The paper indicates in its thesis that arts education improves mental and social growth of children. Extracurricular activities are beneficial to learners since it helps them exploit their talents as well. Therefore, I agree with the author’s main point. The author could have used the bibliographies of iconic artists to prove that most of them begun art in school. Whereas other instructors offer art in separate schools, I tend to disagree that they are overpriced because of their less presence in public schools. The high price could be due to the instruments and facilities used in the teaching of the art. The source to support the claim would be a school’s budget and expenditure report on the stationary. The paper has integrated the argument of the authors into showing the importance of art in education. Thus, it has recognized the other work appropriately. The author sets the debate regarding art in schools and argues in favor of its importance in mental and social growth of a child. While reading the paper, every argument appears clear to me; thus, I did not feel lost at any point of the reading. Considering the importance of art in school, why would its presence in public schools reduce? Has it become too expensive to be part of the mainstream education system? The questions would help understand why separate schools change the teaching of art expensively than in public schools. The studies emphasizing the importance of art in education are the most substantial part of the paper because of the facts presented. Both the introduction and the conclusion support the view that art improves social and mental growth of a child.