Creativity is arguable one of the most important characteristics a person can have. It is necessary to have the ability to construct and bring ideas to life in most of life's activities, personal and professional, from creating a resume to picking out an outfit for the day. Where do we learn these skills, though? In classrooms that encourage methodical and automated thinking? One would argue that we grow more creative through our experiences, but if those experiences are meticulous and systematic by nature, how are we benefiting? I would argue that we are able to embrace and enhance our creativity, as well as other things such as open-mindedness and confidence, through school curriculums and activities that include the arts, or are artistic by nature. Moreover, based on ample amounts of evidence, many people would agree with that claim. Having said that, though, many people still believe that arts education is unnecessary and detrimental to the development of students' minds. In addition, they claim that traditional STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) subjects are valuable enough to stand alone in school curriculums, and that certain co- and extra-curricular activities, such as sports and social sciences are more advantageous for students than those that center on the arts. Although I would agree that those activities are important, I would also argue that they are no more important than those in the arts are, and should be represented as so, in funding and presentation, as such. By looking at the provided evidence, one can conclude that there should be an emphasis on incorporating these subjects into curriculums and a push for students to be involved in co- and extra-curricular activities. 

One of the main arguments in support of arts education is the fact that there is ample evidence showing that students that begin an education in the arts show vast academic improvement. According to Bob Bryant of Katy Independent School District, "Evidence from brain research is only one of many reasons education and engagement in fine arts is beneficial to the educational process." It has been proven that an involvement in the arts stimulates parts of the brain that control motor skills and emotional balance (Bryant), which directly affects and improves academic achievement. Research has also shown that certain STEM subjects require many of the things derived from an education in the arts, "complex cognitive and creative capacities 'typical of arts learning'"(Bryant)(Burton, Horowitz, & Abeles, 1999). When students are able to enhance their motor skills and cognitive and creative thinking, they are better able to focus and do things such as problem solve and draw conclusions. A NEA study The Arts and Achievement in At-Risk Youth: Findings from Four Longitudinal Studies shows that young adults in lower socioeconomic situations, but a high involvement in the arts improve greatly in academics. The study states that said students were 10% more likely to complete a high school calculus course, 31% more likely to plan to earn a bachelor's degree, 15% more likely to enroll in highly or moderately selective 4-year colleges, and 3 times more likely to earn a bachelor's degree. It also shows that students were twice as likely to participate in extracurricular activates, such as sports, academic honors societies, and school yearbook and newspaper clubs. Based on all of this, one can conclude than inclusion of the arts in curriculums would be beneficial to increased academic achievement. 

One of the lesser-known benefits that arise from a background in arts education is certain socio-economic specificities and issues that improve, and there is plenty of evidence to support this claim. One study shows "Twenty-one percent of students of low socioeconomic status who had studied music scored higher in math versus just eleven percent of those who had not. By the senior year, these figures grew to 33 percent and 16 percent, respectively, suggesting a cumulative value to music education." (Bryant). The arts have been instrumental in enhancing cultural understanding and social skills needed for adolescents to relate to one another, thus creating a better environment for students to work together and have a more cohesive learning place. When children have the opportunity to express themselves in ways that are healthy, they are less likely to find themselves in negative situations. Sally Gifford of the NEA argues that according to The Arts and Achievement in At-Risk Youth: Findings from Four Longitudinal Studies, an NEA study, "At-risk students who have access to the arts in or out of school also tend to have better academic results, better workforce opportunities and more civic engagement..."  The study also shows that students with lower socioeconomic standings and a more involvement in the arts were more likely to choose a professional college major accounting, education, nursing...). Those fall into 30% of students in those majors in comparison to 14% of other socioeconomically challenged students who are not involved in the arts. It also states that 50% of adults with a background in the arts and began in a lower socioeconomic situation are in professional careers such as law and medicine, while only 21% of those not involved in the arts hold jobs in those fields. The study also found that young adults that have a background in the arts are more "civically engaged" with students being more likely to read newspapers, volunteer, and vote in national election. All of this evidence will lead one to draw the conclusion that a background in the arts in ultimately beneficial to students in lower socioeconomic situations. 

