Lots of people find comfort in the arts—for some it’s the only thing that gets them through the day, but arts programs are one of the first programs to lose funding when cuts are made to a school’s curriculum. Yet research has found that the arts can benefit even the youngest of students.

There are many benefits from arts programs, and some of those benefits come from integrating the arts and core classes. Benefits span from an increase in the skill level in some core subjects in school to an improvement in life skills. As written by Fran Smith in the article “Why Arts Education Is Crucial, and Who’s Doing It Best,” “Involvement in the arts is associated with gains in math, reading, cognitive ability, critical thinking and verbal skill. Arts learning can also improve motivation, concentration, confidence and teamwork.”

If all these improvements come from arts education then why are so many arts programs losing funding? One of the reasons that the arts, music in particular, are so beneficial according to Laura Lewis Brown, author of the article “The Benefits of Music Education,” is because they tap multiple skills often at the same time. While there are core subjects that use multiple skill sets at the same time (e.g., some sciences) those subjects may not be as appealing to the students as music and the arts—students are more motivated in art programs.

These benefits should be considered when budget cuts are being made because students benefit from the arts more than most people would think, and not only in the core classes required in school, but the arts also improve life skills like motivation, confidence and teamwork.

Many schools notice the benefits of using the arts as a learning tool in core classes to better engage students and improve performance. Smith’s article covers the topic of how new brain research has convinced some schools to embrace different approaches to teaching and the art: “Many of these models are based in new findings in brain research and cognitive development, and they embrace a variety of approaches: using the arts as a learning tool (for example, musical notes to teach fractions), incorporating arts into other core classes (writing and performing a play about, say, slavery) . . . ”

Sadly, some schools are overly worried about performing well on standardized tests so they don’t focus on arts programs, but incorporating the arts as noted in the quote above may help to improve standardized test performance. It may not improve everyone’s test scores, but it could improve enough of the students’ scores so that the school and teachers weren’t as focused on the tests.

In the article “To Elevate the Role of Arts Education, Measure It” Brian Kisida, an assistant research professor at the University of Missouri, Bob Morrison, the CEO of Quadrant Research, and Lynn Tuttle, the director of public policy and professional development, write, “A lack of data on arts education could play a role in why there is so little research on the arts.” If there is a lack of research on the arts then people may think that the arts aren’t important in schools which then causes arts programs to get cut from schools’ curriculum, but if there is more research then maybe arts programs wouldn’t get cut as often as they do. But according to Kisida, Morrison, and Tuttle for there to be more research there needs to be more “basic data about arts participation and access” provided by schools.

So in order to convince people that the arts should remain in schools there needs to be more research, but before more research can be done more data has to be provided on the participation of students in the arts.

Before another school considers “saving” money by cutting arts education they need to think about whether they are doing more harm than good. The arts belong in schools as both an opportunity of expression and as an academic and life skill enhancer worthy of more support.