Arts Education Policy Review

ISSN: 1063-2913 (Print) 1940-4395 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vaep20

Evaluation, educational policy reforms, and their

implications for arts education

José Luis Aróstegui

To cite this article: José Luis Aróstegui (2019) Evaluation, educational policy reforms, and
their implications for arts education, Arts Education Policy Review, 120:3, 121-125, DOI:
10.1080/10632913.2018.1532368

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2018.1532368

Published online: 13 Dec 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 384

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vaep20
ARTS EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW
2019, VOL. 120, NO. 3, 121–125
https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2018.1532368

Evaluation, educational policy reforms, and their implications

for arts education
Jos stegui
e Luis Aro
USIC Education, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educacion, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article is the introduction to the special issue about Evaluation, Educational Policy Arts education; educational
Reforms, and Their Implications for Arts Education. A summary of all the articles comprised policy reforms;
in the special issue is reported, mainly featured, on the one hand, by a discussion about evaluation; impact
how the education policy reforms shape a particular approach to evaluation that ends up
conforming education and arts education and, on the other hand, it shows some magnet
examples of arts curriculum evaluation combining both standardized assessment with quali-
tative strategies pertinent to the nature of arts content and experiences. The article also dis-
cusses how it could be possible to move from the current scope of school arts education
most of the authors depict to the development of another way of evaluation and curriculum
development where the experiential process is taken into account. While these signals
might be still scarce, for some other authors could be the opportunity to overcome at least
partially the current demise of school arts curriculum.

Educational policy reforms implemented virtually all
over the world have been shaping a school curriculum
where the “core” STEM subjects (science, technology,
engineering, and math) reaffirm the prominent station
to the detriment of the rest, arts education in particu-
lar. Formal, standardized evaluations are perhaps the
most evident way in which such reforms induce those
different roles that each subject plays, not only select-
ing some competences and subjects and obviating
others, but also prioritizing certain evaluational tools
more in accordance to these subjects that, in this way,
get benefit doubly. Thus, evaluation becomes key to
understanding the current status of arts education in
the school curriculum because to define evaluation is
to define education—at least in the sense that, more
than likely, major attention will be paid to those edu-
cational aspects to be evaluated. And while it is true
that education should also define evaluation, in an era
of accountability and assessment such as we live in,
the latter becomes more prominent.
The purpose of this special issue is twofold: On the
one hand, it discusses how educational policy reforms
shape a particular approach to evaluation that, lately,
conform education and arts education in particular,
thus providing partial explanation of the current
demise of music and arts in national curriculums vir-
tually all over the world. On the other hand, it intends
to move a step forward, showing some “good
practices” of arts curriculum evaluation as illustrations
of how even with the current status of the arts within
national curriculums it is possible to provide an evalu-
ation pertinent to the nature of the content and expe-
riences that arts provide.
Of the articles comprising this special issue two are
mainly dedicated to the first focus: the implications of
educational policy reforms on evaluation and, conse-
quently, on arts education.
First, Richard Colwell discusses in his article the
extent of the relationship, if any, between policy, pol-
itics, and assessment, to better understand the present
and future status of arts education. While discussing
the many concerns that are impacting or should
impact both the establishment and the conduct of arts
policy, Colwell denotes the inescapable political aspect
that, e.g., to be a musician, implies, thus the import-
ance of being aware of the policies shaping the possi-
bilities of what it means to be a musician designing
programs and curriculums. In his opinion, the liberal-
conservative philosophy for arts education is present
in music education publications in much of the world,

