Write a developed argumentative essay. Argue a qualified position about arts education as part of a broad curriculum. Use the NEA's actual program scope and distinguish educational reasoning from unproven causal claims about test scores.
Schools should require students to study the arts, but they should not treat every art form as a separate, equally intensive course at every grade level. A broad curriculum should guarantee meaningful instruction in visual arts, music, theater, dance, literary arts, or media arts, while allowing schools and students some choice in how that requirement is met. This position recognizes that arts learning has educational value in its own right. It also avoids promising that art or music will automatically raise test scores, a causal claim that should not be made without evidence.
In the margins Why this passage works +
“A broad curriculum should guarantee meaningful instruction in visual arts, music, theater, dance, literary arts, or media arts, while allowing schools and students some choice in how that requirement is met.”
This sentence makes the thesis specific and qualified: it supports required arts learning without demanding an identical course structure everywhere.
The National Endowment for the Arts describes its pre-K–12 arts education program as supporting students and the educators and teaching artists who work with them in schools and communities. Its program includes dance, music, theater, visual arts, literary arts, and media arts, and it aims to extend access to students who have the least arts education opportunities. That scope supports a curriculum requirement: the arts are not limited to one elective or one kind of student. A school can give students a shared foundation while choosing age-appropriate courses and ways for them to explore particular forms.
A requirement matters because an elective-only system can make access depend on whether a student already knows to seek an arts course or has room for one in a crowded schedule. This is an argument about how school rules can distribute opportunity, not a claim that every school currently excludes the same students. The NEA’s stated focus on closing gaps in arts access gives this concern practical weight. If arts learning is part of a broad education, schools should not leave participation entirely to individual schedules and prior exposure. A requirement sets a common expectation that schools must plan to meet.
In the margins Why this passage works +
“This is an argument about how school rules can distribute opportunity, not a claim that every school currently excludes the same students.”
The distinction keeps the reasoning careful. It frames a plausible policy concern without presenting an unsupported generalization as a documented fact.
That expectation needs to be matched with instruction, not just a line in a course catalog. The NEA’s Direct Learning grants are intended to increase students’ knowledge and skills in the arts. Its Professional Development grants, in turn, build classroom teachers’ and teaching artists’ capacity to teach effectively and measure student learning. These distinct goals show why implementation matters: students need opportunities to develop skills, and educators need preparation to support and assess that learning. A sensible requirement would therefore include qualified instruction and a clear learning sequence, rather than treating occasional exposure as equivalent to education.
Arts education also belongs in the curriculum because its subject matter is worth learning, even if it produces no measurable change in mathematics or reading scores. Making, interpreting, performing, or discussing art asks students to engage with artistic forms and develop knowledge and skills in them. This reasoning does not depend on claiming that arts instruction causes higher achievement in unrelated subjects. The NEA describes its purpose in terms of arts learning and students reaching their potential in the arts. That is a sufficient educational aim: a subject need not prove it improves another subject to deserve a place in a broad curriculum.
In the margins Why this passage works +
“That is a sufficient educational aim: a subject need not prove it improves another subject to deserve a place in a broad curriculum.”
This sentence explains the essay’s key reasoning: arts education can be justified by learning in the arts themselves, without an unverified test-score claim.
A serious objection is that required arts courses could consume time and resources needed for subjects schools must teach, especially where staffing or facilities are limited. That concern argues for thoughtful design, not for leaving access to chance. The NEA’s work includes leadership, research, reporting, and support for arts education leaders, as well as tools intended to help stakeholders analyze and report access and participation data. Such attention to planning and data suggests a practical response: schools and education agencies can examine what instruction they can provide, where participation is limited, and what support educators need. A requirement should be phased and resourced responsibly, not imposed as an unfunded promise.
In the margins Why this passage works +
“That concern argues for thoughtful design, not for leaving access to chance.”
The sentence acknowledges the opposing concern, then identifies the essay’s response: address implementation rather than abandon the requirement.
Schools should therefore make arts learning a required part of a broad curriculum, with flexibility in the art forms offered and serious attention to teaching quality. This position does not depend on declaring that arts courses raise test scores, nor does it dismiss the demands on school time and resources. It rests instead on two defensible points: arts knowledge and skills are educational goals in their own right, and a guarantee of instruction can make access less dependent on individual circumstances. A carefully planned requirement can uphold both principles while leaving room for local choices about how students learn.
How the argument works
The essay states a qualified position rather than arguing that every student must take the same course. It uses the NEA’s program scope and grant descriptions to explain what arts education includes and why implementation requires instruction and educator preparation. Its central reasoning is that arts learning has value as a subject in its own right; it deliberately avoids claiming that arts study causes higher test scores. The counterargument about time and resources is answered with a planning-based qualification, not dismissed.
The revision, explained
Arts classes help students do better in math and reading, so schools should require them.
Schools should require meaningful arts learning because developing knowledge and skills in the arts is an educational aim in its own right; claims that it raises mathematics or reading scores require separate evidence.
The revision removes an unsupported causal claim and replaces it with a defensible rationale grounded in the value of learning arts subjects.
Try the idea.
Revise the essay’s counterargument paragraph for a school with limited arts staff. Keep the position that arts learning should be required, but add one specific implementation safeguard without claiming that arts instruction raises test scores.
See the self-check +
A school with limited arts staff should not promise a full course in every art form at every grade. It could instead plan a sequence of meaningful instruction in selected forms, seek appropriate educator development, and review whether students are participating. This safeguard takes resource limits seriously while preserving the principle that arts learning should not be available only to students who happen to have room in their schedules.
Sources and evidence
- Arts Education · National Endowment for the Arts
References & further reading
- Back to School with Arts Education ↗National Endowment for the Arts