Keep Art Alive: A Budget Crisis

It is a common perception that visual and performing arts are an easy subject, that it is just something that people do for fun and that it harbors no educational value. These perceptions however, are not true.  Today’s visual and performing arts programs are key to sustaining a well-developed education for students. When budgets are tight, schools should look in other areas before they decide that the arts are the place to take from. First, it must be learned what qualifies as visual and performing arts. According to the Collins English Dictionary (2012), visual arts are “created primarily for visual perception, as drawing, graphics, painting, sculpture and the decorative arts”. The Collins Dictionary (2012) also defines performing arts as “arts or skills that require public performance, as acting, singing or dancing.”  

Art in all forms teaches more than just the creative process; it also effects the learning process. It engages parts of the brain that no other subject touches. “When well taught, the arts provide young people with authentic learning experiences that engage their minds, hearts, and bodies. The learning experiences are real and meaningful to them.” (Catterall, 1999, p.12). Hard sciences appeal to the formula based side of thinking, while art appeals to the emotional senses. Hard sciences are important to a complete education as well but one must view visual and performing arts in the same light. They should be considered and treated as equals. In ”Champions of Change” Catterall (1999) states that art connects students to themselves and to the people around them. Not only are students creating for themselves and learning new things, but they are also connecting with peers who are doing the same thing and discovering new aspects about themselves at the same time. Art can also challenge students who do not feel tested with other liberal arts (Catterall, 1999, p.12). It poses new challenges because of the unusual nature of the creative process. The student is stripped of all existing formulas and left to create something new. In the same breath, art promotes self-directed learning, which is an extremely valuable skill to possess for “real world” circumstances. It allows for students to explore for themselves what its like to problem solve on their own. It promotes students to learn for the learning experience not just for test results and performance outcomes (Catterall, 1999).

Not only do the arts effect the learning process, they also have lasting effects on human development. A study done for the Champions of Change shows that involvement in the arts increases high school students’ test scores in various subjects. Simply having the option to enroll in arts classes can raise a students’ ability to learn new information in other subjects. Implementing art programs in schools can engage the “right side” of the brain. But what few know is that both sides of the brain work together at the same time.

There are many myths and misconceptions surrounding the "left brain, right brain" concept. For instance, the belief that "right brained" people are artistic while "left brained" folks are more logical is a bit of an exaggeration. In fact, it is when both sides of the brain are working together that your thinking is at its best (Mayberry, 2012).

Art forces students to think critically, which can also exercise the left side of the brain along with the right, therefore strengthening the logical side of the brain. When viewed closely it is important to notice that visual and performing arts is a completely different form of education than other core academic subjects. In the article “Turtles, Art and Children” Susan Langer says:

Artistic training is the education of feeling, as our visual schooling in factual subjects and logical skills such as mathematical ‘figuring’ or simple argumentation is education of thought. Few people realize that the real education of emotion is not the conditioning effected by social approval or disapproval, but the personal, illuminating contact with symbols of feeling. However, art education is neglected, left to chance, or regarded as a culture veneer.

Langer is stressing that creating art is the education of feeling, and that no other subject can teach a lesson as valuable as that. It is also stated that art is neglected, and viewed as something that people simply do for fun, and holds no real educational value. Art is a breath of fresh air compared to the cut and dry monotony of science and math. The process of creating art is a highly personal experience, not only does the student learn about who they are, they learn about what they are capable of. The creative process can open up doors in the minds of young students and adults alike that would otherwise be untouched. It is uncommon to see any other academic subject teach lessons quite like ones that the arts teach.

One may question, what exactly is being cut from these art programs? According to the article Debating Options for when Arts Get the Squeeze (2009), Jill Massie states “the California State Arts council budget has been slashed from $17.5 million to $1 million. Massie also states that New York City junior highs are cutting arts and other electives for more classroom time in math and reading.” It should be stressed that math and reading along with other core subjects are indeed important, but visual and performing arts are equally as important as those core subjects. Lastly, Massie discloses, “the Arizona legislature cut $7 million in arts funding.” Ryan Hurley of the article Cuts in Art Programs Leave Sour Note in Schools (2004), says that “the Westside Academy will most likely have to return a $25,000 grant for its music program donated by VH1’s Save the Music that they used to purchase a piano lab, because the school no longer employs a full-time music teacher.” These cuts are just a few of the numerous declining budgets around the United States.  When schools are looking at program budgets they should keep in mind the impact that art has on students. This is why schools should implement an even budget cut policy. It is not fair for just one program to get slashed so heavily, let alone one that holds this much impact on the learning process and human development. Theoretically, each program would have less money taken from their budgets if money is being eliminated from every department. To most people, these massive budget cuts are a non-issue because they are ill informed. It would seem that most of today’s population is unaware of the cuts. The best solution to eliminating such drastic cuts would be to raise awareness in your community and propose the prospect of an even budget cut policy to the school board. Students should never be deprived of such a rich experience.

