ARTS EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW, 112: 9–25, 2011Copyright C! Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1063-2913DOI: 10.1080/10632913.2011.518122

What If They Believed Us? How Well Prepared AreArt Educators to Deliver on the Promises of Art

Education?

Karen Lee CarrollMaryland Institute College of Art, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

This article raises questions about the breadth and depth of content-area expertise in initiallicensure programs for art teachers, K–12. An analysis of some of the promises made inthe name of art education suggests that art teachers need a high level of expertise and deepunderstanding of art in order to deliver on these promises. To consider the odds of teacherpreparation reflecting that depth, a study of art teacher preparation in the state of Marylandis used as an example of what may be the case in that state and may also reflect preparationelsewhere. Course requirements in the content area of art for all of Maryland’s state-approvedand nationally accredited programs for undergraduate and graduate certification are reported.The article concludes by posing ten questions to institutions of higher education, nationalaccreditation agencies, and national leadership concerned with policy in art education.

Keywords: accreditation standards, art education, certification standards, teacher preparation

Art educators have spent decades struggling to articulate thevalue of an education in the visual arts to the public, as well asto colleagues in the broader field of education (Stankiewicz2001; National Art Education Association [NAEA] 2009a).In 2009, calling on a number of experts from within the fieldof art education, educational assessment, and social com-mentary, the leadership of the National Art Education Asso-ciation (NAEA) constructed an advocacy resource to framethe organization’s vision for art education entitled Learningin a Visual Age (NAEA 2009a). Available on the NAEA Website, the document proposes that the visual arts are of “criticalimportance” in a “flat” world (Friedman 2008) and a visualage in which “aesthetics and creativity are just as importantas technical knowledge in the new economy” (NAEA 2009a,3). Integration has become the new specialty, and the re-port asserts that a new premium has been placed on abilitiesthat visual arts education is said to develop, such as visualspatial abilities, reflection, and experimentation. Learningin a Visual Age also references prior research that suggeststhat the arts teach “a remarkable array of mental habits notemphasized elsewhere in schools, including observing, envi-sioning, innovating, and reflecting” (Hetland et al. 2007). As

Correspondence should be sent to Karen Lee Carroll, Center for Art Ed-ucation, Maryland Institute College of Art, 1300 Mt. Royal Ave., Baltimore,MD 21217, USA. E-mail: kcarroll@mica.edu

well, visual arts instruction is said to “develop young people’ssense of civic engagement,” “stimulate or release imagina-tion by bringing into existence an alternative ‘reality,”’ andmake possible “social interaction with a global virtual criticalcommunity” (NAEA 2009a, 4–6). Given the scope of suchclaims, as Constance Gee (1999) puts it, the sum of our argu-ments begins to sound like, “For you, dear, anything!” Whatif the schools really took us up on the promises we have beenmaking? Are art educators sufficiently prepared to deliverthe kind and quality of education that we have promised wecan offer in our increasingly higher-reaching claims?

Perhaps with good reason, the NAEA document qualifiesthe claims that have been made for the value of the visualarts in education by saying:

Effective teaching requires a substantial amount of expertise.It requires teaching by a skilled and experienced professionalwith extensive arts content background, a range of pedagogi-cal approaches, and the patience and persistence to turn smalladvantages and unexpected events into major breakthroughsin learning. It requires the teaching of an arts education pro-fessional who is a continual learner throughout his or hercareer, and one who is an active member of the art, educa-tion, and art-education communities. (2009a, 9)

However, the NAEA may need to go further and qual-ify the expertise needed, as a 2009 Washington Post article

10 CARROLL

circulated online declared forthrightly, under the headline“The Problem with School Art Programs Are Teachers Who‘Can Barely Draw”’ (Levy 2009) While art educators gaspedat the damaging words, the statement resonated with those ofus who have long felt we are underpreparing the majority ofcandidates who set out to teach art in the schools. I began towonder about the state of art teacher preparation today, givenmore than twenty-five years of influence on the field fromthe Getty Foundation, whose efforts have asserted the impor-tance of art history, criticism, and aesthetics and diminishedthe role of studio practice. Furthermore, I wondered whatmight be changing, given recent calls for more meaningfulengagement with art making (Simpson et al. 1998; Walker2001).

