Donald Trump’s new budget proposal includes huge cuts to many agencies and organizations that do great things, such as the EPA, the UN, and the World Bank. But the budget would also make significant cuts to social welfare programs, including Meals on Wheels, which delivers food to senior citizens who are unable to shop or cook themselves. Cuts would also apply to after-school programs that feed poor children.

In a press conference on Thursday, budget chief Mick Mulvaney defended the budget outline. He said that Meals on Wheels “sounds great” but that it’s unfair to taxpayers to use their money for something that doesn’t have a proven effect. He even called the decision to cut Meals on Wheels “one of the most compassionate things we can do.”

Trying to explain his viewpoint, Mulvaney told reporters that they are focusing only on the recipients of the money, while they should be focusing on the poor people that give their hard earned money. “And I think it’s fairly compassionate to go to them and say, ‘Look, we’re not going to ask you for your hard-earned money anymore… unless we can guarantee to you that that money is actually going to be used in a proper function,” he said. Per the budget draft those “proper functions” mostly involve national security.

Mulvaney’s comments led to some angry comments on social media.

@ParaComedian09 People living is the god damn result

— Erin M Barlow (@ErinMBarlow) March 16, 2017

Mick Mulvaney says Meals on Wheels “not showing any results.” Actual peer-reviewed research says otherwise. https://t.co/B6ZRxtWIAf pic.twitter.com/YI6jiAgMBk

— Christopher Ingraham (@_cingraham) March 16, 2017

The Mick Mulvaney presser right now has made it clear that Republicans have become the party of cruelty. Sad for America.

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) March 16, 2017

Mulvaney also implied that he doesn’t see any proof that a well-fed child does better in school than a hungry one. The new budget would cut after-school programs, which often provide food for poor kids so that they can perform better in school. “They’re supposed to help kids who don’t get fed at home get fed so they do better in school. Guess what? There’s no demonstrable evidence they’re actually doing that,” he said.

That Mulvaney wants to deprive children who might not get enough food at home from a meal at school was just too much for some.

OMB Director Mick Mulvaney is shameless: “No evidence free meals to kids improves performance” https://t.co/yzDerB7tb0

— Aaron Vallely (@Vallmeister) March 17, 2017

you, a hungry child: “please sir, can i have breakfast”

me, a mick mulvaney: “that’s not efficient”

— Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) March 16, 2017

If Mulvaney needs some proof for why Meals on Wheels is a good idea, the nonprofit group itself can provide it. The group’s workers provide food for more than 2.4 million seniors every year. A 2013 study showed that the home-delivered meals “significantly improve diet quality, increase nutrient intakes, and reduce food insecurity and nutritional risk among participants. Other beneficial outcomes include increased socialization opportunities, improvement in dietary adherence, and higher quality of life.” Also, by making sure these citizens get fed, Meals on Wheels makes sure that they don’t need to move into a nursing home just yet. That’s a pretty good way to save money on healthcare.

And it comes to those after-school programs, it’s important to note that as many as 21 percent of kids in the U.S. live in poverty, according to the National Center for Children in Poverty. Many kids even get the majority of their meals at school. “Recent studies have demonstrated that nutrition affects students’ thinking skills, behavior, and health, all factors that impact academic performance,” a 2014 study from Wilder Research stated, which makes sense to anyone who has ever tried to work on an empty stomach.

These kids are the people that will make up the workforce in a couple of years. Insufficient nutrition will definitely not help them excel academically, or physically for that matter. If this kind of thinking doesn’t change soon, the future of this country doesn’t look very bright.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mick Mulvaney: No Evidence After-School Meals or Meals on Wheels Work appeared first on Law Street.

In what might be the largest assault on the funding of government agencies in decades, President Donald Trump released a preliminary budget proposal on Thursday. The budget, a $1.1 trillion affair, would mostly benefit the Defense Department, while considerably reducing funds for the EPA, the State Department, and a whole host of other federal agencies. The budget is called “America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again.”

About three-quarters of the federal budget is mandatory spending, or spending that is largely locked in and cannot be shifted. Mandatory spending is generally comprised of entitlement spending and interest payments on the national debt. The remaining quarter of the budget is discretionary spending, or spending that the presiding administration and Congress can alter. This is the chunk of the budget–in which funding to federal agencies falls–that would be affected by Trump’s proposals.

