ISM has long encouraged schools to minimize single-section courses (singletons) due to the negative impact they have on the health of the school’s schedule. They distort the entire schedule as the scheduler attempts to get the most students into each class. Still, schedule conflicts arise that make it impossible for students to get the courses they desire. Disappointed and frustrated, these students often have to take other courses. We frequently see such conflicts in visual arts programs. The typical design of a visual arts curriculum begins with an introductory course, followed by courses grouped by the various disciplines (e.g., painting, drawing, ceramics) and by level (e.g., I, II, AP). The courses are arranged in a largely sequential fashion where prerequisites determine students’ eligibility for upper-level courses. For example, a student may take Design Fundamentals as a freshman, Drawing I and Painting I as a sophomore, Ceramics and Advanced Painting as a junior, and AP Art as a senior. While logical and linear, high levels of prerequisite sequencing result in numerous singletons that run with a fraction of the students who signed up for the course. To defend against this, the best course of action is to minimize the impact curriculum design has on students’ ability to gain entry into arts courses.