In 1997, the Getty Foundation sponsored a symposium to“discuss the challenge of improving art teacher preparationprograms” (Day 1997). At that time, no database from whichto examine teacher preparation existed. Thus, the Foundationcommissioned a series of data-gathering reports that weresubsequently published by the NAEA as a volume entitledPreparing Teachers of Art (Day 1997); these data providevaluable background for this article. Comparison of data from1997 with my 2009 study reported herein suggests that littlehas changed over the course of more than a decade, and itis quite possible that art teacher education has relied on thesame structure of requirements for much longer. Perhaps thetime has come to take yet another look at the state of artteacher preparation.

First, I need to qualify my point of view. I have the rareopportunity to work with a rather select group of teachercandidates in a top tier professional school of art. All of thesestudents have an extensive background in both studio art andart history totaling some 90 credits altogether. After theycomplete their preparation for initial certification, the Masterof Arts in Teaching (MAT) degree requires, at minimum,another 35 credits, mostly in the area of art education, or asmany as 60 credits combining art education with additionalstudio and art history. Beyond this preparation program, Ioversee two additional professional development programsand have spent some twenty years looking at portfolios of artteachers applying for admission to these graduate programs.Having served as a reader for the Advanced Placement (AP)art exam, an open-ended portfolio assessment designed toassess high school work for foundation-level college credit,I have observed firsthand that many applicants lack the kindof concentrated investigations required for a passing score.Finally, I also run MICA’s Summer Teacher Institute thathas allowed me the opportunity to take a closer look at bothhow early and mid-career art educators are teaching and theirprogress in moving their practice to a higher level as a resultof a studio-based professional development program (Carroll2009).

These experiences, plus many years of working in theschools as an arts coordinator and, later, as a supervisor ofstudent teaching, have left me feeling that our promises in

the art education community might well exceed our capacityto deliver. This is not to say that the arguments we use onbehalf of the field do not make sense. They resonate with usbecause we want to believe that they are attainable—and, inmany ways, they are. Yet I see persistent signs that educa-tion practice is dominated by a mimetic approach whereinyoung people are invited to emulate master artists, and inwhich the emphasis on product mitigates more open-endedor inquiry-based explorations and affords little room for ex-perimentation and risk-taking. I am not even convinced thatmany art teachers encourage a “creative” process in them-selves or their students. Thus, I believe it is important to askif future teachers of art are being prepared in a way that leadsthem to experience and understand at a deep level what teach-ing for visual spatial abilities, reflection, and experimentationor other claims might entail.

I would like to start this inquiry with a look at some of thepromises we are making and an investigation of the level ofexpertise that is needed to deliver on them. I will then takedata from my home state of Maryland as a case study oncourse requirements in studio, art history, and art educationmethods that are typical of undergraduate and graduate levelpreparation. With some additional insights from our summerteacher institute, I will identify some of the factors that haveshaped and defined the development of content-area expertisein art. Finally, I will pose critical questions for considerationby state-level teacher certification and program approval divi-sions; accreditation agencies; deans in education and the artswho oversee preparation programs; faculty in higher educa-tion who teach studio, art history, and art education courses;and policymakers in national organizations.

PROMISES MADE IN THE NAME OF ARTEDUCATION

Lessons the Arts Teach

Quite likely, the single most quoted and referenced articu-lation of the benefits of art education is Elliot Eisner’s “10Lessons the Arts Teach” (Eisner 2002). The list is both so-phisticated in its articulation, resonating well with art educa-tors, and clear and precise enough to be intelligible to a muchbroader audience. In brief, Eisner claims that the arts providelessons about making judgments, finding solutions and an-swers, celebrating multiple perspectives, engaging with com-plex forms of problem solving, understanding that words andnumbers do not define the limits of cognition, attending tosubtleties, thinking through materials and images, learningwhat can be said with images that words cannot, discover-ing through experience, and understanding that what adultsbelieve is important. Since its first appearance, Eisner’s listof ten reasons has been frequently reproduced and, more re-cently, has been posted on the lead page of the NAEA Website, where it is available free for downloading.

