The What Ifs of Arts Education

I would love it if the schools had arts education just for the arts alone. However, our society, which will accept the purchase of big TVs, video gaming equipment, etc., for the sake of having these things, will not accept it, so I've been posting real research studies from peer-reviewed clinical journals on my blog/wiki. The studies are far more frequent than is generally reported (so far I'm up to almost 150 studies from numerous countries).

What if? would be wonderful, but to be practical about it, Americans tend to be practical people, and we have to reach them where they live. Once the arts get a hold on them, then the transformative power of the arts can function for themselves; we have to give people a "hook" to get them there.

What a lovely way to come at one of the issues I raised in my advocacy blog about making claims for the arts that are hard to substantiate. I'd love to join a What If...conference around your questions. Maybe Doug would like to host another "marathon".

Re the i3 money being the biggest competition in our history, I'd be interested to see the comparison with funds made available for Titles III and IV in ESEA 1965 (and their current dollar equivalent)...I have a hunch they'be be about the same, or less (for the i3)...ESEA $$ was offered over several years for the kinds of projects i3 is looking for...the trick here for the arts community it to be able to latch on to a district that can meet all the qualifications...I suspect art entry is best at the lowest level they describe for the competition...that is if you can find a school district willing to chance it...this of course means looking at the arts instrumentally (again), not for their own sake, because of course, they are not considered "academic" subjects...

I think that "what if" is already reality. Sure, we're got some (a few) major studies attempting to prove that the arts "make kids smarter" but in all truth, they're all inherently flawed because the very nature of the arts is subjective and interpretive. Arts participation and comfort-levels vary so greatly from person to person, child to child. To then apply skills learned in the arts to Math, Science, and the real world can only truly be measured qualitatively.

The arts programs that are thriving and have the backing of their communities are the ones that have convinced people that to have the arts is essential to happiness, well-being, and wholeness. It's not about better test scores. It's about better people.

It is only when policy makers and the greater society as a whole understands this that the arts will have the backing in education they deserve. And, to be perfectly honest, I highly doubt that will ever happen in this country. We are a country of driven, hard-working achievers. It's what our society is based on, and therefore our educational system.

If learning through the arts is proven to provide no measurable benefit to students, it will remain a pursuit for private schools and public schools in affluent communities. The issue of a well-rounded education will still be at play, if only from the point of view that it makes students "more interesting people."

Most people, and most Americans, feel that the arts enhance their lives (though they might not call them the arts, or fully comprehend how their lives are being improved.) The main reason this is controversial is because we're scrambling for tax moneys in the public schools, which politicians and administrators love to quibble over, with "scientifically indisputable" studies as the gold standard for their arguments.

Arts education, just like live performance, will never die because its an inherent interest of the human condition.