Summary#
S. 5635, the Arts Education for All Act, would amend several existing laws, including the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and laws on juvenile justice, education research and national assessments. Its stated goal is to expand arts education; the bill is not law, and it does not state when it would take effect.
- States would have to describe in their education plans how they will support arts education, integrate it into other subjects, increase arts educators and classes, and support arts programs in after-school and summer learning.
- State school report cards would have to include data on arts courses, including course offerings, instructional time, teacher ratios and access in higher- and lower-poverty schools.
- Certain school improvement plans would have to evaluate arts courses and the training and skills of staff who teach them, then include arts courses based on that evaluation.
- Local education agencies would have to provide professional development for arts teachers, as appropriate, and for teachers integrating arts into other subjects.
- The bill would add arts-related options or requirements to child-care training, community learning, juvenile justice and reentry programs. It would also require federal education research on arts education and arts assessments in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
What it means for you#
- Students and families: The bill does not create a personal right to arts classes or guarantee that a particular school will offer them. It would require planning and public reporting on arts-course access, and affect some school improvement plans.
- Schools and local education agencies: Agencies would have to include arts education in local plans and provide the specified professional development. Some school improvement plans would need to evaluate arts classes and teaching staff, then incorporate arts courses based on that evaluation.
- States: State education agencies would have to address the listed arts-education strategies in their plans. States would also report detailed arts-course information, including comparisons between schools in the top and bottom quartiles for poverty.
- Child-care providers: The bill revises language about training, coaching and professional development, including strategies for child development, nutrition and physical activity, screen-media exposure, and learning across subjects using methods that may include the arts. It names children with disabilities and populations prioritized under existing law, but the supplied text does not identify those other populations.
- Juvenile justice and reentry programs: The bill adds arts services to the listed options for some programs. It does not require every such program to use them.
- Researchers and the public: Federal education research would include rigorous, peer-reviewed, large-scale research on arts education. The NAEP Assessment Board would have to select arts for assessment at least as often and in the grades used in the schedule before July 24, 2021.
Money#
No publicly available information on estimated costs or savings is included in the supplied materials.
- The bill does not specify an appropriation or dollar amount.
- Inference: States, school districts and federal agencies could face costs for staff training, data collection, reporting, research or assessments. The bill gives no estimates or staffing numbers.
- The bill does not set fees or fines.
What is unclear#
- The supplied materials do not include the existing Acts being amended, so I could not verify how the bill’s changes compare with current requirements or confirm the full scope of every affected program.
- The bill does not define key terms such as “arts education,” “creative youth development” or “specialized teaching artists.”
- It does not give detailed rules for measuring arts-course access, evaluating staff, or deciding which courses schools must add after an evaluation.
- It does not explain how the child-care training provisions would be carried out, or identify all the populations prioritized under the existing law it references.
- No start date, implementation schedule or funding plan is stated.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to make arts education more visible in state and local planning, rather than leaving it out of education strategies.
- Public reporting could help show where arts courses are offered and whether access differs between higher- and lower-poverty schools.
- Training teachers to use arts-based methods across subjects could support the bill’s stated aim of improving student achievement.
- Research on effectiveness and cost-efficiency could help identify which approaches are useful and can be expanded.
Case against#
- The bill adds planning, training, reporting and assessment duties without stating how they would be funded.
- It requires some school improvement plans to evaluate arts courses and then incorporate them based on that evaluation, but does not explain what counts as an adequate evaluation or what happens if resources are limited.
- The bill does not define central terms or provide detailed implementation rules, which could leave states and districts with different interpretations.
- It is unclear how much the required reporting and added assessments would cost or what other school priorities might have to give way.