CONTACT Jose Luis Ar

ostegui arostegu@ugr.es University of Granada, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educaci
on, Campus de Cartuja, s/n, 18071
Granada, Spain.
ß 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
122 
J. L. AROSTEGUI
so the construction of what a musician is will attend
to this rationale. His major conclusion could be sum-
marized by saying that Arts and Humanities are today
more necessary than ever, not only because they are
an inherent part of mandatory education, but also
because they pervade policies and consequently per-
meate the evaluation of arts education. The result
should be a qualitative approach to evaluation of arts
education based on Eisner (1979) or Stufflebeam,
Madaus, and Kellaghan (2000), among others.
Second, Martin Fautley discusses the situation of
the neoliberal policies of reform for music education
in England. In his analysis, he considers evaluation to
be “turned into a weapon, a stick with which to beat
schools, teachers, and education academics,” some-
thing that is happening not only in England, but in
many other countries following a Global Education
Reform Movement in favor of “multinational private
corporations, supranational development agencies,
international donors, private foundations, and consult-
ing firms through their interventions in national edu-
cation reforms and policymaking processes around
the world” (Sahlberg, 2014, p. 143, cited by Fautley).
From this point, an evaluation approach based on
“performativity” has been developed whose conse-
quences for arts teachers, dealing with aesthetic and
doctrinal aspects of the subjects, are devastating,
according to Fautley. The music curriculum ends up
somehow operationalized, as one of the “benefits” of
this type of evaluation on schools.
Perhaps the major idea shared by these two articles
is that the economic rationale of neoliberalism has
enforced a mono-dimensional approach to evaluation
where only those aspects of education susceptible to
being “measured” are taken into account. And this
uni-dimensional approach fits better the accepted
manifestation of the STEM subjects than that of Arts
and Humanities; and at the same time, fits better the
nomenclature of the business world. Here lies the
actual importance of evaluation to define education in
our days: The nature of the evaluation tool determines
the nature of the subject being evaluated and the
importance that subject has within the curriculum
and the larger school life.
This has become evident in the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
report on the impact of arts education skills (Winner,
Goldstein, & Vincent-Lancrin, 2013), where it is
claimed that “evidence of any impact of arts learning
on creativity and critical thinking, or on behavioral
and social skills, remains largely inconclusive, partly
because of an insufficient volume of experimental
research on these matters and also because of the diffi-
culty of adequately measuring these skills” (p. 258;
emphasis added). They could have admitted that the
standardization paradigm and the econometric com-
mitment to indicator variables prevent evaluators
from representing the accomplishments of music
teaching. In the end, these difficulties imply that some
subjects—greatly among them, music—are not eval-
uated, thus bringing out a relegation in the curricu-
lum. Clearly, the nature of the artistic reality is
beyond the nature of the measurement tools, and thus
prevention from proper presence in the curriculum.
We see a clear hierarchy. The mechanism of the
econometric agenda is at the root of the decline in
arts education: the neoliberal agenda constrains and
distorts educational policy reforms. Designing the
evaluation tools of the future will probably continue
to prune the curriculum to boost the bare-bones
knowledge economy as the only possible option for
the schools.
The key to understanding the role that evaluation
plays in this sequence is the term “impact” and more
in particular, what impact means in arts education. In
educational policy reforms promoted by transnational
institutions, often under the umbrella of neoliberalism,
the word “impact” is employed as it regularly is in the
business world: the “measure of the tangible and
intangible effects (consequences) of one thing’s or
entity’s action or influence upon another.”1 It is easy
to observe how this definition fits the rationale for
test-based accountability and international evaluations
such us the Programme for International Student
Assessment. The aforementioned OECD report
(Winner et al., 2013) on the impact of arts education
follows the same rationale, limiting “impact” to those
aspects of the knowledge economy where arts might
develop (e.g., cognitive skills, indices of creativity,
innovation and teamwork, and performance ratings)
and when it only considers experimental inquiry and
quantitative measurement as essential scores for evalu-
ation and research.
This approach to evaluation, based on measurable
impacts, is in tune with concepts profusely employed
in curriculum prospectuses such as “excellence” and
“talent.” With these concepts, educational policy
reforms drown down the development of individual
skills and the development of educational programs
such as “Teach for All” and its respective national
programs such as “Teach for America” in the United
States or “Empezando por Educar” in Spain. These
and similar programs have at least three features in
common: First, they are promoted by private