Students can also develop skills ideal for living and working in today's society and workplaces. Victoria McGillin, who works at a liberal arts college, claims "The problems of the 21st century  --  9/11, the global economic meltdown, terrorism in Boston are complex and don't come in neat little boxes," (Pyle). "She (McGillin) said all Otterbein students take classes in the arts, literature, natural and social sciences and religion and philosophy so they are well-rounded." (Pyle). Well-roundedness, while very important, is only one of the many characteristics people can develop from experience in the arts that can directly improve their ability to deal with real-life situations like the ones previously listed. However, there is a stigma that liberal arts majors, even those at non-liberal arts schools are irrelevant and detrimental to a student's after-graduation career. "... North Carolina Gov. Patrick McCrory questioned whether taxpayers should underwrite programs that he said were created by an 'educational elite' but don't lead to employment." This view is problematic because if there is such a stigma surrounding these majors, companies will cease to see the value that surrounds them. Pyle argues that you can acquire those skills in a liberal arts scholastic setting. "According to the survey, 93 percent of the 318 business leaders surveyed in January agreed that a 'demonstrated capacity to think critically, communicate clearly and solve complex problems' is more important than a job candidate's major." (Pyle). Eleanor Roosevelt even argued in 1949 "How well prepared are we to live in a world that has constantly grown smaller and where we must rub shoulders with people of different cultures, of completely different customs and habits and religions, who live under different legal systems, whose languages are different?" According to surveys in China and Japan, employers are actually complaining about the "...inflexibility of a workforce educated without a focus on creativity or problem solving." (Christ).  Having said that, many would still argue that you do not need liberal arts experience in fields such as math and technology. Carol Christ disagrees, saying "... proportionately, graduates of liberal arts colleges earn doctorates in the sciences at nearly twice the rate of graduates of other institutions... The humanities are important to the sciences not because they produce more cultured people, but because they produce better scientists...'the study of great books, history, languages, music, and many other non-science fields is likely to hone a scientist's ability to perceive and interpret the natural world.'(Cech)"(Christ). Therefore, one can easily negate the argument that an education in the arts and humanities is irrelevant.

Many people argue that the arts are unnecessary in schools in an academic or an extra-curricular format. "Schoolchildren who focus exclusively on arts and humanities-style subjects risk restricting their future career path,"(Paton) says Nicky Morgan, the British Education Secretary. She goes on, "Disciplines such as the sciences and maths open more doors for pupils than many subjects traditionally favoured by academic all-rounders..." and that legal professions are "crying out for science graduates'."Imagine that you are a parent, and, due to funding cuts, you have to choose whether your child will learn art or math in school. Obviously, any sane parent would pick math. If a child never leans addition, they will never be able to survive in society today. If your child never learns to paint, though, they will be absolutely fine."(Kirchenr). Although a compelling argument, this is an extreme example. In no instance, would there be such a decision, as STEM subjects are essential to students' education. "As for the cons of erasing an art program from any university, the biggest one would have to be money. You need the space to work, you need a teacher with credentials, you need the materials, the textbooks  --  a television or whiteboard would be nice as well  --  and as the list goes on and on you get the point."(LaTourette). Jesse LaTourette makes a point that many people believe. In fact, one of the biggest issues school art programs are facing is that of finding adequate funding, specifically the comparison of budgets for arts programs vs. that of sports programs. Although LaTourette makes a valid point, are the finances of the arts any more burdening on a school than those of sports programs, and why are sports seen as so  much more essential than the arts are?

