The teaching of and learning music rely heavily on assessment procedures, most often formative. Formative assessment directs the course of teaching and affects the selection, scope, and arrangement of content, teaching methods, and time planning. Summative assessment is still the predominant form of testing specific knowledge and skills related to music performance. The objectivity of judgement is sought to be achieved through the assessments of several evaluators and the use of criterion scales and rubrics, but their reliability is limited. The Doctoral thesis examines two aspects of assessment in teaching of and learning music. The first aspect is the assessment procedures used to teach and assess what has been learned; the second is the grades derived from these procedures. The topic of assessment in the field of learning and teaching music was discussed in the theoretical part of the paper and through two stages of research. In the first part of the research the data obtained by a systematic review of the literature on assessment in music education was qualitatively analysed. In the second stage, the data on primary and secondary music school grades in the sample weas quantitatively analysed. Both stages looked at a 25-year sample. The research covers all levels of formal music teaching (primary, secondary, and tertiary) in general education and specialised music educational institutions, as well as in group and individual forms of teaching with particular emphasis on assessing performing music subjects. The first stage of the research is based on a thematic analysis of data collected by a systematic review of scientific research papers in the field of assessment in classical music education published over 25 years, including 154 pieces of original empirical research. According to the topics covered, the research can be divided into 11 groups that problematise two main areas: 'assessment of musical performance' and 'assessment processes in music teaching'. Within the area of 'assessment of musical performance', these are the development, testing and application of various assessment instruments (assessment scales, rubrics); differences between assessors and the fairness and reliability of their assessments; influence beyond musical factors on the assessment of musical performance; respondents' attitudes on the issue of assessment musical performance. In the area of 'assessment processes in music teaching', seven main topics were detected: the position of assessment in music teaching, assessment for and as learning; the role of formative assessment and feedback in the process of v learning music; self-assessment and peer assessment; assessment of abilities; prediction of success based on initial or previous achievements and external factors, such as evaluation of teaching, i.e., teachers and attitudes of respondents towards assessment within the teaching process. In an effort to contribute towards solving the problem of general objectivity regarding the grades awarded, a large number of papers are dedicated to developing, testing, and verifying the validity and reliability of measuring instruments for evaluating musical performance. There are two primary forms of such instruments – criterion assessment scales and rubrics. Their most common elements describe technical performance (quality of tone, intonation, rhythm, articulation, diction, breathing, body position), musicality (expressiveness, interpretation, creativity, originality) and presentation (accuracy of performance, balance, choice of repertoire, communication with the audience). In the case of criterion scales, the assessors use the Likerttype scale to determine the level of agreement with the proposed statements or criteria or the level of its achievement by numerical or some other designation. In the case of rubrics, they determine which proposed statements can describe the evaluated musical performance according to individual elements or in its entirety. The authors of the analysed papers emphasise the instrument's reliability on the examined sample within the same object of assessment. However, their validity in broader applications is rightly questioned. Namely, the question arises of whether the assessors genuinely come to a decision on the musical performance by using these instruments or whether they limit them or even direct them to the wrong judgments. Whether the assessments were created using assessment scales or rubrics or were made holistically, they have a satisfactory internal consistency if the criteria for which the musical performance is assessed are clear. In doing so, previous experience in assessment and knowledge of the repertoire contributes to the accuracy of assessments, and assessors who are experts in a close field can assess as competently as those who are more specialised. If it is a matter of ranking, that is, a relative relationship of performance ratings, the reliability of the estimates is higher. We can conclude that the use of criterion scales for assessment and rubrics, to a certain extent, contributes to a more objective assessment of musical performance. However, in every evaluation, whether criterion or holistic, the subjective factor of the evaluator is also crucial. Relying on their knowledge and aesthetic experience and intuitive or emotional response to the performance, they form their assessment and often justify their decision after the first judgment, i.e., identify the performance characteristics that support their initial assessment. External circumstances affect the assessments of more experienced evaluators or vi experts to a lesser extent, but even there, for example – fatigue and saturation can affect the assessment. The number of studies devoted to the role of assessment in music teaching that are not directly related to the assessment of musical performance has been significantly higher in the last decade of the observed period. The researchers examined the effectiveness of individual assessment tools such as portfolios, rubrics, criterion scales, and online tools. Although the results of action led research, which bring new, innovative practices that support the paradigm of 'assessment as learning' and 'assessment for learning' were presented, their application in