Audrey Allen

Mr. Gardner

Musty Cockatoos

15 February 2019

Art vs. Arithmetic

School districts have been experiencing decreased funding for art programs across the

United States for decades. Providing art-based learning experiences for students is becoming less

of a priority and responsibility of schools, and more of a luxury that seems to be out of reach for

both students and educators. Due to financial needs of the United States, federal cutbacks on

educational funds force the common core network to focus on science, technology, engineering,

and math (STEM) programs. Today, creativity seems to have lost its place in the educational

system. Still, with math and science-based fields broadening the technological horizons of the

future, and becoming more accessible to graduating students, does art still have a place in

schools?

In Nicole Kirchner’s article, “The Anti-Art Education Stance”, she places her reader in a

hypothetical situation in which they would be required to choose between art or math programs

in their child’s school due to funding cuts. “Obviously,” she states, “any sane parent would pick

math” (Kirchner). Studies similar to the science, engineering, technology and math fields find

themselves central in everyday life. Failure to learn basic math skills like addition and

subtraction will hinder not only a child’s educational capacity, but also their overall ability to

live in society. To avoid this, making STEM classes central to the education system would

effectively prepare students with the knowledge and skills they need in order to succeed. With

that in mind, the funding required to run a successfully engaging art program is excessive when
it takes away from math and science programs. Specialties in the department of fine arts contain

an insignificant role in comparison to larger valued fields. (See Figure 1).

(Fig. 1) Roza, Marguerite. “Cost by Subject.” Education Next, July 2009. www.educationnext.or

g/breaking-down-school-budgets-2/. Accessed 19 Feb. 2019.

The chart above depicts the approximate spending per student in an average sized school district

in 2009. By first glance, it is clear that spending for “other electives”, including art, is nearly

double the spending of any given core class such as history, math, science, and english. Why

should art be a federal spending priority with this in mind? With the United States’ debt reaching

nearly twenty-two trillion dollars last year, cutbacks on federal funding for education-- as well as

other areas of the nation’s economy--are necessary, if not crucial to the future of Americans.
With the imminent decrease in federal educational expenditures, choosing wisely where to insert

the remaining funds is intrinsic to the ever-changing professional fields.

In today’s world, technology and engineering fuels various professional programs and

departments, and are projected to grow throughout the next decade. In fact, “between 2017 and

2027, the number of STEM jobs will grow 13 percent, compared to 9 percent for non-STEM

jobs—with positions in computing, engineering, and advanced manufacturing leading the way”

(Ryan). The growth that STEM careers will experience makes careers in such fields increasingly

accessible to graduating students, and presents a valid reason why STEM should be the focus of

education systems from a young age. When it comes down to it, the skills and knowledge

students gain from math and science programs are simply more important than the experience art

programs offer, and when funding continues to dwindle, perhaps art’s place in the education

system is not as significant.

On the other hand, art is crucial for the advancement of society. Every building, product,

and system human beings come into contact with on a daily basis came from a creative mind.

Laura Mack, a speaker for TED Inc, claims that every person is born with a degree of natural

creativity. She supports the nourishment of this creative spark through education. This innate

impulse to create does not necessarily translate to painting and pottery, but rather to a person’s

ability to solve problems and think innovatively. A NASA creativity test which measured

divergent thinking skills was given to kindergarteners attending schools with no art programs. Of

these students, 98% scored at the genius level. When tested again at the age of 15, only 12% still

held those skills, and at age 24, the results showed only 2% (Art Education Matters). Had these

students participated in art-based learning throughout the duration of their education, a greater

percentage of them would have been refined innovative problem-solvers and creative thinkers.
Instead, the potential each child had upon enrolling into kindergarten was lost.

Furthermore, the environment created by learning and participating in art in the classroom

influences kids beyond creative thinking. “[A]rt can be regarded as an efficient tool either for

increasing children’s and teenagers’ self-esteem or as a means for treatment of psychological

problems” (Nader). Giving students opportunities to express themselves gives them a greater

sense of individuality; increasing their self esteem and motivation to do their best. Teaching this

in schools trains children of all backgrounds to think as individuals. Because of this, they will be

more likely to stand up for what they believe in, choose professions they care about, and make

choices based on consideration rather than spontaneity. The confidence created while doing art

creates a positive environment. Teaching art in the same environment math and science classes

are taught subconsciously influences students to succeed. Professor Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

states that, “even the most abstract mind is affected by the surroundings of the body. No one is

immune to the impressions that impinge on the senses from the outside.” The constructive

environment that creativity cultivates helps encourage individual growth and promotes success,

even in subjects other than art.

I am a firm believer in the importance of art education. There is immense value in providing a

well rounded education in which students have the opportunity to think creatively as well as

logically. Creativity is important, if not crucial to humanity, and if we are not “We need to be

hanging onto our creativity, not losing it. Because we’re going to need it” (Art Education). We

live in a society where creativity and logic coexist. The technology we utilize each day was only

invented because someone had an idea, and only functions properly because of the use of science

and math. With the technological horizons continuing to grow, we cannot have one without the

other. There should not have to be a choice between them; integrating art into the education
system will provide students with the balance they need to become successful innovators and

entrepreneurs. If the purpose of education is to prepare an individual for life in society, the

importance of teaching art in schools of all levels is clear.

Anti-art advocates make a valid point arguing the cost of art programs in comparison with STEM

education. With this in mind, one must consider the individual. The importance of art in schools

comes from the positive impact it has on students’ ability to think creatively and effectively

solve problems. Both sides of this argument share validity, but the place that art can have within

the ever broadening technological horizons proves that art does have a significant place in

schools after all.

Works Cited

"Art Education Matters, so What's the Problem? Laura Mack-TEDxSalem." TEDx Talks, 5 Apr.

2018, www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRJ1jX27_E8. Accessed 30 Jan. 2019.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. Creativity: The Psychology of Discovery and Invention. Broadway,

HarperCollins Publishers, 2013. Print.

Kirchner, Nicole. “The Anti-Art Education Stance.” Rhetoric and Civic Life, 6 Mar. 2014,

sites.psu.edu/nicolekirchnerrcl/2014/03/06/anti-art/. Accessed 11 February 2019.

Nader, Kamali and Javdan Moosa. 2012. The Relationship Between Art and Psychology. J.

http://jlsb.science-line.com/attachments/article/16/JLSB-%202012-%20B26,%20129-133

.pdf Life Sci. Biomed. 2(4): 129-133.

Roza, Marguerite. “Cost by Subject.” Education Next, July 2009. www.educationnext.or

g/breaking-down-school-budgets-2/. Accessed 19 Feb. 2019.

Ryan. “The State of STEM Education Told Through 12 Stats.” iD Tech, 6 Dec. 2017,

www.idtech.com/blog/ stem-education-statistics. Accessed 22 Feb. 2019.