WHAT IF THEY BELIEVED US? 11

At first glance, these lessons may appear to be easy todeliver. Yet Eisner (2002) is always pointing to somethingmore nuanced, more sophisticated. His descriptors are qual-ified. He emphasizes qualitative judgments over rules, mul-tiple answers and interpretations, complex forms of problemsolving, processes that allow for unanticipated possibilitiesand thinking through material, attention to subtleties, andthe discovery of personal feelings and poetic capabilities. Itshould follow, then, that a teacher’s studio preparation and artknowledge should have been sufficient to learn those lessons,and that evidence of such qualities and understandings shouldbe visible in their own studio work and reflections.

A Whole New Mind

When Daniel Pink’s A Whole New Mind: Why Right-BrainersWill Rule the Future (2005) became a bestseller worldwide, itignited a sense of hope in the field of art education. Pink wasinvited to deliver an address at the annual NAEA conferencein 2007 that further excited art educators with his articulationof the six R-directed aptitudes that he found most critical tosuccess. Pink uses the phrase “R-directed aptitudes” to de-scribe what was previously assumed to be thinking originat-ing from the right side of the brain. His focus on developingthe six aptitudes of design, storytelling, symphony, empathy,play, and meaning caused visions of the arts moving to thecenter of the curriculum to dance in arts educators’ heads.Again, these aptitudes and lessons seemed so naturally con-nected with the visual arts that few asked if these aptitudesare actually cultivated in the preparation of art teachers.

The Framework for 21st Century Learning

Another current document from the Partnership for 21st Cen-tury Skills (2007) has recently captured the attention of artadvocates who propose that certain skills, attitudes, and be-haviors can be delivered through the arts. In tracing the his-torical shifts from the agrarian to the industrial and informa-tion ages, the Framework draws insights from science andtechnology education to suggest the learning that is neededfor education in the twenty-first century. This document setsforth interdisciplinary themes and particular skills that areessential for life-long learning. While it does not claim thatthe arts exclusively own any of these skills, the hope of arteducators, once again, is that the arts could become a primaryvehicle in fostering:

• Learning and innovation skills, characterized by creativityand innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, andcommunication and collaboration

• Information, media, and technology skills, including in-formation literacy, media literacy, and ICT (information,communication and technology) literacy

• Life and career skills, including flexibility and adaptabil-ity, initiative and self-direction, social and cross-cultural

skills, productivity and accountability, and leadership andresponsibility

The emphasis given here to creativity and innovation isworth noting. This focus stands in sharp contrast to the pre-vailing standards-based high-stakes testing movement in theschools and their preoccupation with products and assess-ments. Creativity, once at the center of American arts edu-cation and research in the 1960s, is now more intentionallysought in foreign countries. If anything, the arts have alwaysprided themselves as offering the one place in the schoolcurriculum that engages students in creative and innovativethinking. Yet to what extent can we say that the prepara-tion of future art educators is likewise constructed to fosterthe habits of mind associated with creativity in this ren-dition of twenty-first-century skills, including capacity forself-direction, initiative, problem solving, creative inquiry,collaboration, and leadership?