There are also many reasons why the arts are so valuable in comparison to sports, specifically football. Furthermore there are many examples of this value: "Consider music's pluses: the capacity to be a lifelong participatory-learning activity (football, for all but a select few, ends after high school); the fact that music is a universal language (football is uniquely American); its gender inclusiveness; a far lower cost-per-student ratio; the potential it offers as an essential platform for international and interdisciplinary studies; and its effectiveness in strengthening the brain's neural activity and development (versus the possibility, if not the likelihood, of sustaining brain trauma). Finally, the effectiveness of sports as an educational tool has been steadily diminishing as athletic programs have become more about the end result -- winning -- and less about the process (learning)."(Gerdy). In many instances, many people think this way, pinning the arts and sports against each other. I would argue, rather, that people involved in each of these programs should be working together to get sufficient funding for all of the programs offered by schools. The Huffington Post proposes some differences between sports and the arts:

"Sports programs are often an entry point to institutionalized drinking. (Wikipedia even has a page devoted to "football hooliganism").

Arts programs tend to be a lot calmer (have you ever heard of an audience member being trampled to death during a performance of Fiddler on the Roof, Phantom of the Opera, or Wicked?).

Sports programs often teach kids the importance of winning at all costs.

Arts programs like theater, dance, band, and chorus teach students to sharpen their skills while working toward a shared goal.

Sports programs often involve rough physical contact that can lead to bodily injury.

Arts programs tend to be more expressive than combative.

Sports programs often foster an atmosphere of dominance and hostility in which athletes are encouraged to humiliate their opposition as "losers" (this includes institutionalized bullying by coaches, parents, opponents, and fans).

Arts programs are designed to help talented children blossom and thrive.

Sports programs have occasionally suffered unnecessary deaths on the playing field.

Arts programs have yet to report anyone dying while playing a musical instrument or reading a poem.

Sports teams often ask for God's blessing to help them beat the competition.

Arts programs teach students how to reach within themselves for inspiration.

Sports programs often produce extremely competitive students whose careers may peak early in life.

Arts programs often produce extremely creative students whose critical thinking skills and ability to adapt to new situations deepen as they mature." (Gerdy).

However,  playing collegiate sports also has many benefits, some, the same as the arts, such as higher grades, more willpower against behaviors such as drinking and drugs (to ensure their participation), more volunteer work, gaining confidence, creating an incentive for higher education, and stronger peer relationships(TrueSport). Although these are very important and students should be able to participate in anything that interests them, it is important that the benefits of other things are not overshadowed. There should be no reason for the football team to have new uniforms every school year, while the theatre department struggles to put on their annual musical. Equal opportunity is important, especially for young adults who are in need or understanding inclusion and fairness. When schools give students the opportunity to do what they love, they are more motivated to study more, get better grades and come to school, because all of these things are detrimental to them remaining on their team or in their program. Extra-curricular activities in general are very important, seeing as how they allow students to express themselves in a school setting in ways they feel comfortable, and any school preventing a student from doing that should re-evaluate their priorities. No student should have to make the decision to not do what he or she love because they can't afford it, while other students are able to rely on their school to do what they want to do. 

With consideration to all of the presented information, one can conclude that the benefits of an inclusion of the arts in school curriculums and co- and extra-curricular school activities greatly outweigh the detriments, and it is important to consider the interests of all students. It is also necessary to be aware of the positive affects a background in the arts can have on things such as academics and behavior. When administrators choose to ignore these facts, they punish many arts programs and arts students and teachers as a result, by cutting programs and laying off educators that teach art subjects. As stated, it is essential that funding and representation for these programs is fair and equal. If schools and educators implement these ideas, the stigma surrounding, that they are unnecessary and unimportant, the arts will begin to fade and society will accept them more universally. The deletion of this stigma will be crucial to the inclusion of people who have arts education backgrounds in the workplace, considering employers are searching for these skills anyway.  The evidence stated above is irrefutable and schools should not hesitate to consider them when they are faced with the decision of whether or not to cut the drama club, choir, arts classes or band and orchestra. There may be no explicit solution to this problem, but educators and administrators must be willing to have the necessary conversations about the inclusion of the arts in schools. 

