Should the government fund extra-curricular activities for children?
Should the government fund extra-curricular activities for children? For example, music lessons. These are really expensive, so it's more difficult for a child from a low-income family to learn to play an instrument than a child from a wealthy family. They may have fewer lessons a week, or none at all.
Yes
Side Score: 16
|
No
Side Score: 21
|
|
|
|
And how is that, exactly? There are plenty of gifted artists and athletes already. The issue is not talent. The issue is the utter lack of job prospects even for highly talented and trained professionals, let alone those starting out in the arts or athletics. You can have all the talent and training in the world, but if the economic system is broken then the odds are you will not get very far. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
I think it's beneficial for young children to be exposed to music and art, and other such activities. However, It would be simpler for public schools to offer these subjects as part of the curriculum, and extend the school day to accommodate, rather than paying private coaches and instructors to provide these services. But that's a question of organization, and not the core question of whether impoverished students should receive access to these activities. I also agree that keeping such children busy can reduce crime. Side: Yes
|
No. Not music lessons: not anything. The Government is best to keep out of the daily lives of each member of its populace. The odd person may ultimately make an economic contribution via tax-sponsored music skills, but how many more millions will no doubt go to nought: to unmotivated students, to misappropriated funding and any number of unnecessary expenses, or just to downright untalented youngsters. If the child has the passion, let it go and learn on its own accord, not burden even more greatly an already tremendously burdened economy. Side: No
That is the heart of my argument, yes. As a nation we simply cannot afford it; perhaps if we cut back on our military and billion other expenses we could afford to help out every last child in the country to have access to music/sport/whathaveyou lessons. When you consider that 1/4 of the country is under 20, and even the number of teachers that would be needed to service some 75,000,000ish youngsters, do you really think it is an economically viable practice to begin, precedent to set? We already pay for curricular activities; let's leave extra-curricular activities to the people who desire them. For the rest of us, there's sandlots, libraries, and YouTube. Side: Yes
1
point
Alright, that's a terrible argument. Here's why: Let's look at crime laws. If you break a law before the law changes, you stay in jail, even when it becomes legal. Doesn't that break your argument? If you think it doesn't, let me explain. The education system has to change. We didn't have NEARLY the same STEM program we have today, when 1970 was around. But guess what, things changed. Science and Technology became more important. When society changes, I think that means that we have to change our strategies on education, to create equal opportunity. Also, not everything is perfectly fair. Sorry. Side: Yes
The government should not fund extra-curricular activities for children. The question is why should they and what is the point? Unless the US is not in debt (but they are in debt of almost 20 trillion dollars) and have nothing better to put their money into, then they could waste it on extra-curricular activities. What are the benefits of extra-curricular activities such as music lessons? It is rare for a child to become a huge money making musician. How about extra-curricular basketball; when was the last time a kid who went to these activities became a famous/money making player. Usually the kids who become famous out of these activities do it in their spare time at home or outside without the help of these extra-curricular activities. Why should the taxes people pay, be put into useless extra-curricular activities. If the government really wants to waste money, rather then wasting money on this, let the government waste money on a better education system (which most kids will actually need to make money in the future). Side: No
1
point
1
point
But I'll agree that we should be able to pay off our debt. But let's be honest. That's just the republicans who refuse to raise taxes on the rich and, as liberal as I am, the democrats who are so obsessed with health care. I think we can keep the health or taxes, but not both. Neither would be our best bet at paying off our debt. Side: No
|