Six Reasons the Arts Matter

In 2009, Jerome Kagan, noted developmental psychologistfrom Harvard, delivered a finely contextualized expositionat the Dana Foundation conference on Learning, Arts, andthe Brain. He identified six reasons why the arts matter and,in so doing, gave art education another reference that willlikely be much quoted by advocates. Deriving not from no-tions about the changing world of work, but rather from thedevelopmental and contextual needs of young learners, hestakes these claims, which he says “might be wrong,” on “ra-tional deductions from [his] knowledge of children.” Highlyabbreviated here, he suggests that instruction in music andart matter because they:

1. Boost self-confidence among children who are behindin mastery of reading and arithmetic

2. Help children develop a sense of personal agency3. Develop motor skills, procedural knowledge,

and—most importantly—schematic knowledge4. Provide an opportunity to persuade children that in-

vesting effort to create an object of beauty is an idealworthy of celebration, and that others can share in theenjoyment of a beautiful object

5. Allow a number of children to work as a cooperativeunit in an effort to foster an appreciation of an appro-priate balance between concern with self and concernfor others

6. Provide opportunities for all children to experience andexpress feelings and conflicts that are not yet fully con-scious and cannot be expressed coherently in words.

Kagan’s contextualization of these ideas is worth readingin its entirety, but it suffices here to note that he places ahigh value on the construction of personal meaning througha process of working with materials and making something

12 CARROLL

beautiful, as well as on working in collaboration with others.It logically follows that art educators should have had expe-riences consistent with these goals in their own preparationif they are to orchestrate qualitatively similar experiences fortheir learners.

HOW ARE ART EDUCATORS PREPARED FORINITIAL CERTIFICATION?

No doubt there are many other versions of promises made inthe name of art education, but these examples from voicesboth within and outside the field suggest certain themes to thediscourse: purposeful engagement with art, empowermentthrough inquiry, and aesthetic meaning-making. Assumingthat teachers cannot really teach what they themselves havenot personally experienced and processed through reflectionand analysis, it would follow that content-area preparationfor teaching art should encompass these themes and fosterexperiences consistent with them. As we will see, this maynot necessarily be the case.

A Case Study of Maryland Teacher PreparationPrograms

The motivation for this study comes from the desire to seeall art educators teach better, no matter the place of theirpreparation. By no means did I undertake this study to makethe argument that all art educators should be prepared inprofessional schools of art, even though I believe these insti-tutions provide an excellent context in which to be educated(Carroll, Jones, and Sandell 1994). Not everyone can affordto make the high level of financial investment or wants thekind of highly focused preparation that are characteristic ofan art college. Yet, important lessons and cues may be drawnfrom preparation programs in professional schools of art thatmay inform art teacher preparation in general. A recent in-formal survey of arts supervisors in Maryland suggests thatthese administrators are only moderately—and sometimesnot at all—satisfied by the preparation of art teachers in thestate, with the exception of those candidates from the pro-fessional school of art (Arts Education in Maryland Schools[AEMS] 2009). One supervisor put it this way:

I am concerned that students are coming out of programs withvery weak art skills—many at an introductory level [of] com-petence. Students need to be artist-educators to fully under-stand the thinking process that artists use to solve problems.(SS#1-VA)1

This study also had another origin in my conduct of afollow-up study of teachers attending our 2008 SummerTeacher Institute (Carroll 2009). Sponsorship by the Mary-land State Department of Education in the initial year wasintended to draw the participation of Maryland teachers; pri-

vate funding secured for the second year made possible a50–50 balance of teachers from inside and outside the state.In an analysis of model units submitted prior to the institute,it became evident that a third of the submitted lessons or unitsinvolved little more than projects that required following di-rections. Roughly another third of the teachers submittedunits that would allow students to insert their own mean-ing into their artwork, if students were so compelled; thiscomponent of meaning-making was, however, not explicitlyencouraged or required. The remaining third of the units didencourage personal meaning-making, although their meth-ods for facilitating deeper and more authentic stories andmetaphors could have been further developed. Given thesmall size of the study and the multiple factors that mighthave influenced the level of meaningful engagement demon-strated in sample units, we were unable to make any claimsof associations between teacher preparation and the mannerin which teachers structure or orchestrate art learning.

