Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.

Lesson Plans


Re: Re: non art certified possible?

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
Wizzlewolf
Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:15:02 EST


Musee
In a message dated 11/1/99 7:27:00 PM, you wrote:
<<I do not go to college to be trained. ( I
have several degrees by the way and a very broad academic background) I
think the term training is demeaning to the profession. >>

First of all, I would like to ask that if you are referring to something I
said, please point out the remark you are commenting on. One of the posts
today, linked my name (Wizzlewolf) with a comment about "paying dues". I
NEVER used that phrase in any of my posts. Apparently someone else did.
I did use the word training in one of my notes and I used it in a way that
school systems use the word. We go to training to learn more. If you are
offended by that word and think it is demeaning, that is your own problem.
That is the word we use for going to classes to become better teachers.
As far as this continuing discussion about artist / art education, I have
made observations about both teachers and artists. I think there can be
excellent art educators with various types of backgrounds (and terrible
teachers too.) I think that the more TRAINING you can get in ALL areas is
just more of an asset. I did not get my degrees in Art Ed. I was a visual
artist before I was a teacher. I went the BFA, MFA, Art Ed cert, Spec. Ed
cert, National Board certification route. With all these different
perspectives, I have a wide range of diversity and expertise. This allows be
to be the best art teacher I can be. wizzle