Here is a guide to help you navigate Trump’s first budget proposal as president, and what might happen next.

Focus on National Security

For the federal government’s budget for the 2018 fiscal year, Trump has one clear area in mind that could use an infusion of cash: national security. Under Trump’s proposed budget, $54 billion would be added to defense spending, a ten percent increase. The funds would, in part, according to Trump’s budget, help to increase the ranks of the Army and Marine Corps and build-up the military’s ship and plane fleets.

“The core of my first budget blueprint is the rebuilding of our nation’s military without adding to our federal deficit,” Trump said in a letter that accompanied the proposed budget. Some Republicans worry that the increase in military spending does not go far enough. Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said “the administration’s budget request is not enough to repair” the damage done by the military spending cuts in recent years.  

Another costly security-related project that the budget proposal covers: Trump’s long-touted wall on the Mexican border. The price tag for that endeavor, which the proposed budget allocates funds for, would be roughly $2.5 billion.

Severe Cuts to Non-Defense Agencies

How would the increases to defense spending be paid for? After all, when Trump pledged to drain the swamp, he never said money trees would sprout in its place. Ten federal agencies would face cuts of over ten percent of their current budget. The EPA, led by Scott Pruitt, a fervent critic of the agency, would see a 31 percent decrease in spending–a cut of about $2.5 billion. Programs to protect wildlife and the environment would be scaled back; 3,200 employees would lose their jobs.

The State Department, the government’s diplomatic arm of international engagement, would also face a stiff budget cut: nearly $11 billion would be shaved off the agency’s funding, a 29 percent drop. Contributions to the UN–for peacekeeping missions and efforts to combat climate change–would be drastically reduced, as would contributions to the World Bank.

Some observers believe that reduced spending to the State Department could, ironically, compromise national security. “We learned in both Iraq and Afghanistan that our military needs an effective civilian partner if victories on the battlefields are going to be converted into a sustainable peace,” said Stephen Hadley, President George W. Bush’s national security adviser. In addition to the cuts to the EPA and State, funding to 19 agencies would be eliminated entirely, from the Institute of Museum and Library Services to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.

Next Up: Congress

It is highly unlikely that the 2018 fiscal year budget will resemble what Trump proposed on Thursday. For one, the Obama Administration capped military spending in 2013, caps which could not be undone without 60 votes in the Senate, and Democrats would likely all oppose such an attempt. In addition to Democratic opposition, many Republicans see Trump’s cuts as being too severe, if not illogical and unnecessary.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the proposed State Department cuts render the budget proposal “dead on arrival.” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said the cuts to foreign aid, which makes up a fraction of the budget but has a substantial impact, go too far. House Speaker Paul Ryan, a connoisseur of conservative budget planning, supported Trump’s first draft. “We are determined to work with the administration to shrink the size of government, grow our economy, secure our borders, and ensure our troops have the tools necessary to complete their missions,” he stated. But Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), seemingly the face of congressional GOP opposition to Trump, gives the budget outline a slim chance of passing the Senate. “It is clear that this budget proposed today cannot pass the Senate,” he said in a statement.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About Trump’s 2018 Budget Blueprint appeared first on Law Street.

A Tennessee lawmaker is vying for control of what Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cardholders can and cannot buy with federal dollars.

In January, State Rep. Sheila Butt introduced a bill that would ban Tennessee shoppers on public assistance from buying food with no perceived nutritional value. According to Butt, current rules allow taxpayer money to fund people’s “unhealthy lifestyle choices.”

“I go into convenience stores almost every day and see the most non-nutritional foods on the counters and in the aisles marked ‘EBT Approved,’” said Butt. “By allowing their purchase with EBT cards, we are actually enhancing diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and obesity in at-risk communities.”

The Republican Majority Floor Leader of the Tennessee House of Representatives plans to model the prospective junk food ban off statewide standards for public school cafeterias. First-time offenders who buy prohibited items would be fined $1,000, while second and third offenses would amount to $2,500 and $5,000 fines, respectively. Grocers caught selling the forbidden foods would be subject to the same fines as shoppers.

Historically, Republicans haven’t exactly been advocates of state welfare programs. GOP politicians, including House Speaker Paul Ryan and Congressman Mike Conaway, have been particularly critical of EBT cards, which are part of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)–formerly known as the Food Stamp program.

Considering Trump’s current administration, not to mention the Republican-controlled House and Senate, drastic alterations to EBT could very well happen under his term.