institutions that act as Intermediary Organization
Networks (IONs) (La Londe, Brewer, & Lubienski,
2015) between administrative and curriculum agencies
to support a specific purview of educational policy
reform as the only defensible choice. Second, these
IONs promote a “neoliberal philanthropy” that con-
firms and validates the process of neoliberalization
within the charitable sector, in effect by legitimizing
social inequality, facilitating welfare state restructur-
ing, and promoting a narrow ideal of citizenship as
practiced through private charity (Raddon, 2008). And
third, the social and humanistic experience of students
is undervalued as compared to the talent-scout search
for excellence and marketability.
The evaluation of “impact” in education, thus
defined in economic terms, is consistent with three
special features: (a) international evaluations are by
and large carried out by transnational institutions, fol-
lowing the lead of the OECD and the International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement. They act above the countries that theor-
etically they represent, appearing to be, however, an
ION mediation between administrations and curricu-
lums; (b) they legitimize inequality and inequity with
their objectivity of numbers and measurement; and (c)
their evaluations work largely independently of the
contexts of education, thus allowing and fostering
comparisons among countries. Romuald Normand
(2016) pointed to the role of the OECD—a trans-
national economic institution with no direct relation
to education on which citizens have not voted. OECD
is playing for “epistemic governance” in education, not
only shaping national curriculums but also their evalu-
ation tools, and defining standards of quality from its
august perspective. As Normand reiterated, knowledge
is power, materialized in metrics and policy instru-
ments, and embedded in organizational networks.
But even with this visible, bleak picture of arts edu-
cation and its evaluation, authenticated and ham-
strung by current educational policies, a few see signs
of relief. For example, Coburn, Hill, and Spillane
(2016) made a historic review of three different stages
of instructional policy making and implementation
research in the United States: The standards-based
reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, accountability-based
reforms of the late 1990s and 2000s, and today’s
efforts that move further with both. For them, the
current period offered opportunity for development of
policies with greater intersection of learning and
power in policy implementation. They saw that it was
made possible by the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) implemented in many states of the United
ARTS EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW 123
States. For this, the authors suggest expansion of the
current knowledge base on policy implementation in
order to overcome the political and pedagogical resis-
tances. Such expansion could be carried out by taking
into account the degree to which standards, assess-
ments, instructional materials, the focus of evaluation
schemes, and professional development are coordi-
nated with one another. They called it “alignment.”
And the degree to which coordination occurs horizon-
tally (within any one level of government—national,
state, or local) and/or vertically (across different levels
of government), they called that “accountability.”
They urged a research framework to determine “how
degree of alignment and strength of accountability
interact in ways that foster or impede school change
and instructional improvement” (p. 4). In other
words, according to these writers, the CCSS promised
to foster a context in which policies were to take into
account the teachers’ voice, letting implementation of
such policies move easily while accepting inside and
outside influence on them.
Paul Woodford (2018) also offers a positive percep-
tion, in spite of also finding a demise in arts educa-
tion. The reasons are, on the one hand, the support of
Donald Trump for a broader curriculum beyond the
three Rs and history and science, and on the other,
the opportunities that the U.S. 2015 Every Student
Succeeds Act provided for “well-rounded” education
programs. Those were seen to mean more space for
school music and the arts and also a different
approach for evaluation, one focused partly on the
instructional process. The STEM subjects would con-
tinue being the “core” curriculum and the era of
accountability would be far from finished. But, again,
these signs predicted a better status for
music education.
In addition, the Model Cornerstone Assessment for
music education, taking into account the learning pro-
cess (Ar ostegui, 2017), is another indication of
changes in the field of evaluation. This would take it
in the direction of the qualitative evaluation (pointed
out by Colwell in his article, part of this special issue).
In this regard, Carrillo, Viladot, and Perez-Moreno
(2017) proposed a re-definition of what we under-
stand as “impact” in music education. Starting from a
literature review, these authors suggest a reconceptual-
ization that goes beyond formal measurement, both
considering the internal—in relation to the music
itself—and external—supporting other subject areas,
developing students’ skills, and so forth–contributions
