Athletics and Fine Arts are Essential to Educational Opportunity

Many schools designate their athletics and fine arts programs as “extra-curricular.”  Others apply the seemingly more progressive moniker of “co-curricular.”  In my opinion, instructional best practice calls for athletic and fine arts programs that are fully “curricular.”  Most educators would readily acknowledge the learning potential available in athletics and fine arts programs.  A well-run athletic program builds strength, speed, stamina, coordination, toughness, confidence, humility, and a commitment to hard work.  Fine arts programs develop a myriad of auditory, visual, and kinetic skills.  They enhance culture and enrich our understanding of beauty.  Students learn poise, eloquence, determination, and diligence.  Why then, do we have so much disagreement about the curricular status of these programs?  Schools that provide athletics and fine arts programs teach the whole child.  Schools that fully curricularize these programs go a step farther and open worlds of educational opportunity that otherwise would not exist for students.

The word “curriculum” suffers from a wide variety of usages.  Even within education, the field predominantly concerned with curriculum, the exact definition of this word is often unclear.  Some use the term to delineate the official textbooks and teaching materials employed by a school.  Others use it to refer to all of a school’s academically related materials and activities. Historically, however, the word curriculum means “the course to be run.”  It is a comprehensive word referring to the whole course of study.  The concept is singular, holistic, and kinetic. Understanding this makes the “extra-curricular” perspective ironic.  Even the more inclusive “co-curricular” perspective, with athletics and fine arts programs running alongside the curriculum, counters the historical idea of a course of study. 

To be clear, the motivations to marginalize athletics or fine arts instruction are not educational.  These tendencies are driven by economics and visibility.  This is not to say these concerns are unimportant, but we should understand the real forces behind our educational policies.  Providing comprehensive education is expensive.  Administrators must wrestle with limited resources and justify the cost of these programs through the benefits they produce.  As a result, good school districts regularly invest in flagship programs, hoping to make them both successful and highly visible.  The students who benefit from these programs are blessed.  The problem is the relatively small percentage of students who participate. 

Private schools and charter schools often market by way of the educational opportunities available at their typically smaller institutions.  For example, whereas a large school might have 5% of its male students participating in varsity football, a small private or charter school could have upwards of 80% of its male students in the same program.  The educational opportunity in these two settings is vastly different.  Some schools further this opportunity by accommodating schedules that allow students to advance in both athletic and fine arts programs.  They are not forced to specialize. 

In evaluating schools, we must review the effectiveness of the whole curriculum: academics, athletics, and fine arts.  Since labels can serve to confuse, I offer up four questions parents should ask in determining the comprehensive nature of a school’s curriculum.  1) Are the various programs connected for more effective learning?  2) Are the various programs widely available to the student body?  3) Do the various programs maintain high, results-oriented, educational standards? 4) Are the various programs used to teach character, or do other priorities cloud this effort? 

Schools that can respond affirmatively to all four of these questions are providing a comprehensive curriculum.