However, we did monitor any changes that were madein teaching following the conclusion of the institute via e-portfolios and a return visit to campus in January, and in doingso, we began to hear more clearly what teachers were sayingabout their initial preparation for the field. Many were clearlysuffering from a history of “just doing projects” that had leftthem without a real sense that they were artists—despitetheir undergraduate major in art. Teachers possessed a cer-tain naivete about the creative process and the ends that artcould serve. More than once, we heard teachers say, “Now Iunderstand! If what I am being asked to make does not havepersonal meaning for me, I won’t invest in it.” Sadly, oneteacher shared that although she liked art and kids, she knewshe was not an artist—and she yearned for ways to develop amore professional grounding in this role. What explains thisseeming lack of preparation for teaching, given that everyone of these teachers had at least an undergraduate degree inart or art education?

Content-Area Coursework Required forCertification in State-Approved Pre-K–12 ArtPrograms in Maryland

While the data here are gathered from the single state ofMaryland, it is one where art education is in relatively goodshape as a result of consistent leadership at the state anddistrict levels, broad and persistent advocacy, maintenanceof art educators at the elementary level in most districts,and a high school graduation requirement in the arts. Whilerequirements may differ somewhat state by state, my ownsampling of out-of-state programs suggests that my findingshere may reflect the national norm. Furthermore, my findingsare consistent with those found in Galbraith’s 1997 investiga-tion and Zimmerman’s 1997 meta-analysis that gathered datafrom many states and institutions. I gathered Maryland’s pro-gram requirements in February 2009 from available onlineinformation and downloadable documents. Institutions were

WHAT IF THEY BELIEVED US? 13

then invited to verify the data, one-third of which confirmedor corrected data through e-mail and phone conversations. Offourteen programs with state approval to prepare art teach-ers, ten appeared to be active at the undergraduate level andeight at the master’s level, with some institutions offeringboth options (see tables 1 and 2).

I found that some general patterns in studio and art historyrequirements align closely with the type of degree awardedand the undergraduate or graduate level of degree for initialcertification. Again, these findings are consistent with thosereported by Galbraith (1997). The data analysis that followsfirst addresses undergraduate initial certification programs,followed by graduate-level preparation.

Question #1: How Broad and Deep IsPreparation in the Content Area of Art?

Of all the degrees in art education, the BS and BA degreestend to require the fewest credits in studio art, ranging fromtwenty-eight to forty-five; in Maryland, four of the ten pro-grams examined require thirty-three to thirty-six credits—theequivalent of eleven or twelve three-credit courses. Four morerequire forty-two to forty-eight credits—or between fourteenand sixteen three-credit courses. BFA degrees in art educa-tion require more studio credits; the one Maryland BFA inart education, located at Frostburg State University, requiresforty-eight credits in studio art. Common requirements for allprograms include drawing, 2-D design, and painting; mostprograms also require sculpture, printmaking, ceramics, pho-tography, and 3-D design. Half the programs require a coursein electronic media, two require life drawing, and one re-quires watercolor. Nearly all the coursework is media-basedand conducted at the introductory level. Additionally, it ap-pears that students, when they are given the opportunity todo advanced work, may move directly from a survey of in-troductory media-based courses to independent work (seetable 1).

Art history requirements for all undergraduate art educa-tion programs, regardless of degree type, range from six totwelve credits. Eight of ten programs require Western survey,five (or half) require coursework in modern or contempo-rary art, and two require non-Western or global studies (seetable 3).

The sum total of required credits in the content area of artcan therefore range from as low as thirty-nine to as high assixty, largely depending on requirements in the studio area.Even the Towson University program that requires a fifthyear does not require more studio and art history courseworkthan four-year art education programs; rather, the additionalcoursework doubles the standard amount of art educationmethods classes.

For certification at the master’s level, programs can leadto either an MS or MA in art education or an MAT de-gree. Entry into these programs requires a prior bache-lor’s major in art. While some programs accept a BS or

BA in art, Frostburg State University requires a BFA or,in lieu of that, a BA or BS supplemented by additionalundergraduate studio coursework. The Maryland InstituteCollege of Art (MICA), the state’s premier professionalschool of art offering the MAT, also upholds higher stan-dards for candidates, with requirements including a portfoliodemonstrating studio breadth and depth, as well as evidenceof substantial coursework in both studio and art history. Sig-nificantly, MICA is the only school in the state that requiresgraduate-level studio work as part of the master’s degree.No institution requires additional coursework at the gradu-ate level in art history, criticism, or aesthetics beyond whatmight be encountered in art education methods courses (seetable 4).

