise arts education to the same status and level of funding afforded other academic subjects" (Rozelle, 1994, p. 46).

ENDNOTE: 'Facts and figures mentioned in this article, unless otherwise indicated, were derived from a 1995 study, noted under the references, which was conducted by the author and is the basis for this article.

Michelle Kraft is an Assistant Professor ofArt Education at Lubbock Christian University in Lubbock, Texas, and she is currently studying in the Fine Arts doctoral program at Texas Tech University.

REFERENCES Calabrese, R (1991, January). Public school

policies and minority students. The Education Digest, 56,17-21.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc.

Kraft, M. (1995). Fundingfor secondary art programs within predominantly minority schools in Texas: A study offunding equity between majorityAnglo and minority schools. Unpublished manuscript, West Texas A & M University, Canyon.

Richmond, J. W. (1992, Fall). Arts education as equal educational opportunity: The legal issue. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40,236-252.

Rozelle, Z. D. (1994). Minimal conditions in art classrooms and strategies to overcoming "bare bones art."Art Education, 47 (3), 45- 46.

Verstegen, D. A. (1994, Summer). Efficiency and equity in the provision and reform of American schooling.Journal ofEducation Finance, 20,21-46.

CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS Art Education, the journal of the National Art Education Association, seeks submissions for a special theme issue on the topic of "Art Education: The Economy and the World of Work."

The journal issue will be devoted to the world of work and art education. It will illustrate the relationship between art education and the dramatic growth in the visual arts industries since 1945. The issue will focus on the arts segments of the nation's economy in areas such as industrial output of goods and services, consumer spending, and growth of the work force in arts-related industries. It will explore the historical relationship between the visual arts and industrial development and what the new economic growth in the arts industries imply for the design and development of arts programs in our schools and for teacher education. Manuscripts will be received on the following topics and questions:

* A historical review of the changing position of the arts in the U.S. since 1945. This review

may describe how the arts have risen from a limited cultural mission and vision to become a

very large part of the U.S. and world economy. * An analysis and discussion of the pros and cons of the development of art education goals to

include teaching about art careers. Should the needs of the arts industries and art careers be

part of the objectives for K-12 art programs and for art programs in higher education? * How does accelerated growth of the arts industries affect the skills and placement of workers

in art-related jobs? What is the future for the visual arts in the next century's economic

growth? Will the potential for art-related jobs and companies increase? Will the need for individuals who are able to create images continue to accelerate, such as Edward Tufte sug- gests in his book, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information ? If so, what is the role for art education in preparing this work force?

* We are now a society that communicates by using all the senses. Industry wants and needs better-educated workers who are literate in all forms of communication. How can arts education play an important role in preparing the student for the multi-media world of work?

* Exemplary programs in career education in the visual arts that show how the practical application of skills learned in the art program apply in the workplace.

This special issue of Art Education is intended to indude articles that are both theoretical and practical. Manuscripts submitted for consideration should be related to issues and concerns in art education and their connection to the world of work and the growth and influence of the visual arts industries. Submissions are invited from authors who participate in any formal educational or corporate setting, including but not limited to those in public and private schools (K-12), higher education, museums, and/or the business community.

Three paper copies of the manuscript should be sent to Paul Bolin, Editor, Art Education Program, 207 Arts Cottage, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802- 2905. (A disk will be expected once the manuscript is accepted.) Please indicate the following in your cover letter:

1. You would like your manuscript to be reviewed for the special issue of Art Education (this will differentiate it from submissions to the journal); and

2. That if your manuscript is not selected to be incuded in this special issue, you would like your manuscript to be considered for publication in another issue of Art Education. Author Guidelines are available from the Editor or via the NAEA web site at

http://www.naea-reston.org.

SUBMISSIONS FOR THIS SPECIAL THEME ISSUE OF ARTEDUCATION MUST BE RECEIVED BYJULY 1, 1999.




the practice of art education || toward equity in funding of secondary art programs

Documents