practice is scarce. In practice, summative assessment methods prevail. In general education, apart from music elements, attendance and commitment in class, are often the only other elements on which the students are marked. Teachers with less experience rarely decide to apply formative assessment forms and stick more strictly to predetermined assessment procedures. The potential of feedback is emphasised where the summative assessment results according to criterion scales or rubrics are available to students and their teachers as a starting point for further teaching, learning and practice. Feedback in the form of discussion, dialogue, demonstration, or video could be important for advancing the progress of music students. The combination contributes to developing critical thinking and self-regulation of learning. There is a positive correlation between grades from previous education, results of the entrance exam and grades during studies, including the final exam, especially in music subjects. The results of the entrance exams primarily have a normative and diagnostic role and serve to select candidates with appropriate competencies for the study of music. There was an increased interest in exploring the roles of self-assessment and peer assessment in music learning. While earlier studies testified to respondents' reluctance and distrust towards peer and self-assessment, newer studies notice their greater readiness for inclusion and a more active role in assessment processes as learning. It was found that interventions aimed at increasing the ability to think critically and assess his own or the work of their peers were successful, and the respondents observed significant progress. The main disadvantages of this form of assessment are the lack of experience, ignorance of the criteria, and uncertainty of the respondents regarding their assessments. The objectivity of the assessment increases with the age and education of the respondents. The second stage of the research determines the trends in assessment in primary and secondary music schools in Croatia from 1989 to 2016. It was conducted on a sample of four vii music schools in northern Croatia, which represent about 10 % of the population of primary and 26 % of secondary music schools students. Final grades in the following subjects were analysed: Main subject (music instrument), Solfeggio, Group performing (Choir/Orchestra), Chamber music, Piano obligatory (Compulsory instrument), and Elective subject – for 2184 primary music school students. For 802 secondary music school students in the sample, the final grades (at the end of each school year) were analysed in the following subjects: Main subject (instrument/singing), Solfeggio, Harmony, Polyphony, History of Music, Piano obligatory (Compulsory instrument), Group performing (Choir/Orchestra/Ensemble), Chamber Music, Musical Forms, Conducting, Reading and Playing Scores and Teaching Methodology. The final grades are numerical with the descriptions: ‘excellent’ (5), ‘very good’ (4), ‘good’ (3), ‘pass’ (2) and ‘fail’ (1). It should be stressed that 57.5 % of the pupils in the sample did not complete primary music education. They mostly gave up on attending music school in the first and second years. The share of students who dropped out and did not complete secondary music education is almost 30 %. Most of them dropped out in or after the first year. If we observe trends of grades according to the grades in primary music school, we can see that grades, as expected, seem to be the highest in the first year Main subject (4.51), Solfeggio (4.36), decline by the fifth year (3.82; 3.85) and have a slight increase in the last year of music school (3.88; 3.36). On average, grades in Group performance are significantly higher and only slightly fall throughout the four years of studies (4.71 – 4.64). Average grades have steadily increased over the observed period, although there are slight variations in individual generations. When considering the connection between grades in the Main subject (Instrument) and Solfeggio, as well as age, gender, the instrument that is the student majors in and the school they attend, it was found that some independent variables affect grades to a certain extent. The student's age affects the grade in the Main subject in the first, second and sixth year, and in Solfeggio from the third year onwards. The correlation between grades and gender is shown only in the fifth and sixth years in the Main subject, while there are no such correlations in Solfeggio. The instrument chosen by the student as the major subject is not a variable that affects the grades in the Main subject and Solfeggio. The differences in average final grades between individual schools in the sample are insignificant. Slightly lower grades in the first four years in one of the music schools in the sample can be attributed to the fact that the school viii curriculum prescribes that grades are not communicated to students until the end of primary education (year six). The development of students is continuously monitored through descriptive marks and numerical grades in pedagogical documentation. Students and parents can view them only after the student finishes elementary music school. In the case of this school, the final grades are not decisive, and the examination juries and teachers are not under pressure or influence of the outside forces when assessing students. When calculating the correlation of grades of the Main subject and Solfeggio through all six years of primary music school, a high Pearson correlation coefficient was determined at p <.01, which ranges between r=0.21 to r = 0.77. The most significant correlation is between the same subjects in the following or previous year and other subjects in the same year. Grades in Group performing and Chamber music are expected to correlate more with the grades of higher years and far less with the grades of the main subject and Solfeggio in the first three years of music school. In the analysis of grades in secondary school sample, a variance is observed in different educational profiles, and it is more pronounced between the theoretical track and the performance tracks (piano, singing, string and wind instruments, percussion). It accounts for