Artifacts from early human societies suggest that the arts were always important. If the arts hadn't been important, people wouldn't have expended the considerable time and energy it took to decorate clothing and tools, and to make non-functional artistic objects (such as necklaces)—given the primitive tools and materials available to them.

The arts have endured, and so we've also learned much about later cultures through their art. Anouilh, Bach, Cézanne, Da Vinci, and the rest of the arts alphabet live on in today's theaters, concert halls, and museums.

A Dilemma

So why would communities who laud their architecture, museums, musical organizations, and theaters reduce or even eliminate their school arts programs that a quarter of a century ago were staffed by trained professionals? Do folks who enjoy choir music in church think that singing in parts is innate? Do small communities struggling for identity realize that their school arts program is just about the only live culture in the area?

What occurred was the recent emergence of a politically powerful but biologically naïve belief that it's necessary and possible to create an efficient, inexpensive, one-size-fits-all assessment program that precisely measures all the learned behaviors of an imprecise brain.