There is nothing quite like the personal experience and self discovery that visual and performing arts brings to students, and to everyone for that matter. School boards should acknowledge that the benefits of enrolling in arts classes are just as valuable as the lessons learned in core academic subjects such as math, science and English. Visual and performing arts is key to a students’ full education. While it is a different type of instruction, it should be praised for the unique lessons and experience in the “real world” that it provides. Visual and performing arts teaches the education of emotion. Both sides of the brain work together when creating art, therefore both the right and left side of the brain are strengthened in the process. Art matters to students and the teachers instructing them. It should never be viewed as something that is considered “easy” or simply a “cultural veneer”. School boards need to understand that they have put price on self-discovery and imagination. Art in all forms is important and everyone should acknowledge this.

References

Art Matters. (2009, September 2). YouTube. Retrieved March 22, 2012, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEpYCARLA5s

Barnett, L., & Nosheen, I. (2012, April 9). The arts cuts: David Hare, Stephen Poliakoff, David Peace and others give their verdicts."  . The Guardian . Retrieved March 5, 2012.

Benway, N. (n.d.). Fine art programs, teens, and libraries changing lives one program at a time. Young adult library services. Retrieved March 21, 2012.

Dunkle, D. (2011, April 24). Schools' arts programs threatened by budget cuts. The Patriot News. Retrieved March 9, 2012.

Felkner, S. (2012, March 7). As school budgets decline, art programs seek crowd funding support. Press release distribution. Retrieved March 20, 2012.

Fiske, E. (n.d.). Champions of change: The impact of the arts on learning. ERIC. Retrieved March 31, 2012.

Greene, J. (2012, February 17). administration revises arts program budget cuts - Fairfield, CT patch. Fairfield patch. Retrieved April 9, 2012.

Hefling, K. (2011, October 24). Schools brace for more budget cuts. Msnbc.com. Retrieved April 2, 2012.

Hurley, R. (2004, June 25). Cuts in art programs leave sour note in schools. Wisconsin Education Association Council. Retrieved May 2, 2012.

Iqbal, S. (2011, March 7). Federal budget cuts: How will the arts be affected?. myportfolio.usc.edu. Retrieved June 9, 2012.

Kren, M. (n.d.). Turtles, art and children. EBSCOhost. Retrieved April 2, 2012.

Make room for art. (1998, December 8). EBSCOhost. Retrieved March 25, 2012.

Massie, J. (n.d.). Debating options for when the arts get the squeeze. Teaching Artist Journal. Retrieved February 26, 2012

Mayberry, S. (n.d.). Left brain and right brain research facts. www.ehow.com. Retrieved May 2, 2012

Medina, I. (2011, April 14). School district budget cuts kill jobs and crimp the arts. Borderzine. Retrieved April 9, 2012

Performing arts. (n.d.). Dictionary.com. Retrieved April 9, 2012

Shrigley, D. (2011, September 10). An important message about the arts. YouTube. Retrieved April 11, 2012, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6rYDaORe3k

Visual arts. (n.d.). Dictionary.com. Retrieved April 9, 2012

Three Articles All in One!

           In the study “Physical distance and interpersonal characteristics in college students' romantic relationships”, the authors, Roger Van Horn, Angela Arnone, Kelly Nesbitt, Laura Desllets, Tanya Sears, Michelle Giffin, and Rebecca Brudi, have a clear purpose: “To investigate interpersonal characteristics of romantic relationships among college students as a function of physical separation.” In the study “Making Plans: Praxis Strategies for Negotiating Uncertainty- Certainty in Long-Distance Relationships”, the author Erin Sahlstein claims that making plans manages both certainty and uncertainty in long distance dating relationships (LDDRs). In “Long-Distance Pairs Can Last, Researcher Says.” Author Mary Carole suggests that these types of relationships are becoming more and more common, and that they tend to last as long as, if not longer than couples who live in the same city. The three studies work along with each other to prove the common theme that long distance relationships can last, but it requires planning and communication. In terms of content, the three studies are quite different. It is hard to determine which article makes the better case, but in terms of emotional appeal and relevancy, the three studies work beautifully alongside each other.

