What are the disadvantages of having arts in the school curriculum?

In answer to your question—“What are the disadvantages of having arts in the school curriculum?”—I propose that there are no disadvantages to including arts education in a school curriculum.

Sure, there are arguments made in favor of discontinuing arts programs in schools: the high cost of running an art program, the arts’ supposed irrelevance to core subjects (math, science, reading, and many humanities disciplines), and the smaller number of students served per art class. Yet each of these arguments can be countered.

In a 2009 study the average cost per pupil by subject for a given school district was broken down as such: Foreign Language classes, $564; Electives, $512; Science $446; English, $434; and Math, $328. Art classes would fall into the Electives category, and thus can be shown to be not prohibitively expensive if examined as a component in the entire school curriculum.

Another group of study results proves that offering a school-based arts program increases not only proficiencies in reading, writing, and math, but that it raises graduation rates and achievement levels on standardized tests. These studies also demonstrate that schools have fewer disciplinary infractions and increased attendance when there is a functioning arts education program.

Many artists—including visual artists, writers, musicians, and dancers—were accomplished in other fields of inquiry outside of their artistic practices; think Leonardo DaVinci and his designs for machines (engineering) or his knowledge of human anatomy (biology). Having some artistic training can lead to discoveries in areas of core study. Many of the greatest physicists of the 20th century had artistic interests; Richard Feynman played the drums and danced at any opportunity.

The same 2009 study cited above reveals that AP (Advanced Placement) and Honors courses require more funds per student to operate. These courses are generally attended by a smaller number of students than “Regular” courses. Remedial courses are also attended by smaller numbers of students. If numbers-in-attendance becomes a rigid criterion for a course’s inclusion then it follows that the brightest and the most in-need students will be offered fewer academic opportunities.

Making art, and other elective courses, unavailable presents a dangerous narrowing of the education system, one that penalizes difference and seeks to produce a limited range of learners and a restrictive breadth of knowledge. An invested and responsible sense of choice in directing one’s education can lead a student into new areas of interest, which could lead to unthought-of careers. 

In a world saturated with information, audio, images, and content it is economically foolish to discontinue students’ art education. It is creative workers who produce all of this content and all of these images.

Art is one of the oldest human endeavors. There are cave paintings that date from 40,000BCE; art making may predate language use. Denying such an integral part of our collective experience to students would mean cutting them off from an area of expertise that is unique to our needs and is, and has been, practiced and supported in every human society.