Findings Paragraph #3

Our society has a question which no one will directly answer. Why would the government want to take arts out of school? According to a report in School Administrator the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act labeled art as a "non-essential course" because the focus is on only raising standardized test scores. The reason behind this ridiculous choice being that art does not have a specific standardized test which the entire nation must take (Sousa). The unfavorable luck in Tulsa, Oklahoma came with the 2007-2008 school year funding. The school board did not have the resources to pay the art teacher their position. The teacher was laid off, causing both art and music to be cut from the school. The community had to band together and come up with the funds to pay the teacher for the position for the 2007-2008 academic year (Kimery Vance). Rhode Island's Reynolds Art Magnet School was shut down merely because it was small and a larger school could house all of the students at once, but the adverse effects on test scores and grades were not accounted for. The environment which was created in an art magnet program is not replicated in a normal school (Reynolds). Across the nation in California the Special Children's Art Foundation has to auction artworks of their members to be able to support the art programs for the Los Angeles County Schools for their special needs students attending there. The state decided that one of the highest scoring schools in Rhode Island should be shut down because it was too small. The government has decided that test scores are more important than specific classes but fail to realize these classes boost scores.  These communities all are suffering from the lack of proper funding to what needs to be acredited for the success of students.