Before the authors of “Physical distance and interpersonal characteristics in college students” romantic relationships” conducted the study, they assumed that distance would affect a relationship by restricting opportunities for partners to engage in intimacy processes. In the text, intimacy processes are defined as feelings of being understood, cared for, and validated that result from a romantic partners self disclosure. The study concluded of a gathering of 162 students currently in relationships, long distance (LDR) or not (non LDR). These students were asked to fill out a questionnaire about their current relationship based on the ten intimacy processes. They then checked back with the students in three months to see if the status of the relationships had changed. The studies then produced results showing the authors that being in a long distance relationship compared to a geographically close relationship, displayed little to no difference in the break-up rate, nor did the stated intimacy processes change dramatically from LDR to non-LDR. In fact, the study stated that closeness and instrumental help were greater in LDRs.

Erin Sahlstein uses three forms of praxis strategies throughout the course of this study. Praxis is defined as a philosophical term for practical behavior. The author also mentions use of Relational Dialectics within the study, which Sahlstein claims is a “useful lens for examining simultaneous yet competing needs”. Sahlstein states that the reason for this study is clear in the literature, “there is a human desire to reduce uncertainty, to explain the world, and to render it predictable.” She then goes on to state that planning creates certainty. Sahlstein claims that uncertainties come about in LDDRs because of the ebb and flow of their partner’s physical presence in each other’s lives. Certainty is something that LDDR couples strive for because of such infrequencies.

The study consisted of the measure of twenty couples. They were each given a questionnaire to fill out alone, and then they were asked to complete a couple interview, where in which one person read the questions and then answer the question jointly. The questions were as flows: 1) How does your time together positively impact your time apart? 2) How does your time together negatively impact your time apart? 3) How does your time apart positively impact your time together? 4) How does your time apart negatively impact your time together? The participants were asked to tape their answers. The praxis strategies used reflect the couples interview where denial, balance, and segmentation. Planning as denial is when couples engage in planning talk, which produces certainty about future interactions. Planning as denial is when couples plan for conversations that have uncertain outcomes. Lastly, planning as segmentation allows for the clean separation between individual and relational lives. The results showed that over planning could cause anxiety for partners if they don’t finish what they had planned.

Mary Carole focuses less on the experimental side of these relationships and more on the psychological side of them. She suggests that LDRs work in different ways than non LDRS, which is why they tend to last longer. She says that they work differently in the fact that they require more open communication and have fewer petty arguments than those who are always together. This also results in more quality time together. In short, LDRs and non LDRs function differently, but often last similar amounts of time.

Collectively, these authors are saying that if you handle an LDR properly then the success rate will be higher. The skills that they say could help in handling these relationships properly are stated in the articles. Planning, knowledge that these relationships don’t always fail, knowing that the success rate is the same for long distance and non long distance couples, or even knowing that they can last even longer than non LDRs, knowing that the intimacy processes are to be handled differently due to absence of partner’s physical being and how to adjust appropriately to ensure relationship safety. Together, these articles each provide the reader with helpful and valid points to keep the relationship going in a positive direction. So if one were to read these articles right after another, the main theme would be the same. In conclusion, long distance relationships can have a happy ending if they are managed with care.

Mary Carole, Mary, comp. "Long-Distance Pairs Can Last, Researcher Says." 33.17

            (2005): 5. EBSCOhost. 9 Jan. 2006. Web. 3 Feb. 2012. 

Sahlstein, Erin M. "Making Plans: Praxis Strategies for Negotiating Uncertainty-

            Certainty in Long-Distance Relationships." Western Journal of

            Communication70.2 (2006): 147-65. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 Feb.

            2012.

Van Horn, K. Roger, Angela Arnone, Kelly Nesbitt, Laura Desllets, Tanya Sears,

            Michelle Giffin, and Rebecca Brudi. "Physical Distance and Interpersonal

            Characteristics in College Students    Romantic Relationships - HORN - 2005 –

            Personal Relationships." Personal Relationships 4.1 (1997): 25-34.