of school music education.
124 
J. L. AROSTEGUI
The three other articles that comprise this special
issue discuss specific evaluation programs that could
be considered a harbinger of reformulation of evalu-
ation approaches that would be more in accordance
with the nature of the arts.
Dale Schmid reports on the Dance Entry Level
Teacher Assessment (DELTA). From a quantitative
perspective, DELTA includes measurement of the
Pedagogic Content Knowledge, a construct of teacher
professional knowledge created by distinguished
psychologist Lee Shulman. He termed it as an inter-
section between requisite content knowledge and its
application. The article discusses the construction of
the evaluation tool and its meta evaluation from testi-
monies of dance teachers who have used it in class.
Implications for DELTA on educational policy and
practice are discussed.
Carmine Tabone and Gustave Weltsek suggest the
same strategy for the evaluation of theater arts: To
employ a qualitative summative assessment of state
and national theater arts standards. For them, “this
form of evaluation has the potential to capture the
artistic experience that students realize in theater arts
class, while at the same time, fulfill the requirements
of accountability and vigor that the standards
provide.” In their article, they describe how an assess-
ment tool aligning with five of the national theater
education standards was created. It was an eclectic
effort for preserving the qualitative aspects of theater
arts by following the accountable rationale of stand-
ards. The article explains what this evaluation consists
of and the challenges found on the use of qualitative
assessments.
Last, we consider the evaluation experience in the
plastic arts. Mark Graham’s article is a clear example
of the transitional moment we live in, intermingled
between measurement of student learning and the rec-
ognition of students’ artistry. It describes the
Advanced Placement (AP) Studio Art Portfolio in a
Studio Art Program. Graham argues that if art is a
way to construct meaning and a sustained investiga-
tion of issues of personal and social importance, then
it is useful to ask how these concerns are reflected in
our assessment of student work. Thus, the purpose of
the AP portfolio is to create a large-scale, standardized
assessment that engages the student’s artwork as a
way to identify student learning and accomplishment.
So the student’s experience, divergent exploration, and
inquiry become foci of this evaluation approach rather
than efficiency and productivity.
These three evaluation reports come from student
assessment in three different art fields. As evaluations,
they have at least one major claim in common: that it
is possible and even necessary to find a meeting point
between standardized evaluation and more experien-
tial evaluative approaches. DELTA is perhaps the
approach more in accordance with contemporary
standardized evaluation but extending attention to the
quality and appreciation of teachers. The evaluation
experience of theater education takes a step forward,
proposing a qualitative approach to evaluate stand-
ards. AP follows the same approach, even when
Graham acknowledges that he reluctantly accepts this
eclectic position, convinced as he is that the evalu-
ation of students’ critical and divergent thinking in
arts experiences is a qualitative issue far removed
from the standards. The difficulty in evaluating artis-
try remains. The road of econometric accountability is
demonstrably insufficient. New approaches, perhaps
may be based on the work of Eliot Eisner, Michael
Scriven, Robert Stake, Daniel Stufflebeam, and other
experts in qualitative methods. A long trajectory
toward documenting the learning process and appreci-
ating the “hard-to-measurables” seems more feasible
now than in the recent past.
An eclectic position between qualitative evaluation
and standardized assessment is possible, even at this
moment with accountability demands persisting and
little challenged. Here and there are spaces for taking
into account the learning process and for evaluation
approaches that appreciate the aesthetics and artistry.
Thus, with this approach it could be argued that
accounting might get closer to the essence of the arts.
We need to back away from arts education as a subsid-
iary tool for “core” curricular pursuits, but endorse it
as every bit in accordance with the knowledge econ-
omy—but not suited to indicators of short-term effi-
ciency of students’ outcomes. In a world where
automatization and artificial intelligence is turning the
corner and may become inundating, the liberal arts
and the humanities have an important role to play.
Much of the current workplace is about to disappear;
many new ones will be created. For this revolution, we
have to prepare students to solve large-scale human
problems. Educators, citizens, and the students them-
selves need to widen, not narrow, their futures. Scott
Hartley (2017) claimed we need technical experts, but
we also need people who grasp the nuances and inter-
pretations of human behavior. In addition, we cannot
forget the social demands that go beyond the business
world. The arts are an inescapable part of the integral
education of people, even in this era of accountability
and efficiency. As Morson and Schapiro (2017)
asserted, economics tends to ignore three things:

