>> My observation is that certification is relatively meaningless. What counts >> is the instructor's ability and his capacity to connect with students. >> There are no objective standards for art, anyway, so certification is in >> itself somewhat arbitrary. I would even say that many lousy teachers hide >> behind their certification. > >I am just reading Monday's email, but I have a feeling the above >statement is going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. One could be an >extremely talented artist, knowledgeable and skillful in many >techniques, with a strong art history background - and be lousy at >"teaching". Or, one could be a skillful motivational speaker and great >at managing groups of children - but have such a weak art background >that virtually no learning takes place about art. The process of >certification certainly does not guarantee a successful teacher, but >those of us involved in teacher education programs do at least make a >serious effort at it. As far as the comment about an ineffective >university professor in the seventies, remember please that people who >teach at the university level usually have subject area degrees, not >education degrees. Many have not taken any methods courses, and have not >gone through any kind of certification program. Some become excellent >teachers; some just remain subject area experts. >-- >Sandra Hildreth
I am sorry if I came on too strong - I am often a little crabby and tend to
speak in overbroad generalizations. I meant no offense - a good art teacher
can have a powerful influence on a child's interests.
Have to run, but I hope I can be better behaved in future conversations.