A couple of weeks ago, in a post on quantification in the arts, I wrote:
Is the need for quantitative evidence being unfairly demanded from the arts sector? Here’s a thought: what if advocates for the arts in the public and nonprofit sectors have themselves chosen to emphasize quantitative evidence, in part because the rhetorical case for arts support is so very challenging? Presenting numbers, after all, has the virtue of being just so easy, even if in fact they are numbers that don’t mean anything (I’m looking at you, ‘economic impact’ studies). Just asking.
Today we have a story from The Atlantic on schools and tests – or, “assessments” – measuring creativity. With all the problems that come with standard testing, who would want such a thing? Well …
The push to find the best way to test the arts is coming from arts educators themselves in many instances. They hope to foster not only student improvement, but also a sense that the arts are as valuable to curriculum and society as such long-tested subjects as math and reading.
“It’s very important for arts to be seen as a subject that can be and should be tested,” said Frank Philip, an arts-assessment consultant. “It’s a parity thing.”
It is increasingly difficult to believe that the demand for metrics is something being forced on the arts sector from without. The phone call is coming from inside the house.
Leave a Reply