| The following is an article I found on MSN Encarta. I thought it was very well thought out and, although it is long, I decided to include it here because I was afraid that it would disappear from the Internet. The original article is at the site: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Features/Columns/?article=artsmain
More Art, Better Schools by Tamim Ansary Arts have dropped out of the curriculum in most schools around the country, and more's the pity, I say. Add arts back to the schools and we'd have a better society. Disagree? What if I told you that arts education might be the key to training better scientists, or that thinking skills developed by the arts help build the skills demanded by the economy of the future? What if I told you arts education can cut juvenile crime rates? Okay, you say, but if arts programs are so great, why did they get cut in the first place? Most got squeezed out during the budget cuts of the 1970s and 1980s. The few survivors got stomped by the reform clamor that followed the publication of A Nation at Risk, a document that said American kids' low math and science test scores put this country at risk of falling behind other industrial economies. The feeling is, with money and time so tight, we'd better focus on the practical skills--math and science--that kids will need to compete in the world of work. The arts drop out because they're seen as frills. I have one problem with this argument. If the job market is the measure, why concentrate on math? I took math through calculus and I haven't used a drop of it in all my working life. If I go by the math I actually need, I could have stopped in fifth grade. Science? I can't even remember the formula for velocity (as I tried to tell that cop who gave me a speeding ticket). And I know enough history to choke a horse, but what good has it done me? I'm playing devil's advocate here. Of course math and history aren't frills. I can knock down the arguments I've made against them like bowling pins. It's the skills, stupid. I've rarely (if ever) used algebra in my daily life, but I have used the skills that learning algebra gave me, like the ability to think precisely and solve problems logically. Just like math, art requires--and develops--key mental skills, including some that will separate winners from losers in the job market of the future. With subjects like history, there's another argument to be made: A culture is like a conversation. You can't join a conversation unless you know what people are talking about, and history and literature are the record of what we've been talking about. But again: If that's an argument for history, it's certainly an argument for the arts. They're a huge part of our social conversation. Finally, there's an argument the arts have pretty much to themselves. They help keep kids in school. What the Arts Teach You can't play guitar by listening to someone tell you how it's done. You've got to do it yourself. That's a great thing about the arts. They promote learning by doing. Almost everyone learns better by doing. The know-how we bag for ourselves because we want and need it tends to stick; information poured into us like water into a bottle tends to evaporate. Any teacher will tell you that different kids have different types of intelligence and learning styles. According to Howard Gardener's theory of multiple intelligences, there are at least seven distinct types of intelligence, maybe more. The mainstream, art-poor school curriculum caters to students with logical or linguistic intelligence. And the kids in whom spatial, social, or some other intelligence dominates? They get left out. Incidentally, the different intelligences don't describe what you can learn, just how you learn. If you're strong in social intelligence, it doesn't mean you can only learn how to get along; it means you can learn math or history or whatever best by working in a group. So weaving the arts into the curriculum is not just about the arts--it's about helping some kids learn the non-art, supposedly non-frill, subjects better. ~Page 4~ |