NEA Assessment of Student Learning in the Arts | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): NEA Assessment of Student Learning in the Arts (NEAPS0801)

What is the "NEA Assessment of Student Learning in the Arts" grant opportunity?

This National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) opportunity, titled NEA Assessment of Student Learning in the Arts (Funding Opportunity Number NEAPS0801), was designed to strengthen how K-12 arts learning is measured across the United States. The project emphasized practical approaches and tools for assessing student learning and overall program effectiveness across different art forms and teaching environments.

What problem or need was this opportunity trying to address?

The NEA noted that assessment had become a central requirement for arts education programs in schools and community settings, and that NEA-funded arts education projects typically must include an assessment plan. Many educators and organizations were seeking clearer, more practical models and tools that could reliably measure student learning and program effectiveness across varied arts learning contexts.

Was this funding intended to support a direct arts education program for students?

No. This opportunity was not designed to fund a direct service arts education program. Instead, it focused on selecting a single organization to lead a national review, synthesis, and organization of existing K-12 arts assessment resources and practices.

What type of award was offered: a standard grant or something else?

The award was structured as a cooperative agreement, selecting one organization to serve as a Cooperator. Under this model, the Cooperator would work closely with an NEA Project Director throughout the project, reflecting a more collaborative relationship than a standard grant.

How many awards did the NEA expect to make, and at what amount?

The NEA expected to make exactly one award because the award floor and ceiling were both listed as $250,000. The total funding amount for the opportunity was $250,000.

Was there a cost-sharing or matching requirement?

No. The opportunity stated that there was no cost-sharing or matching requirement.

What was the main goal of the project?

The main goal was to collect, review, and analyze what was already being done nationwide to assess student learning in the arts, and then organize that information in a way that educators, schools, and arts organizations could actually use.

What were the major deliverables required under this opportunity?

The scope of work centered on five major deliverables:

1. A wide-ranging review of existing resources on K-12 arts assessment (research studies, articles, publications, websites, and other relevant materials), covering multiple learning contexts.
2. Consultation with leaders who specialize in assessing student learning to identify promising assessment approaches, including both formative and summative methods.
3. Development of a practical compendium of assessment practices that maps assessment methods to the environments in which they are most effective.
4. Delivery of findings to the NEA as both a written report and web-ready material.
5. Recommendations for how the NEA could help improve the overall state of K-12 arts assessment in the United States.

What kinds of resources were expected to be included in the review?

The review was expected to include a broad set of existing resources, such as research studies, articles, publications, websites, and other relevant materials related to K-12 arts assessment. The NEA also encouraged supplementing the literature review with additional research as needed.

Which learning settings were expected to be covered by the review?

The NEA expected coverage across multiple learning contexts, not only traditional public schools but also private and charter schools, arts and cultural organizations, and community organizations.

What does it mean that the NEA wanted "more than a simple bibliography"?

The solicitation encouraged supplementing the literature review with additional research as needed, signaling the NEA was looking for synthesis and interpretation of trends and practices, not just a list of citations.

What is the difference between formative and summative assessment in this project?

The opportunity explicitly referenced both:

• Formative assessment: tools used during instruction to guide teaching and improve learning as it happens.
• Summative assessment: tools used to evaluate learning outcomes at the end of a unit, program, or course.

The project emphasized identifying which approaches appear most effective in specific arts learning environments.

Why did the opportunity emphasize that assessment approaches may differ by setting or art form?

The NEA acknowledged that what works well in one environment or art form may not translate cleanly to another. The compendium was intended to connect specific assessment methods to the environments where they are most effective.

What was the "compendium of assessment practices" supposed to be?

The compendium was intended to be a practical resource that maps particular assessment methods to the learning environments in which they are most effective, offering educators and program leaders concrete models they could adapt.

In what formats did the Cooperator have to deliver the findings?

The findings had to be delivered to the NEA as both a written report and web-ready material, suggesting an expectation that the work could later support online access and broader field use.

Did the NEA indicate any possible follow-up beyond this project?

Yes. The NEA signaled that after the research and synthesis phase, it might consider supporting a follow-up dissemination effort to share results broadly with the arts education field.

Who was eligible to apply for this opportunity?

Eligibility included:

• Nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations (other than institutions of higher education)
• Private and public institutions of higher education
• Units of government, including state, county, city/township, special district governments, independent school districts, and federally recognized Native American tribal governments

Were there compliance or status requirements for applicants?

Yes. Organizations had to meet the NEA's legal requirements (including nonprofit tax-exempt status where applicable at the time of application) and be current on acceptable final reports for any prior NEA awards.

What was the application deadline and how were applications submitted?

The application deadline was May 30, 2008. Applications were due via Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time.

When was the opportunity posted, and when was it archived?

The opportunity was posted on April 17, 2008, and it was later archived on June 29, 2008.

What is the CFDA number and category for this opportunity?

The associated CFDA number was 45.024 (Promotion of the Arts Grants to Organizations and Individuals). The funding activity category was listed under Arts (Cultural Affairs).

How did this project relate to national arts learning standards?

The opportunity built on the national arts learning standards that emerged in the 1990s, reflecting an ongoing interest in improving how arts learning is assessed within the broader standards-based education environment.

What role did the NEA Project Director play?

Because this was a cooperative agreement, the selected Cooperator would work closely with an NEA Project Director throughout the project, emphasizing collaboration rather than a purely hands-off grantmaking relationship.

What kinds of outcomes was the NEA aiming for with this funding?

The opportunity was positioned as a targeted national research-and-development effort to clarify what effective arts assessment looks like in real-world K-12 settings and to equip the field with stronger models for evaluating arts learning outcomes and overall program effectiveness.