In schools across the country, the norm for what is useful to learn or inline with modern curriculum lies with texts that have been over analyzed for many decades, leaving very little interpretation up to the teacher. By establishing one literary curriculum based around American and British works, many cultures and genres are left out, and kids are left uninterested by the same books their parents read 30 years before them. For how many times I’ve run into students Sparknoting “To Kill a Mockingbird” or “Catcher in the Rye” on their way to class, these texts are becoming analyzed so often that there has become a right answer when interpreting the story. Yes, these books hold important lessons that the general population should know, however when students get excited about reading “One of the most profane stories ever written” and end up dissatisfied by Holden Caulfield whining about his life; the original purpose of having the students read Catcher is gone.
This is not the only issue with having a standardized curriculum and schools that do not support modern ideas. Since test scores in reading and writing now determine the amount of money a school receives from the government, Music classes have been either funneled into only instrumental programs or having no music classes at all. In my senior English class, I had the opportunity to argue with my teacher trying to defend the music program cuts using 17-year-old rappers making ten times the yearly salary that she was as evidence. Whether it was the pure fact of how many digits these youngsters were taking home and the importance of the music business to the general economy or my voice distracting other classrooms, I spent the next two afternoons in detention alone for “being a disturbance in the classroom”.
I relate too heavily to the second paragraph of your post. Similar to your situation, my entire music program was cut (and much of my art class was cut, but a tad bit of it remained). Cutting an entire music program from education limits children detrimentally. Personally, I knew many people in my middle school that actually looked forward to school, solely to attend their music class. My classmates were devastated and even took up a protest to the cuts, ultimately to no success. These middle-schoolers could have been so much more musically inclined, developed music literacy skills or generated musical interest from this program, but I guess we’ll never know what could of been. Moreover, developing a musical mindset directly translates into more “important” course topics such as science or math. Recognizing rhythm, rhyme schemes, cord progression, etc. has been proven to relate to high efficiency in mathematics as your it propels your mind to be more apt in finding patterns, which is a key skill in math (I.E. using equations). I don’t believe any students should have to face the horrors of a lacking music program that you and I faced.
I think that you bring up an excellent issue here. My school only supported the arts so far as they could financially support themselves. Our theater department was known for its stellar performances and its exemplary production and frequently sold out every performance. The director frequently maxed out the departments budget, but made it back two-fold in ticket sales. However, the music department and visual arts were woefully underserved by the school because they had no direct monetary income attached to them. Our schools funding was earned through tests scores in reading, math, and science. I think that by valuing certain programs and subjects over others it creates a dichotomy between what is important to students development and what is just supplementary or unnecessary.