This paper grabs hold of the “assessment tiger” by considering the history of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Arts Report Cards for the visual arts, which were constructed and have been administered four times within thirty-five years. Two purposes of the NAEP have persisted since its founding: (1) measuring learning and (2) developing expectations for change and reform in education from a national platform. These purposes provided the basis for a functional analysis derived from Efland (1976) that looked closely at the NAEP's collaborative context, consensus building, and block content. Hamblen's 1995 Hamblen, K. 1995. Beyond the public face of policymaking. Arts Education Policy Review, 96(3): 28–33. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar] critical theory analysis exemplar also serves as a means for reviewing the politics of assessment, influences on policy directions, and curricular emphases within a subject area. Using Persky's 2004 Persky, H. 2004. “The NAEP arts assessment: Pushing the boundaries of large-scale performance assessment”. In Handbook of research and policy in art education, Edited by: Eisner, E. and Day, M. 607–35. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.  [Google Scholar] critical evaluation of the 1997 NAEP Arts Assessment, this article considers recommendations she derived from the 1997 NAEP Arts Report Card that guided the 2008 NAEP construction and administration. The 2008 NAEP Arts Report Card, released in June 2009, informs a number of initial interpretations, recommendations, implications, and applications for those who want to “own” the tiger.