Within recent years, officials have suggested drug testing recipients to determine if they qualify for benefits. There has also been a reemergence of work requirements across the country. Today 22 states enforce that if you are an “able bodied person” between the ages of 18 and 49 with no dependents, and work less than 80 hours a month, then you are only eligible to use EBT benefits for three months out of every three years.

In June 2016 federal authorities rejected Maine Gov. Paul LePage’s efforts to remove soda and energy drinks from EBT-approved items. In a scathing letter to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, the conservative leader blamed the Obama Administration and “junk food manufacturing interests,” and threatened to overhaul Maine’s EBT program altogether. LePage claimed that “billions” of taxpayer dollars are being spent on “candy and soda.”

“It’s time for the federal government to wake up and smell the energy drinks,” said LePage in a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which funds SNAP programs “Doubtful that it will, I will be pursuing options to implement reform unilaterally or crease Maine’s administration of the food stamp program altogether. You maintain such a broken program that I do not want my name attached to it.”

Maine would have become the first state to pass such a provision. With 18 percent of Maine residents relying on EBT benefits (the third-highest rate in the United States after Oregon and Mississippi), LePage’s failed motion had the potential to severely impair nearly one-fifth of Maine’s population of 1.3 million.

While unhealthy foods encompass one side of the argument, Missouri Republican Rick Brattin would also like to prohibit users from buying certain “luxury” food items, such as steak and seafood. His intent is to bring EBT back to its original purpose: nutrition assistance. However, some critics consider this to be attack on poor people rather than a promotion of healthy eating habits.

“It just seems really repressive,” said Mark Rank, a professor at Washington University and author of the book “Living on the Edge: The Realities of Welfare in America.” “I don’t see how it makes any sense to ban some of these foods. Fish is something that should really be in your diet. And steak, what does that mean in this context?”

As these political figures tout their efforts to promote health and wellness, they often overlook systematic challenges that low-income Americans face. The percentage of obesity in the United States has increased from about 13 percent to 35 percent since the early 1960s. Oftentimes, these poor eating habits can result from a range of societal issues including, but not limited to, insufficient healthy food options in economically-challenged areas, inconsistent work opportunities, and lack of education–all of which can fuel the multidimensional cycle of poverty.

Although one may expect geographically isolated areas known as “food deserts” to be the leading cause of EBT recipients buying junk food, Joe Cortright from the Atlantic thinks otherwise. He attributes the influx of obesity and diabetes in poor communities to household income and education as well. After these factors are taken into consideration, distance from nutritional food explains less than 10 percent of the variation in consumption of healthy foods. Therefore, perhaps politicians should devote more energy to providing work opportunities and educational training for America’s poorest citizens, rather than punishing poor people with rigid diet restrictions.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Conservative Lawmakers Propose Stricter EBT Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

Art education can benefit students in different ways, including improving student performance across the whole curriculum. But art programs in schools are often the first to be cut, if budget cuts are necessary. As a result, many students are missing out on the benefits of art classes. So, is it important to provide art education in schools? Read on to learn about art programs’ benefits and the issues with funding them for public school students.

What is the current state of art education in American schools?

Art education in public schools usually includes any combination of dance, music, drama/theatre, and visual arts classes. It’s usually funded by the federal, state, and local governments, but not all schools provide their students with art education.

Budget Cuts

Following the recent recession, budgets cuts were consistent in schools across the U.S., with more than 95 percent of students attending schools with significantly reduced budgets. It’s estimated that since 2008, more than 80 percent of schools nationwide experienced cuts to their budgets. As a remedy in some instances, art programs were partially or completely eliminated from affected school districts. Dance and theatre classes in particular were cut drastically. During the 1999-2000 school year, 20 percent of schools offered dance and theatre classes, but in the 2009-10 school year, only 3 percent of schools allocated funds for dance classes, and only 4 percent taught theatre. The number of schools that offered music classes didn’t change significantly over the last decade, indicating no budget cuts in that subject area, with 94 percent of schools still offering music classes. But the number of schools offering visual arts programs dropped from 87 percent in 1999-2000 to 83 percent in 2009-10. In 2013, public schools in major cities, including Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC, are still struggling with budget cuts, resulting in the continued elimination of art programs across affected school districts. Due to budget constraints, fewer schools offer art classes today than a decade ago.

