The distinction between “core” and “elective” subjects has roots in the Committee of Ten Report of 1892, when a group of elite educators decided what American high school should look like. Their focus was on preparing students for college and civic life, emphasizing reading, writing, math, history, and science. As the industrial revolution advanced, schools became modeled after factories: efficiency, standardization, order. Creative disciplines—art, music, home economics, shop—were added later as “specials,” often considered enrichment rather than necessity.
By the mid-20th century, federal legislation like the National Defense Education Act (1958) and later, No Child Left Behind (2001), put enormous pressure on schools to raise scores in math, reading, and science. Testing became the currency of accountability. Since arts were not included in standardized assessments, they remained peripheral.
The divide hardened.
Now, more than a century later, we’re still living inside that framework. It’s not that one subject is better than another. It’s that the system was built to prioritize some, and the rhetoric has stuck.
Parents will sit patiently beside their child working through two hours of math problems, often frustrated but persistent, because they believe math is essential. Yet those same parents may balk at two hours of sketching or rehearsing lines, dismissing it as optional or fun. Why? Because the system has told them for generations that only certain subjects “count.” Parents internalize the hierarchy, even when they see their child thrive emotionally and intellectually in creative disciplines.
Administration members are under pressure to demonstrate test scores, graduation rates, and college readiness. Their rhetoric reflects accreditation mandates and accountability structures. When they cut budgets, it’s often the arts that go first, not because they don’t value them personally, but because the framework prioritizes what is tested. The arts are easily replaced with the thought that “anyone can teach it.”
Students absorb this divide early. They hear “real work” attached to math and science, and “fun work” attached to art and music. They hear “you need to do 20 minutes of reading and math every night” and “no art homework.” Over time, this leads some students to devalue their own passions, or worse, to believe their talents are less legitimate than those who excel in tested subjects.
What If All Classes Were Just… Classes?
Imagine if we stopped dividing subjects into core and elective altogether. What if we simply called them all Foundational Classes or Learning Disciplines because every subject builds a foundation for life?
Each class provides a different foundation stone, and together they build the full structure of a student’s education. Perhaps it is better to think of the vehicle in which we learn, our approaches to learning and learning habits!
No hierarchy.
No “required vs. optional.”
Just learning.
When we label some classes as optional, we send the message that those skills are less valuable or less than. Students internalize that. Parents internalize that. Communities internalize that. And yet, when we look at what makes people successful—creativity, grit, collaboration, adaptability—it’s often the so-called electives that foster those abilities most powerfully. But again, not one subject is more important than another. It’s the approaches to learning that are the vehicle we need to highlight!
If we want to truly raise life-long learners, then every class must be seen as foundational. Each discipline contributes to a student’s resilience, identity, and future. The separation only benefits the system, not the learner.
So maybe the real work for us, as educators, is rhetorical and structural:
Because in the end, the division is an illusion. It’s a clerical convenience that has hardened into a cultural belief. And if we are serious about preparing students for the complexity of the world they will inherit, then it’s time to dismantle that illusion and build a framework that honors all learning as essential. Instead of seeing requirements as a hierarchy, frame them as a balanced plate of nourishment. Just like a healthy diet needs protein, vegetables, and grains, a healthy education needs mathematics, arts, sciences, languages, and physical movement.
Each is essential.
None is optional.
I challenge the international school community to start changing the rhetoric and reframing requirements. We can keep the system accountable while dismantling the false divide. It won’t happen overnight, nor will it be easy to discuss with all stakeholders, and perhaps it will even bring up cultural divides. The aim is for students, families, and administrators to begin to fully embody that every class is a class, every discipline is foundational, and every subject builds grit.
When we change the way we talk about learning, we change the way we value it. And when we value every discipline, we give every student the chance to thrive and foster their passions without judgement.
Libby Sievert is the visual arts teacher at the American Embassy School in New Delhi, India. As an adult-TCK, she shares a passion for inspiring students to explore their creativity, help build their visual voices, and become innovative change agents.
