In this paper, the author explains why programs or potential programs designed to serve education in music and the other arts should be evaluated on the basis of breadth of coverage of standards-based skill and knowledge, of depth of coverage of that skill and knowledge and on the proportion of a given student population that they reach. Those who can provide believable answers to these three dimensions of educational efficacy but find that their programs do not provide strong support should either plan to strengthen that area (for example, by reaching a higher proportion of available students) or simply to report forthrightly to possible supporters that their program is by design limited to support a select group. Those who cannot provide reasonable descriptions of the way that they support the breadth, depth, and wide diffusion of learning should refrain from calling their programs educational in the first place. Individual communities should be able to asked for a clear, open-minded analysis of the expected educational outcomes of any program put forth for serious consideration among arts educators of any orientation. In today's climate of educational accountability, this kind of analysis is required in order to eliminate confusion and even contempt from those who must answer the hard questions about providing resources for education. Achieving clarity in advocacy messages has never been more important.