Emphasis on Core Subjects

In addition to less money being spent on education because of the recession, various government policies, including the No Child Left Behind Act and the Common Core State Standards have placed greater emphasis on core subjects, such as math and reading. In doing so, they have sidelined arts education. In light of these policies, school districts began re-directing funds toward subjects that require standardized testing in order to increase the overall scores of their students.

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was signed into law in 2002 by President George W. Bush. The act was then re-authorized to ensure better access to high-quality education for all children, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, or class. As the emphasis was placed on core subjects, such as math and reading, funding for art programs decreased significantly, especially for those art classes that required studio materials. As a result, art education in some schools was completely eliminated, although children still sometimes had the option to take certain art classes after school with volunteer teachers. In some school districts, art classes were still offered, but only with a limited number of seats.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is a current state-wide initiative that emphasizes the development of skills needed for students to succeed in college and future careers. As of now, 46 states have CCSS and are working on implementation. Similar to No Child Left Behind, CCSS focuses on those subjects that require standardized testing, and doesn’t include art education in its core. As a result, many schools choose to allocate funds for math and English language classes, often at the expense of art education. However, the Common Core Standards references arts in the curriculum, by some estimations, 75 times. In this regard, some art educators and advocates believe that art education can be aligned with the Common Core standards. To promote integration of art classes, the new National Core Arts Standards were developed and released to the public in 2014 as a conceptual framework. In 2015, a model cornerstone assessment pilot project was launched “to demonstrate the type of standards-based evidence needed to show student achievement.” These assessments will continue in 2016.

Disparities in Accessing Art Education

Even though art programs were slashed nationwide, schools with higher concentrations of impoverished students or minority students suffered the most. According to 2008 data, African-American and Hispanic students were two times less likely to have access to art programs in their school districts in comparison to their white peers. Interestingly, the rates of African-American and Hispanic students who have received art education while in school have been declining since the beginning of 1990s. In 1992, 50.9 percent of African-American 18-24 year olds received art education in childhood, while in 2008, only 26.2 percent of the same demographic had access to art classes in schools. Similar numbers are true for Hispanic children: 47.2 percent had art education in 1992 and only 28.1 percent had the option in 2008. In comparison, there were no comparable rates of decline in art education for white 18-24 year olds.

Most of the schools that serve low-income students already have reduced budgets due to the recession and its aftermath. In addition, as many schools in poor neighborhoods are considered low-performing, they face an intense pressure to meet Common Core standards through math and English language tests. If a school fails these standards it may be placed into program improvement status. In this situation, art classes become even less of a priority, and may be significantly reduced or completely cut from the curriculum. Art programs in schools that have a large number of low-income students are also rarely restored. While more affluent school districts can rely on private funding to still provide art education for students, or parents can simply pay for after-school art classes, children in poor neighborhoods most likely don’t have those options. This scenario creates disparities in access to art education between communities.

What are the benefits of art education?

It’s evident that art classes are the first to be cut from the budget, the last to be restored, and often unavailable for low-income students. But why do we need art classes at all?

Improved Performance

First and foremost, art education improves the overall performance of students, including in the core academic subjects that are often emphasized by standardized testing requirements. Students who took four years of art classes scored 91 points higher on their SAT exams than those who took half a year or less. Multiple studies also confirmed that there is a correlation between art engagement and students’ other achievements. Students who regularly participated in art classes were four times more likely to be recognized for their achievements.

Higher Graduation Rates

Art education can help keep students in school. Schools with long-standing art programs have higher graduation rates. In many instances, art classes motivate students to stay in school, especially low-achieving students, by fostering closer ties with peers and creating community-oriented environments.

Inspiration and Creativity

Art can inspire students to create and express themselves in a variety of forms. It provides the spark that keeps children engaged and allows them to have fun while exploring the world through different art forms. Art education develops creativity and problem-solving skills, improves judgement, and shows children that there are multiple perspectives. Finally, it encourages inventiveness, helping foster innovative thinkers.

Child Development

Children in elementary schools can greatly benefit from art classes, as they are still growing physically and mentally. Visual arts classes are highly recommended for developing motor skills in young children. Every time a child holds a paintbrush or cuts with safety scissors, his motor and dexterity skills improve. The same is true for developing language skills. Young children can learn colors, shapes, and descriptive words while making simple art projects and discussing them with their peers and teacher. In fact, 33 percent of children are visual learners, meaning they absorb information from images. Art classes can help to improve visual-spatial skills and hand eye coordination.