the differences in the average grades of individual subjects specific to a particular profile, and as there may be fewer students. The average grade at the level of the entire sample is 4.23. The average grade in the Main subject (instrument/singing), a compulsory subject of all performance profiles of the profession, is slightly higher than the average of all grades in the sample. It is the highest in the first year (4.3) and only slightly drops by the fourth year (4.2). Grades in performing subjects such as Choir/Orchestra/Ensemble and Chamber music are significantly higher than all others and range between 4.67 and 4.82 in the sample. Grades in theoretical subjects are slightly lower, but the difference is negligible between years. Grades in subjects attended by a smaller number of students, those which are mandatory only for some profiles, or those not performed throughout all four years of schooling vary a lot according to generations and schools, so it is impossible to clearly observe trends in their increase or decrease during the observed period. The grade 'excellent' is the most common grade in all subjects in all years of middle school education. If we look at the sample by generation, we notice that the last three observed generations had slightly higher grades in the Main subject (instrument) than the previous ones. Still, a continuous increase from generation to generation cannot be observed. The opposite trend is actual for the grades for Solfeggio – in the last two generations, they are lower in the sample than the grades for previous generations and are below 3.84. When ix comparing grades according to secondary music schools in the sample, the results differ slightly from those in elementary schools. There is no significant difference in grade points regarding the differences in the curriculum. Grades in Group performing (Choir/Orchestra/Ensemble) in all schools are uniformly high. At the same time, the same trend can be observed in the grades of the subjects attended by a smaller number of students, although the grades are not uniform, as in the overall results. The correlation between grades and sociodemographic characteristics was also analysed in this sample. A correlation was detected between the gender in the sample of the performance profile students and grades in Chamber music through all four years, Solfeggio only in the third, and the Main subject and Group performing in the third and fourth years. In the theoretical major, grades in almost all subjects are related to the student's gender in the sample. The variable of music school did not impact grades in the performance profiles, but in the theoretical one, it impacted almost all subjects in the program. There is also a correlation between grades of a generation in all subjects in the performance tracks in almost all years of the music program. The situation is similar in the theoretical track as well. Only two subjects have not been proven to be connected (Obligatory Piano and Conducting 2). There is a definite correlation between the major (instrument) and the grades obtained for the first two years in the main subject, Group performing, and Chamber music throughout education. Grades in Solfeggio and Harmony are not correlated with the performers' track. The data in the sample concerning whether the students completed music education (group A) or gave up on music education (group B) was also separately analysed. The grade averages of students who have completed primary music education are higher than the averages of those who have not. At the same time, the standard deviation in the grade distribution is lower than that of students who have not completed primary music school. The difference in the drop in the average grade is the highest in the last year of primary music school that students still attended, which indicates a decrease in motivation to complete it. It was noticed that the drop in the average grade in the Main subject and Solfeggio is the greatest in students who dropped out in or after the second year of the programme, and then the difference decreases. In secondary schools, the analysis of variance in the grades of groups of students according to belonging to group A or B has determined that there is a difference in grades for all subjects except for grades in the main subject in the second year and Group performing in the first year of secondary music school for performing profiles students. Differences in grades were also x found for students of the theoretical track concerning belonging to group A or B, except for the subjects Compulsory Piano 1, Reading and Playing Scores 1 and 2 and Conducting 2. The research has limitations because it was conducted on a sample that is related to the assessment in formal education within the European classical music framework. Informal and non-formal forms of teaching were not considered, nor was the learning of popular, jazz or traditional music. The sample of analysed studies is concentrated on music education in three countries (USA 55.2 %, UK 9.1 % and Australia 7.1 %). The most significant number of works deals with performing disciplines (64.2 %) – the teaching area of playing a solo instrument (37 %), chamber music (18.8 %), singing (5.2 %) and conducting (3.2 %). In pedagogical disciplines (28.6%), topics in the field of music education are slightly more represented (18.2 %) than those related to music pedagogy (10.4 %). Apart from the three papers that considered assessment in Solfeggio, there is no research about assessment in other theoretical subjects. The findings of the second stage of the research refer to a sample of students from four music schools in the Republic of Croatia, and although representative in these frameworks, it cannot be generalised since music education systems worldwide differ a lot. In both stages of the research, a period of 25 years was observed, which gives the overview of the results a certain breadth; trends were observed, but also their gradual changes so that are to be expected in the future. The research findings should contribute to a better understanding of the position of assessment within music education and point out potential links between students' achievements in performance and theoretical subjects.