by Chloé Langley

Proponents of a strong education in the arts suggest that they should be a required component of primary and secondary education because they make a specific contribution to academic achievement. The Executive Summary of the REAP project reported that there were "three areas in which clear causal links could be demonstrated between the arts and achievement in a non-arts, academic area" these being Listening to Music and Spatial-Temporal Reasoning; Learning to Play Music and Spatial Reasoning; and Classroom Drama and Verbal Skills (Hetland and Winner). The LTTA study in Canada found that 6th grade students showed an 11 percentile increase in math computation and estimation skills at the end of three years in an arts enriched scholastic environment (Uptis ). Other studies show that students seem to gain a greater understanding of subjects when they work through their bodies or witness the material in a different perspective. Teachers who use rhyming and song can boost memory and recollection and yet other studies report increases in knowledge and understanding as well as in critical thinking, concept organization, and divergent thinking (Eisner 1999 145).

Follow up:

But studies with clear test data quantifying these improvements are rare. More common are the anecdotal comments that Dickinson reports. Principles at schools where arts rich programs exist used phrases such as "incredible achievement", "absolutely astonished", and "students...are flourishing" to describe the improvements they've seen (Dickinson).

A specific dissenting voice is Eisner's. He berates "arts educators who know what the arts have to offer trying to give the customers what they want" (Eisner 1999 143). It is his view that requiring the arts to be responsible for learning in areas that are not distinctive to the arts leaves them "vulnerable to any other...educational practice that claims that it can achieve the same aims faster and better" (Eisner 1999 146). Eisner goes on to discuss three arbitrary tiers of arts education outcomes and further defines four contributions that an education in the arts can be expected to provide. Yet in all of his analysis. it is the fourth set of outcomes that is of the most interest and which he freely admits is the most difficult to measure and assess. These most important outcomes, "a willingness to imagine possibilities; a desire to explore ambiguity; and the ability to recognize...multiple perspectives" seem to be derived from studying artistic creation (Eisner 1999 148) and are, in fact, the true gifts of the arts and ones that can be applied to all areas of human endeavor. Reading Eisner made me feel like Joan of Arts; champion for the protection of the arts for art's sake. I observed from a different perspective and was cemented there...temporarily, until I realized that Eisner in attempting to define why the arts do not improve academic achievement had come full circle to prove that they do just that.

Many opponents claim that there just isn't enough time in the day to include the arts when there are so many other "important" classes to teach. But in the school districts looked at by Dickinson, the most impressive point of commonality between these diverse programs was that their students were spending 25% of their school day in standalone arts classes. (Dickinson) Obviously the arts were adding to and complementing the academic curriculum at these schools but how can the "value" of arts in education be determined? Administrators are looking for and Federal Law requires hard cold facts and figures to provide evidence to support the claims of arts educators that the arts have an instrumental value by improving academic achievement. Results showing academic improvement in schools with a rich arts curriculum are more ethereal than empirical. A strong background in the arts provides for the "creation of opportunities for questioning...and empowering persons to see through multiple perspectives" (Greene). In our technological and scientific world, where the emphasis is on "objectivity, verifiability, and neutrality" (Greene), it is hard to make a case for valuing the immeasurable. How do you measure creativity except by the ideas that it generates? Unlike facts and figures and equations that can be memorized by rout and regurgitated at will, the creative mind and the ideas it generates must be given time to grow. The question here is how can you test for the types of skills that are acquired through a strong education in the arts? Creative thought is what separates us from machines. And, perhaps one day, creative thought will facilitate the development of a way to measure ideas. Teaching the arts is truly learning for the future. There is no test for that. Only a retrospective study a generation from now will be able to measure the real effect.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3