But is it possible to understand algebra without understanding symbolics and metaphor, central constructs of the arts? One could further argue that if it's important for children to learn the sequence of letters that spell a word, it should be equally important to learn the sequence of tones that create a melody. Why would schools seek to develop only one of the brain mechanisms that evolved to process such sequences? To justify music in school by suggesting that "playing music calms down students in a classroom or school bus" (as one benighted person said to me), or that music somehow mysteriously improves math scores is to seriously miss the point about what the arts and arts education are all about.

Similarly, precise assessment of the arts is a hopeless enterprise, since the arts can't be narrowly defined, easily measured, and precisely reproduced. You can't box something that allows the human spirit to soar.

The poet e. e. cummings stated it beautifully:

nothing measurable can be alive,
nothing that isn't alive can be art
nothing that isn't art can be true,
and anything that isn't true
doesn't amount to a very good goddamn.

Arts performance and products obviously can be and are evaluated. Critics do it all the time. But their criticism is subjective, and two critics may differ considerably on their assessment of the same artistic performance or product. The value of such critical assessment is thus dependent on the experience and credibility of the critic, and not on some external objective true/false measure. I thus believe that the loss of teachers with professional training in the arts may well be the most serious loss in the diminution of arts education programs. It's foolish to demand credible assessment in the arts and then to eliminate the educators who were trained to do it.