Although the Orzolek article was all about tha paradox that of assessment, it seemed that Orzolek was contradicting himself. What I understood of the article is that assessment in music can and should be actually based on something to show that learning has occurred. So when he talked about the teachers who based their means of assessment on awards and trophies and good concerts, that isn't really substantial at all. The children involved may already be really good at what they do, so winning awards and performing good concerts comes more natually, so learning most likely hasn't occurred, and therefore is a poor basis for assessment. But on the other extreme, having assessment being very regimented and standardized to provide data for everyone involved but the student isn't helpful either. The student needs to be at the center of assessment so the information gathered from the assessment can be used to help the student inprove. Granted that I understoon the article correctly, I agree with Orzolek. Especially in comparison to Brophy, who's text seems very geared towards how to grade students and not how to assess as a means to improve the students.