>From: craig roland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Oh...I didn't think you are bashing "colleges or universities"...or
> "art ed professor types" like me. I was simply trying to make the
> point that much of the decision-making about what an "art education
> student" studies is determined by "political types" (as you mention
> above) and accreditation agencies.
I guess "I" have been quilty in the past of bashing art professors about the
state of student teachers who are leaving the campus unprepared...and I
still feel adamant about that seeing the wide gaps in their knowledge base
as they stand up in front of my students. But, in the same vein, I've never
really considered what you are also having to go through on your end...and
now I do. Remember our "dance"? Ha. I'm very glad you wrote expressing the
following message, Craig.
> For us in art education, the curriculum for preparing future art
> teachers is now becoming so saturated with issues/content that
> there's little time left for our students to actually study art
> (e.g., our art ed students have to take reading classes be able to
> set up a "testing" environment in the classroom, be able to read the
> results of state tests in math and reading, etc,) I would rather see
> some of that time go to study in studio art and art history.
This is so FRUSTRATING. Being always hungry for more knowledge in our
respective fields, we have to sit through these endlessly long faculty
meetings and staff development days listening to all this unmotivating,
droning drivel about "testing, statistics on ratings, testing results,
motivational techniques for testing...on and on...ad naseum". Bottom line
for my kids is...you can't test them on anything if you don't teach them
anything. It's just that simple. Toodles.....