Arts Education Advocacy

Arts education has been notoriously scrutinized for it’s inability to justify itself within a k-12 school curriculum. These three articles provide different, yet similar justifications. Prior to reading them, I thought that the reasoning for art curriculum was generally agreed upon among all art advocates. However, these different perspectives shed light onto an unseemingly complex issue.

In “Art for our Sake: School Arts Classes Matter More Than Ever- But Not for the Reasons You Think,” I found that the views were similar to that of my own. I find that art education advocates tend to value the ‘emotional’ aspect of art creativity over any other part. The more methodical and logical side of art received more attention here. Ellen Winner and Lois Hetland show an example of how when people draw faces, we tend to put the eyes up too high. Being able to perceive the world for what it is, is imperative in the art making process. No matter how much you ‘feel’ connected to something or someone, the ability to produce quality work requires many technical understandings. In addition, the authors observed that time-management skills required to design, create, and finish projects developed healthier in students. These kinds of skills help students to grow into more diligent and intelligent individuals. In other subject areas, the emphasis is often placed on memorizing information and reproducing it verbatim on a test, which aligns with the lowest end of bloom’s taxonomy. The process of artmaking involves producing something that is truly unique, which aligns with the highest end of bloom’s taxonomy. Furthermore, Ellen Winner and Lois Hetland explained that the correlation of students in arts education earn higher act scores doesn’t necessarily mean that they are causally related. It’s unnecessary for art education to have to justify itself with test scores, since standardized testing doesn’t measure many of the important skills that art teachers. 

In, “Valuing the Arts on Their Own Terms?” Constance Bumgarner Gee argues that there is a difference between valuing, advocating, and justifying arts education. She describes the different ways that art educators have advocated for the arts in public schools. This includes the benefit of art on math and science after the launch of sputnik, and the benefit of art on social reconstructionism and social justice. When trying to ‘sell’ art education to policymakers, I agree that it’s not just about trying to show how good the arts are through advocating, but how necessary they are through justifying. After reading this text, I’ve realized that many advocacy is centered on trying to show the benefits of arts on something else, whether that be economic, scientific, social justice, or student obedience. Why can’t art be appreciated for what it is, rather than trying to show its ‘side-effects?’ The ‘advo-search’ studies the author mentions showcases how our own bias can affect how research can be skewed to favor our position. This can come off as proselytizing of relentlessly pushing narratives, which is the exact opposite of what art should aim to achieve. Arts education should be about bridging the gap between people of different viewpoints, not trying to become one-sided. In other words, when we advocate or justify arts education, it shouldn’t be about ‘us’ versus ‘them.’

In “Does Experiences in the Arts Boost Academic Achievement?,” the author hits the nail on exactly on my thoughts on the Arts effect on academic achievement. My favorite quote from the article is, “Have they ever thought about asking how reading and math courses contribute to higher performance in the arts?” This questions the idea that arts education is only meant to support other subject area, rather than supporting itself for its own right. Eisner illustrates how many studies across various years fail to provide a scientific basis for claims that the arts boost academic achievement. There are so many confounding variables which makes it increasingly difficult to pinpoint the effect of art on other subject areas. There’s a spectrum the author describes that starts with the art related benefits of art to the ancillary benefits. It makes sense that we should aim somewhere in the middle. It is important for students to develop art skills, as knowing how to use materials is important to art making. But at the same time, not many will go onto have art as a career. Therefore, it is important to teach as a tool for self expression and the understanding of abstract concepts. Ellen Winner and Lois Hetland would probably be placed somewhere closer on the art benefits on the spectrum because of their close observations of student art making. This could also place Constance Bumgarner Gee closer to the other end of the spectrum, because of her emphasis of arts ability to connect to the world.