Arts education has intrinsic value, but wider impact is unproven

Based on research findings gathered from studies across the world for more than a decade, a new report by the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development concludes that, although many studies find that students who participate in a number of arts courses have proportionally higher educational achievement, there is no evidence to suggest that the study of arts subjects is the cause of this achievement.

Other explanations, such as family background, are thought to be just as plausible. Indeed, evidence from the UK, where students who concentrate on arts subjects have been found to perform less well in national exams than those following a more academic route, suggests that the type of students who self-select into arts subjects has more influence on overall educational attainment than the arts courses themselves.

The report, ‘Art for Art's Sake? The Impact of Arts Education', goes on to note that music education does strengthen IQ, academic performance, word decoding and phonological skills and might help foreign language learning, but it dispels the myth that studying music improves performance in maths, even though mathematicians may be attracted to music.

There is strong evidence showing that classroom drama strengthens verbal skills, but there is no evidence for a link between theatre training and overall academic skills. Study of dance and the visual arts are also found to have no impact on literacy or other academic skills either, but the visual arts may help develop geometrical reasoning and studying dance might be linked to better visual-spatial skills.

Similar conclusions are drawn about links between arts subjects and creativity. Studying a number of different arts subjects has no impact on student creativity and problem solving; and although there is some evidence linking enhanced creativity with theatre and dance education, this is statistically weak.

The authors, Ellen Winner, Thalia R. Goldstein, and Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin, say: “a class in any subject can teach creativity and imagination if well-taught; and an art class can leave creativity and imagination untouched if poorly taught. Even in art, these skills may well only be developed very deliberately.”

Furthermore there is only tentative evidence to suggest that arts education has an impact on behavioural and social skills, such as self-confidence, self-concept, communication and cooperation, though drama classes have been found to enhance empathy, perspective taking, and the regulation of emotions.

The types of arts education examined in this study included arts classes in school; arts integrated classes, where the arts are taught as a support for an academic subject; and arts study undertaken outside of school, including private instrumental music lessons, and out of school classes in theatre, visual arts, and dance.

In conclusion, the authors argue that the impact of arts education on non-arts skills and employment-related innovation should not be the primary justification for arts education in the curriculum, but recognition should be given to the intrinsic value of the arts and the related skills and ‘habits of mind’ that students develop: “If learning in the arts has ‘collateral benefits’ in other areas, so much the better.

However, we do not believe that the existence of arts education should be justified in terms of skills in other academic subjects: if one seeks first and foremost to develop skills in geometry, studying geometry – rather than music or dance – is always likely to be more effective.”