Music education at a younger age is also very beneficial as it helps to connect both hemispheres of the brain, producing long-lasting improvements in communication and listening. In fact, children who play musical instruments just thirty minutes a week have more developed brains than their peers.

Art also makes children aware of different cultures, traditions, and customs, providing a foundation for understanding racial diversity, which is an important part of American society and history. All in all, art education has tremendous benefits for elementary school students, as it helps children to develop physical skills, brain functions, and ideas.

At-Risk Youth

Art classes are beneficial for students in many ways, but especially for children who are low-income and live in impoverished neighborhoods. Art programs can keep at-risk youth off the streets, and, consequently, away from correctional institutions. Not only can art programs provide incentives for these children to stay in school, but it can also improve their academic performance, including reading and math. At-risk students with a history of art involvement have higher college enrollment rates than their at-risk peers who didn’t pursue art education. They are three times more likely to earn Bachelor’s degrees than their peers. Students who didn’t take art classes are five times more likely to drop out of school before graduation. Art can help disadvantaged children to realize their full potential as it provides a safe harbor for those students who may lack a supportive environment at home.

How can we bring art programs back to schools?

It’s clear that art education is extremely important for children of all ages. As a result, many schools have begun to rely upon private funding or combinations of private and public funds when financing their art programs. Besides private donors, non-profit organizations have begun to play a leading role in funding art classes in local schools. For example, in 2013, the Eugene Education Foundation (EEF) allocated 30 percent of its grants to art education in schools. Those grants are funded by community members. EEF has also created an Artists in Residence program. This practice of bringing art experts into a classroom for a limited amount of time has proven to be very rewarding. For example, students at Awbrey Park Elementary in Oregon were able to experience Mexican arts and crafts for one month with an expert from Eugene Arte Latino. There are also many parent-teacher organizations that are fundraising for art education.

Charter schools can be also a leading force in art education. New York City has 210 charter schools, some of which have already implemented in-depth art curriculums. Ascend Learning is a network of seven charter schools in Brooklyn, modeled after elite private schools with famous paintings in the hallways to expose children to art.

On a larger scale, state initiatives can greatly improve art education in schools. California’s Core Reforms Engaging Arts to Educate (CREATE) is a large-scale project to bring arts back to the classroom, bridging the gap of budget cuts.

Conclusion

Art education is an important component of childhood development. It also can pave the way for a child’s academic and future success as a professional. While the picture is not that bleak across the nation, it does in some cases fall across racial lines. In this regard, non-profits, communities, teachers, private individuals, and states are already creating a wave of change, moving from perceiving art education as expendable costs toward an overall realization of its benefits. The recent development of National Core Arts Standards is a promising step, as alining art eduction with Common Core Standards can hopefully bring arts back to the classroom.

Resources

Primary

Common Core State Standards Initiative: What is the Common Core?

National Center for Educational Statistics: Arts Education in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: 1999-2000 and 2009-10

Additional

Americans For The Arts: Decline of Arts Education in Undeserved Populations

Americans For The Arts: Uneven Education Opportunities Nationwide

College Board for the National Coalition for Core Arts Standards: The Art and The Common Core

National Coalition for Core Arts Standards: Model Cornerstone Pilot Project 2014

Huffington Post: Is Federal Money The Best Way To Fund The Arts? Join The Debate

The Washington Post: Will Less Art and Music in the Classroom Really Help Students Soar Academically?

EugeneWeekly: Budget Cuts Affect Music, Arts

Think Progress: Public Schools Slash Arts Education And Turn To Private Funding

PBS Parents: The Importance of Art in Child Development

Artsz: 20 Reasons Why Art is Important for Children

US News: Extracurriculars Are Central to Learning

Seattle PI: Budget Cuts to Art Programs in Schools

The Hechinger Report: Do the Arts Go Hand in Hand With Common Core?

EdSource: Effort to Revive Arts Programs in Schools Gains Momentum

Art & Education Exchange: Where the Arts and Common Core Intersect

The AEP Wire: No Child Left Behind: A Study of its Impact on Art Education

The Notebook: NCLB: Taking a Toll on Arts and Music Education

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Art Programs: Should They Be Saved? appeared first on Law Street.