As much as I love to see the arts kept in K-12 education, I am often a little skeptical about how effective arts exposure is to improving math scores, etc. Cause frankly, I had a fair bit of arts exposure and I got awful math grades. Some of my doubts come partially as a backlash to the make your baby an Einstein by playing Mozart while they are in the womb movement.

I think the thing that turns me off about the Mozart genius babies is that uses the music prescriptively rather than encouraging trying to comprehend music and learn about Mozart. The whole K-12 has always seemed similar in that it implies you just add arts for quick instant SAT scores.

I had a couple entries about six months ago on the statistical correlations between arts experiences in youth and attendance as an adult so I won’t get in to any of that again. (Again noting, I was never good in math.)

But perhaps I protest too much about being bad in math. I have to concede my comprehension did come later in life. I still can’t do calculus, but I do see the relationships I didn’t before. And my claims of doing poorly in math are not entirely true. As a junior in high school, I was flabbergasted to learn I had gotten an A on the state regents’ math exam. This was mostly due to the fact the exam was heavy with logic problems which have a strong verbal component.

My verbal skills haven’t been overly lacking and I could probably credit the arts for cultivating those skills in part. So technically, the arts probably did help me with my math scores, at least for one year.

As the Boston Globe article on the value of arts education I posted on mentioned, there are all sorts of ancillary benefits to the development of a person. I believe that being in school plays in elementary and high school helped develop my confidence and gain me a modicum of respect among peers outside my general circle of friends.

And while I haven’t made my million and probably never will, I have done well enough in the arts that I could walk proudly into my class reunion next month. (Unfortunately, I can’t make it 🙁 )

What we need are ads soliciting support of the arts in school that tout the benefits as more than a recipe for better grades. There are other arguments that people can identify more closely with than grades. Granted, that is the focus of schools and if you want arts in schools, the grade improvement has to be there. But parents are also looking for schools to make their kids better people. History and science lectures aren’t going to be able to accomplish that as well as hands-on creative activities.

The best way to make the appeal for arts in schools might not be the most obvious. I had read somewhere recently that most anti-drug ads have failed to lead to a drop in drug use until the current campaign showing kids just lethargically sitting around doing nothing and having no impact on the world. Whether the impact will be long lived or if the drop in use is just coincidental, I don’t know.

The ads that had run prior to the campaign showing people getting in dangerous situations leading to death and injury met with the approval of older folks who tended to value safety in their lives. The concept of danger actually appealed to kids who tend to believe themselves immortal and they went out and tried drugs. These new ads make older folks uneasy because they explicitly say, I tried drugs and nobody died implying drugs aren’t dangerous. But apparently kids see the users portrayed as not being the life of the party and are having second thoughts.

My point is, the most convincing argument for arts education in schools might not be the most obvious one or the one people are most comfortable with. The best argument might end up promoting the value of non-arts activities too.

A couple weeks ago I came across a webpage where an author was encouraging people to buy his book and had links to Amazon, Barnes and Noble and Powells. Since following any link would allow you to buy the same product, I started to wonder if choosing to buy from a certain bookseller was a personal statement.

While an author would want to offer people the most options to purchase their book, it is clearly not in his/her best interest to link to Amazon because they won’t receive any money on sales of the large stock of used editions Amazon makes available.

I have read some screeds on the internet about why one store is more evil than another but I haven’t read enough to justify a theory that people feel like they are making a statement when they buy from a certain bookstore.

When you shop in Tiffany’s or carry an iconic blue bag, people can see you and be impressed. What you are reading might say something about you, but if you buy a book online, unless you are carrying the box it came in around with you, the source of the book you are reading on the bus is invisible. As the purchasers, you know where it came from and perhaps you derive pleasure from your association with the place of purchase.

I don’t think there is a question that people are motivated to do things by factors that will never receive external recognition. I have recently been pondering if there is a way arts organizations can structure the choices they offer people in a way that allows them to make a personal statement even though the ultimate result is no different from the person standing next to them.

For awhile credit card companies were emphasizing choice of card art, payment date and rewards plan as an individual decision. Other than the art, no one at the cash register had any inkling about what choices you had made unless you started tallying aloud how many frequent flier miles you were racking up.

The obvious choice for arts organizations might be donation options which benefit really specific areas with which the donor might identify and privately recognize. No one else in the audience may know or care, but that Fresnel on the first electric is there because of you baby!

In many ways, this is too easy and probably ignores other opportunities. It has also been done to death in many other forms like adopt a seat and cobblestone campaigns. It is hard to imagine other options because it is difficult to know what secretly motivates our patrons’ choices and the Internet allows them even more privacy by circumventing the Tiffany’s building and bags altogether.

It wouldn’t surprise me if organizations started to tap into some obvious sources of personal statements and advertise that building renovations had earned some form of LEED certification in order to attract environmentally conscious individuals.

Eventually, that will become trite so the trick is to identify motivators with a similarly powerful appeal that aren’t quite so obvious that might be sincerely embraced. With all the arts organizations that create new programs just to get grant funding, the last thing groups need to do is replicate this mistake by hitching to a trend that isn’t compatible with their mission.