Currently, a wide variety of assessment instruments are utilized in education; some focus on specific individuals, others consider large populations. National Assessment of Educational Progress (hereafter referred as NAEP) represents latter. Since its inception in 1969 NAEP has assessed many subject areas, including music on three different occasions: 1971 and 1978 NAEP Music Assessments, and 1997 NAEP Arts Education Assessment. (1) Research literature and studies exist for all three assessments, including a variety of publications generated by NAEP itself. Literature pertaining 1971 Music Assessment (also referred as first assessment) includes assessment instrument formation and design, (2) procedures and methods, (3) and assessment results. (4) Literature germane 1978 assessment (also referred as second assessment) is extremely sparse, which also reflects a decline in number of NAEP-produced reports. In one of few sources not produced by NAEP, Bass provided a summary account in 1982 of second assessment, along with some general results. (5) Numerous sources relate NAEP 1997 Arts Education Assessment (also referred as third assessment). Some offer descriptions of NAEP's importance for arts educators, and how arts educators can interpret and utilize results. (6) In several articles Lehman discusses NAEP's design aspects, contribution assessment methodology, and offers suggestions on how music education profession should respond results of third assessment.7Some authors have expressed concern and perceived problems with design and/or methodology of third assessment, (8) while others concentrated only on results. (9) Few sources discuss more than one of assessments. However, Mark offered a comparison of first two assessments by summarizing methodologies, listing objectives, and discussing results. He also provided insight into utilization of NAEP reports, saying: The information in National Assessment reports was of great potential value music education profession, but actually had little influence on practices.... There was less publicity about second assessment and relatively little public feedback. (10) Sims suggested music educators pay closer attention NAEP, since it can be a vehicle for implementing local assessments, measuring progress toward National Standards, and increasing public awareness and advocacy. (11) During its formative years, NAEP's authors hoped it would serve as a model for other types of assessment, not just in large-scale settings, but also in local classrooms. Haertel and Mullis believed it was natural for educators look toward NAEP as a model for their own assessment programs. However, they maintained that exercises should be modified before they are used for local purposes. (12) Inspired by creation and adoption of National Standards and impending third NAEP Assessment, Niebur compared implementation and utilization of standards and assessment practices in four general music classrooms. (13) Perhaps best application of NAEP assessment design and result data actual classrooms is research of Sietsema, who took released exercises from second music assessment and replicated them on a local population. When compared NAEP results, students in Sietsema's study scored slightly higher in several cognitive areas. (14) Since primary purpose of NAEP is to reflect current educational and assessment practices, and measure change reliably over time, (15) existence of three NAEP Music Assessments would seem provide a unique opportunity compare educational practice and change in music achievement across a twenty-six--year span. However, comparison potential among three assessments is limited at best, especially given restricted scope of 1978 Music Assessment and, the considerable changes in nature of 1997 assessment, based on . …