Dafne Hernandez ‘20, Arts and Entertainment Writer

     Throughout the decade, the role of art in the school curriculum was threatened. People argued that art should be cut from schools across the country in order for students to focus more on core classes, and increase school funding for other “more important and valuable” elements of the school, such as sports teams, academic events, or new buildings dedicated to STEM fields. In today’s society, it is believed that STEM fields will create a stronger economy, better job employment, and innovation than art-related fields. Tyleah Hawkins, a writer for the Washington Post, extended the discussion of art in schools in 2012 when he asked in his article, “Will less art and music in the classroom really help students soar academically?” Hawkins states that there is a sense of classism in the art classes given at school during the economic recession of 2012. Hawkins further states: “Schools in wealthier neighborhoods that faced budget cuts were able to make up for their losses through private donations, while schools in impoverished neighborhoods have not.” As a result, schools in areas serving children from low-income families have reduced or completely cut their arts and music programs.” The type of education you receive in America can either receive arts or miss its benefits depending on your wealth or social class. Hawkins supports having art in schools by sharing a report titled “Arts Education in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: 2009-10,” which states that low-income students who earned few or no arts credits were five times more likely not to graduate from high school than low-income students who earned arts credits. But while the loss of art in schools affects primarily low-income students, students of all financial backgrounds are affected. 

   Some argue for including art in the school curriculum because it spurs creativity in students, enhances academic performance and emotional development. But the definition of art has changed throughout the past decade. In 2000, Ellen Winner and Lois Hetland conducted a project called Project Zero, an arts-education program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, where researchers failed to include the benefits of art education and were described as devaluing the arts. The researchers also argued that there is no way to measure the effect art has on academic performance, which further emphasized the ‘No Child Left Behind Act’ that President Bush advocated for in 2002. The Act was meant to pressure schools to improve test scores by focusing on a core curriculum, and therefore prioritizing the arts less. Thus, even political power was commenting on the role and importance of art in schools. Is that right to do? In 2005, a report by the Rand Corporation went against the Act, by stating that visual arts allow people to develop emotional insight and inspires increased positivity in schools, which impacts academic achievement. 

Today, art is valued by many schools; some school curricula are nearly centered around the arts.  There are even some art schools for low-income students, such as Thomas Jefferson Arts Academy in Elizabeth, New Jersey. But while this school implements the creative thinking and inspiration of art, the school suffers from insufficient funding to provide better workplaces and tools for students. Alex Perez, a student at Jefferson, states: “I love learning about art, but why do I have to study art in a school that is slowly falling apart with cracks on walls, old paint jobs, and broken instruments? Should I not be supported in learning what I love as other students in other schools?” The benefit of art is seen and given to students. But there is still the issue of financial inequality in the arts for students of differing financial backgrounds, even in 2019. The issue must be addressed for the good and future of the students in 2020.