I Reviewed an Article and it Took a Really Long Time

In the study “Making Plans: Praxis Strategies for Negotiating Uncertainty- Certainty in Long-Distance Relationships”, the author Erin Sahlstein claims that making plans manages both certainty and uncertainty in long distance dating relationships (LDDRs). Sahlstein uses three forms of praxis strategies throughout the course of this study. Praxis is defined as a philosophical term for practical behavior. The author also mentions use of Relational Dialectics within the study, which Sahlstein claims is a “useful lens for examining simultaneous yet competing needs”. Sahlstein states that the reason for this study is clear in the literature, “there is a human desire to reduce uncertainty, to explain the world, and to render it predictable.” She then goes on to state that planning creates certainty. Sahlstein claims that uncertainties come about in LDDRs because of the ebb and flow of their partner’s physical presence in each other’s lives. Certainty is something that LDDR couples strive for because of such infrequencies.

The study consisted of the measure of twenty couples. They were each given a questionnaire to fill out alone, and then they were asked to complete a couple interview, where in which one person read the questions and then answer the question jointly. The questions were as flows: 1) How does your time together positively impact your time apart? 2) How does your time together negatively impact your time apart? 3) How does your time apart positively impact your time together? 4) How does your time apart negatively impact your time together? The participants were asked to tape their answers. The praxis strategies used reflect the couples interview where denial, balance, and segmentation. Planning as denial is when couples engage in planning talk, which produces certainty about future interactions. Planning as denial is when couples plan for conversations that have uncertain outcomes. Lastly, planning as segmentation allows for the clean separation between individual and relational lives. The results showed that over planning could cause anxiety for partners if they don’t finish what they had planned.

The claim that Sahlstein makes is valid. Certainty is guaranteed with plans, but the uncertainty lies within them. However, every couple is different, therefore this article cannot pertain to every LDDR. While certain aspects ring true for certain couples, the article as a whole could be perceived as something of a fallacy. Sahlstein makes a hasty generalization in saying that planning is something that all LDDRs need. While Sahlstein’s sources are qualified, being that they are in LDDRs, they are not reliable sources. Individuals often embellish themselves on psychological assessments. Therefore their answers may not be completely valid.

Another thing to note would be in the lack of a physical response check. While people may psychologically feel as though their relationship is in a comfortable place it is very possible that they are showing physical signs of unhappiness. If this study were to be properly conducted, they would not merely look at the psychological effects of a LDDR; they would examine the emotional effects and the physical effects along with it.

Perhaps one of the most prevalent issues that can be found in this study, and indeed, in every study, is the fact that every study treats every relationship the same. Every relationship is different and while certain areas of one study may be true for one relationship, the same may not be true for any other. Every study needs to acknowledge that each relationship, be it an LDDR or not, differs from one another. Hence, the experiment expressed in the article poses a logical fallacy.

Although the article has a large amount of faults, it also expresses some very valid points. The author mentions a very valid point within the article, which is the application of segmentation and its importance, so that a couple may direct their attention on their relationship when they’re able to physically be with each other. It points out that one of the major issues in any Proximal Distance Relationship (PDR) is that there isn’t a clear separation between the intimate lives of the couple and their social and professional lives, whereas in a LDDR the couple can clearly separate the two to allow for them to spend more time and focus to each aspect of their lives. The author makes a very valid point in the importance of segmentation.

Another very strong point that the Author makes in the article is making plans for conversations that ensure certainty between them. Sahlstein states that “Couples frequently discussed how they make explicit plans to ensure that 1) their future time together will be satisfying and 2) that they will not waste their precious moments together.” Couples in an LDDR tend to feel uncertain when they are not with each other and the author states that when they make plans, it will help make them feel more secure and more certain about each other.

Overall, Sahlstein makes good points for the case of the three praxis strategies. She points out that making plans as denial, balance and segmentation can lead to success in some LDDRs. However, she fails to note that not every long distance relationship functions in the same way. 






Sahlstein, Erin M. "Making Plans: Praxis Strategies for Negotiating Uncertainty- Certainty in Long-Distance Relationships." Western Journal of Communication70.2 (2006): 147-65. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.