culture’s effect on decision making, the usefulness of
stories in explaining people’s actions, and ethical
implications of what we do. Even if economics could,
education cannot ignore any of them.
School arts education is currently in crisis. For all its
drag, this crisis should be seen as an opportunity for
changing and improving the role the arts play in the cur-
riculum. We have just two choices: To die or to
reawaken. An opportunity for a reemergence of the arts
may be right there in front of us. We cannot keep on
doing the same things we used to do, at least not in the
same way, neither as teachers nor evaluators. Many trad-
itional practices are still valid, but we teachers cannot
keep on claiming Art for Art’s Sake as advocacy for
school arts curriculum. It always has been a weak argu-
ment. Instead, we should provide answers to the current
needs of schooling, pursuing the makings of the know-
ledge economy and the makings of the knowledge society.
Likewise, policy makers should reassess their inven-
tories, pushing evaluators to pay attention to the qual-
ity of the learning process, urging incorporation of
assessment tools beyond standardized correlates,
appreciating the artistic and aesthetic sides of what it
means to be educated. The urge for better commun-
ities will again be prioritized, not just their economies
but also the quality of living together. It needs not sac-
rifice the measurables that stakeholders expect.
Following the Coburn, Hill, and Spillane (2016) pro-
posal, an eclectic balance can be pursued. An even
higher accountability will testify that curriculum
demands are satisfied. Without sacrificing standards, a
higher alignment of purposes can encourage, even
obligate, teachers to express views as to what learnings
should be held in awe. All this can be part of meaning-
ful evaluational processes for school arts education. If
this moment of opportunity has already arrived, it is
time now for arts teachers to take advantage. As such,
we will say that evaluation and policy making cannot
keep promoting simplistic evaluation, so little focused
on the classroom, so much focused on econometrics.
Note
1. Definition available at http://www.businessdictionary.
com/definition/impact.html
ARTS EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW 125
ORCID
Jose Luis Ar
ostegui http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5885-9844
References
Arostegui, J. L. (2017). Looking to the future with opti-
mism: An interview with Glenn Nierman on the occasion
of the recent end of his appointment as NAfME presi-
dent. Arts Education Policy Review, 119(4), 243–249. doi:
10.1080/10632913.2017.1342108.
Carrillo, C., Viladot, L., & Perez-Moreno, J. (2017). Impacto
de la educaci on musical: una revision de la literatura
cientıfica. Revista Electr
onica Complutense de
Investigacion en Educaci on Musical, 14, 61–74. doi:
10.5209/RECIEM.54828.
Coburn, C. E., Hill, H. C., & Spillane, J. P. (2016). Alignment
and accountability in policy design and implementation:
The common core state standards and implementation
research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 243–251.
Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design
and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan.
Hartley, S. (2017). The fuzzy and the techie: Why the liberal
arts will rule the digital world. Boston: Hartley Global, LLC.
La Londe, P. G., Brewer, T. J., & Lubienski, C. A. (2015).
Teach for America and teach for all: Creating an inter-
mediary organization network for global education
reform. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(47),
28–47. doi:10.14507/epaa.v23.1829.
Morson, G. S., & Schapiro, M. (2017). Cents and sensibility.
What economics can learn from the Humanities.
Princeton: Princeton University.
Normand, R. (2016). The changing epistemic governance of
European education. The fabrication of the Homo
Academicus Europeanus? Dordrecht: Springer.
Raddon, M. B. (2008). Neoliberal legacies: Planned giving
and the new philanthropy. Studies in Political Economy,
81(1), 27–48.
Sahlberg, P. (2014). Finnish lessons 2.0: What can the world
learn from educational change in Finland? New York:
Teachers College Press.
Stufflebeam, D. L., Madaus, G. A., & Kellaghan, T. (Eds.).
(2000). Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and
human services evaluation. Boston: Kleuwer Academic Press.
Winner, E., Goldstein, T. R., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2013).
Art for art’s sake? The impact of arts education. France:
OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264180789-en.
Woodford, P. (2018). On “the end of history” and the glo-
bal decline of music education? In P. Woodford (Ed.),
Music education in an age of virtuality and post-truth.
London: Routledge.