Recently there has been a systematic push from certain educators to remove the fine arts from school. The reason for this is mainly due to budget shortages and we all know that public schools are underfunded (just look at the toilet paper...or lack thereof, in certain cases.) Now, schools were never known to be infallible, but it can be universally agreed upon that the football programs would never suffer the same persecution that the arts have.

But because football tickets are sold en masse every Friday night, I suppose they can re-coup their costs.

Fine arts will never have the same earning potential as sports, that's just a sad fact of life. And while Da Vinci may be a household name hundreds of years after his death while the football hall of fame is full of names you'd only recognize if you were a devout fan, the point of this article is not to vilify one program and lionize the other.

So, what can your creative child expect out of school?

In America, you can expect for your child to pay attention in class because they were caught doodling on their notes. It should be expected that they will be told to get up and run around rather than drawing or singing. You can expect for letters to be sent home telling you how wonderfully creative your child is, but all the while your child is being told in school that their favorite subject doesn't matter. Not like math or science does.

Art class will be an elective. Art class will be full of kids who do not care and would rather be out playing soccer, but instead woe is me. There is certainly a double standard. No one would dare tell your child that they only have 7% chance of becoming a college baseball player. Out of the 487 thousand high school athletes playing baseball, 7% is only 34 thousand players. These odds really aren't any better than the arts.

Your child can expect to be scoffed at when they say they want to go to art school or major in art. Your child can expect to be told to "get a real job" by teachers, doctors, or anyone who dare disagree with something that has nothing to do with them. Your child should expect to be asked to paint, draw, take photos of, or sculpt for someone who doesn't expect to provide any monetary compensation. Your child can expect for you to be surprised that they dare pursue their passion, but it was okay for you to do it because your passion was computers.

Some parents expect for it to be obvious that their child has a propensity for drawing or running, but some talents are hidden. I'd wager that most talents are, especially if the household doesn't contain something pertaining to each and every hobby (newsflash, that's impossible.) That is where school comes in. The purpose of school is to provide students exposure to every kind of interest. I'm still not sure where my brother picked up his love for trains, but my mother says he's loved them since he very young. Obviously, he exposed to trains somewhere, and if not through books or toys at home, then where else does a child spend enough time to latch onto a hobby?

Given that students spend anywhere from seven to ten hours at an institution each day then it is justified to assume that school is the most likely suspect. It can also be universally agreed upon that every student has their own talents and struggles. Not every athlete is a jarhead. Not every painter is bad at math. Not every engineer has bad grammar. So why are schools only based on one kind of student?