The original basis for publicly funded education was to prepare the American work force to participate in the jobs that were created during the industrial revolution. Being able to read, write and compute served industry, and only secondarily served to survey the culture which arguably had a role to play in industry as well (advertising depends on creative, skilled writers, artists and musicians for example). Currently, technology pervades the public schools to a greater or lesser degree depending on their ability to fund the machines (generously underwritten by technology companies which serves their own agenda down the road.) and software. That is a clear reflection of its utility in business and industry, and continues the tradition of serving the American economy. As a teacher, though, I feel assailed from year to year as new software is introduced that I am expected to learn and use in my teaching even though the last generation of software still does the job it did in the first place. Granted, that's overstating it a bit, but not as much as you might think. Still, teachers are charged with imparting a fundamental core of knowledge and skills for which software is a useful assistant, but by no means an end all.
Happily, the district in which I teach, and the one in which I live strongly support the arts and have never even proposed a cut let alone made one, but it's not something one can take for granted. An article such as Suzanne linked to is still vital evidence of the value of art (and arts) education and needs to be seen by as many board members, administrators and taxpayers as possible. Thanks, Suzanne for the reference!
