Arts Education Is No Luxury

Traditional elementary school art classes involved crayons, construction paper, glue and gloppy paint. Teachers called it “fuzzy bunnies,” and that’s what state legislators had in their gun sights when fiscal crisis hit in the early 1980s: They virtually eliminated arts education. In recent years, though, innovative arts programs have proven to be effective tools for teaching students the thinking skills essential to success in any academic discipline.

Look at Westchester’s public Loyola Village School, whose teachers were trained by the Getty Institute. Students read aloud and discuss the myth of Daedalus and Icarus and then study French painter Henri Matisse’s interpretation of Icarus’ fatal flight to the sun. They explore how Matisse’s message is conveyed by color, shape, texture and technique.

Citing recent research showing that programs like Loyola’s can stimulate brain development, a statewide task force recently issued a report calling for comprehensive arts programs in every school at each grade level. The task force, led by state Supt. of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin, asked legislators for $90 million in funding for the first year, $120 million for the second year and $200 million for the third.

School districts in areas like Los Angeles that are rich in talent should consider using studio musicians and other “independent contractors” to help reduce costs and raise the quality of arts education. Such a system has been so successful in the Bay Area’s Mountain View school district that San Francisco is now turning to independent contractors. The Hollywood entertainment companies and their unions ought to leap at a teaching alliance with schools.

Schools without the arts can be pretty dull places. As Getty Trust President Harold M. Williams has said, only “dark and empty souls” live in places without “paintings, statues, architecture, dramas, music, dances or poems.”