***My blog won't show the works cited as having a hanging indent! But I promise it's there!

***

Studies can be cool

In the study “Physical distance and interpersonal characteristics in college students' romantic relationships”, the authors have a clear purpose: “To investigate interpersonal characteristics of romantic relationships among college students as a function of physical separation.” Before the conducted study, the authors assumed that distance would affect a relationship by restricting opportunities for partners to engage in intimacy processes. In the text, intimacy processes are defined as feelings of being understood, cared for, and validated that result from a romantic partners self disclosure. Often in the text, intimacy processes are defined and measured in ten categories as follows, affection, companionship, enhancement of worth, instrumental help, self-disclosure, nurturance, reliable alliance, perspective taking, satisfaction and closeness. The study concluded of a gathering of 162 students currently in relationships, long distance (LDR) or not (non LDR). These students were asked to fill out a questionnaire about their current relationship based on the ten intimacy processes. They then checked back with the students in three months to see if the status of the relationships had changed. The studies then produced results showing the authors that being in a long distance relationship compared to a geographically close relationship, displayed little to no difference in the break-up rate, nor did the stated intimacy processes change dramatically from LDR to non-LDR. In fact, the study stated that closeness and instrumental help were greater in LDRs. The authors made note that other studies on this topic were invalid. Affirming that some provided conflicting results and that others did not reach firm conclusions. This study provides valid, clear and concise points about being in a long distance relationship. The points of which they measured the subject’s relationships were intelligent and made sense to an innocent reader.

At the start of this study, the authors lay out the purpose to give the reader a general ground as to what this study will hopefully prove. They introduce us to some terms that most people would not know, they then describe them in great detail so that now, to the reader, they are second knowledge. The authors then tear down fifteen other studies that have been done by different researchers. They state that these studies don’t reach firm conclusions, nor do they have “comprehensive theoretical models that can impact LDRs.” The authors continue to say that other studies provided conflicting results, using an example of two specific studies. They stated that one study showed “students involved in LDRs rated their relationships higher on such variables as satisfaction, love and communication, then did non LDRs.” They contrasted this with another study that found significantly lower satisfaction in LDRs than in non-LDRs. They went on to prove that the stated studies failed because they did not take into account the frequency of visits among LDRs. Which therefore, “does not yield a coherent picture of LDRs”.  

The authors further back up their claims about the “failed” studies by taking what they thought went wrong, and making sure that in their own study, they did not have the same faults. However, the authors’ study did have a few imperfections of its own, as they pointed out in the conclusion of their article. For the students in LDRs they did not take into account the fact that this may have not been a first time separation for some couples. This could hinder their results, as first time separation is known to be more challenging. The fact that the authors realized their own fault further pushes the validity of their argument, knowing that other factors go into these types of relationships. Still yet, students that could have been long distance before still qualify for the requirements of an LDR based on this study.

The conclusion of the study seems to be the most powerful point. The authors repeat their findings that the break up rate from LDRs to non-LDRs does not differ, even if the couples that were long distance stated that being apart played a big role in the ending of their relationship. They then go on to insightfully state “perhaps members of LDRs are influenced in both their satisfaction and confidence ratings by the common belief that such relationships do not last.” And “distance is a concrete and nonthreatening explanation for the breakup of an LDR.” They conclude with a point that states that their studies can indicate that partners in an LDR should know that they could last. The effectiveness of these insights really brings this study home. For many, it puts the results in perspective. Seeing that a study can really apply to ones relationship further proves the validity and easiness to understand what the authors are talking about. There may be some light at the end of the long tunnel that is long distance relationships!




Van Horn, K. Roger, Angela Arnone, Kelly Nesbitt, Laura Desllets, Tanya Sears, Michelle Giffin, and Rebecca Brudi. "Physical Distance and Interpersonal Characteristics in College Students%u2019romantic Relationships - HORN - 2005 - Personal Relationships." Personal Relationships 4.1 (1997): 25-34. Wiley Online Library. 20 May 2005. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00128.x/abstract>.

A summary of an article that wasn't a total bummer!

Long distance relationships can last! Today, these types of relationships are becoming more and more common. At least one third of college students are currently in a relationship with someone that lives in a different city or state. Researchers say that long distance relationships tend to last as long as, if not longer than couples who live in the same city.

            Long distance relationships work differently than other types of relationships, which is why they tend to last longer. Different in a way that they tend to have more open communication, talk more about the relationship itself and have fewer petty arguments than those who are always together. Being apart constantly also allows for couples to spend more quality time together.

            It is common for partners who live far apart to have only one thing on their mind; their significant other. This, for example, allows you to want to wear something that reminds you of your partner, or bring them up in conversation, or even just do something that reminds you of their presence. Couples who see each other everyday don’t feel that they need to do these things.

            Overall, being apart eliminates some of the problems that geographically close partners tend to have. The relationship functions on a different level. Time with them is more valuable and when you do see them, it’s a feeling like no other. Long distance can actually bring a couple together. This is exciting news!  






Mary Carole, Mary, comp. "Long-Distance Pairs Can Last, Researcher Says." 33.17 (2005): 5. EBSCOhost. 9 Jan. 2006. Web. 3 Feb. 2012.