Journal of Educational Practice for Social Change 2012 | Page 7

value (for those assessing the work) in more familiar, scholarly terms of the academic landscape it
exists within. World renowned artists themselves provide written descriptions of their art at times,
offering “detailed accounts that stress the work of art: the way in which they gathered ideas, harboured
images, and refined works” (Gardner & Perkins, Eds. 1989, p.145). Yet the point of creating art is to be
able to communicate beyond the reach of words; students of art are learning a new language!
It’s Complicated...
This is where the tangled part of art education assessment comes in: we are still struggling to
define the value of art in U.S. public schools. I spent four and a half years researching this question for
my doctoral dissertation with inner city art students as my focus (Pullman, 2007). I arrived at some
poignant answers, but still no definitive, quantifiable conclusions that could help in the quest to clarify
once and for all how we can keep art as a core curriculum basic subject in public schools while
allowing for its intuitive nature and other aspects that don’t fit neatly into tried and true assessment
concepts. The value of art education lies not in supporting other subjects, but in supplying a
component of education that is essential to our humanness and the multiple ways we express
ourselves. The NAEP (National Assessment of the Educational Process) stated in their Arts Education
Framework (2008) that under no circumstances should the arts’ role as a basic subject in America’s
schools be defended using the argument that they foster cross-curricular learning and support other
subjects. They wrote that “…to value the arts as basic and instrumental to learning other things is to
sell them short. Through music, dance, theatre, and visual arts, students become part of the human
heritage of creativity. Through the arts, we touch transcendence and go beyond the mundane and the
practical to the eternal and ideal” (NAEP Arts Project, 2008, p.3).
I understand that arts assessment needs to be a team player with all the rest of the subjects’
assessments, so to speak, and abide by the rules that all subjects‘ assessments must be adhered to as
part of the public school system. But art education is markedly distinct and different from other basic
subjects, and this fact must be faced and dealt with. Elliot Eisner (2002) described the kind of learning
that goes on in arts classrooms as somatic knowledge—a very different process of “visual analysissynthesis” in which students engage emotion more than in any other subject, and learn to use the
“improvisational side of intelligence” in a “personal experiment” (pp. 76-77).
In years gone by, when arts classes’ role as elective subjects gave them a secondary but secure
place in schools, art teachers often were required to write in simply a pass or a fail mark on report
cards. Many teachers question the need for formally assessing arts learning (NAEP Arts Framework,
2008). To ensure the respect for art as a central and vital component of a complete education, we must
establish it within the required confines of public policies, yet simultaneously allow it to be itself—art.
Progress has been made. There are College Board (2011) advanced placement (AP) art courses at my
own and many schools across the nation. The fact that there are laws in place for the assessment of arts
classes constitutes a great victory! Final exams in the arts courses as well as other classes are needed to
pass from grade to grade at my high school. Thankful as I am that art has reached a more equitable
status with the “3 Rs” (reading, writing, and ‘rithmatic), there is still an urgent need to come to an
understanding of art’s special place in the schools, and to find the most appropriate ways to handle the
assessment of arts learning, along with determining how to evaluate the effectiveness of arts teachers
in providing this learning.

7