The evidence here suggests that art teacher preparation infour-year degree programs leading to a BA or BS in art ed-ucation primarily focuses on breadth in studio practice andis uneven in art history requirements and notably short oncontemporary and global art studies. Aside from the MAT ina professional school of art, all master’s programs depend onthe studio and art history preparation received at the under-graduate level as the sole source of students’ expertise in thecontent area.

Question #2: What Opportunities Do TeacherCandidates Have to Engage with Art Making thatWould Be Consistent with Twenty-First-CenturySkills, Knowledge, and Deep Understandings?

At a granular level, opportunities to engage with art makingthat are consistent with twenty-first-century skills, knowl-edge, and deep understandings may depend on the individualinstructors whom students encounter in college art courses.College faculty often work from minimal course descrip-tions to shape their own instructional program and may ormay not be engaged in departmental conversations about out-comes, content, or pedagogy. Nevertheless, course descrip-tions provide certain clues about the content that the collegeconceives as meeting the needs of its students. Given the pre-dominance of media-based course menus, I opted to sampledescriptions of 2-D design courses for some indication of theconceptual focus of a program. Typically, course content isstated in terms similar to the two following examples, the firstfrom Goucher College and the second from the University ofMaryland, Eastern Shore:

Goucher College: Exploration of the basic materials, con-cepts, languages, and techniques of the 2-Dimensional visualarts. Topics include line, shape, value, color, texture, andspace. Emphasis on creative exercises in and out of class.(http://www.goucher.edu/x1466.xml)

University of Maryland, Eastern Shore: This is a foundationcourse in two-dimensional design, which places emphasison the development of skills for the conscious application ofthe elements and principles of design in composition. This

TAB

LE1

Stu

dio

Bre

adth

and

Dep

thin

Art

Teac

her

Pre

para

tion

atth

eB

acca

laur

eate

Leve

lin

Mar

ylan

dS

tate

-App

rove

dP

rogr

ams

for

Art

,Pre

-K–1

2

McD

anie

l(B

A)

Mou

ntSt

.M

ary’

s(B

A)

Gou

cher

(BA

)N

otre

Dam

e(B

A)

Tow

son

(BS;

5ye

ar)

Uof

MD

Eas

tern

Shor

e(B

A)

Mor

gan

(BA

)

Uof

MD

Col

lege

Park

(BA

)Fr

ostb

urg

(BFA

)

Uof

MD

Bal

timor

eC

ount

y(B

A)

Inst

itutio

nsre

quir

ing,

n(%

)

Intr

oduc

tory

-lev

elco

urse

sD

raw

ing

I/II

43

33

66

36

66

10of

10(1

00%

)2-

DD

esig

n4

34

33

33

33

310

of10

(100

%)

Pain

ting

I/II

43

46

36

33

36

10of

10(1

00%

)Sc

ulpt

ure

I4

43

63

33

3(o

rcer

amic

s)8

of10

(80%

)Pr

intm

akin

gI

43

33

33

33

8of

10(8

0%)

Cer

amic

sI

44

33

63

37

0f10

(70%

)Ph

oto

I4

33

33

36

of10

(60%

)3-

DD

esig

n3

33

33

36

of10

(60%

)E

lect

roni

cM

edia

33

33

35

of10

(50%

)L

ife

Dra

win

g3

32

of10

(20%

)A

rtT

heor

y3

32

of10

(20%

)W

ater

colo

r3

1of

10(1

0%)

Cho

ice

418

36–

9In

term

edia

teor

adva

nced

leve

l3

6–9

66

1512

1818

Tota

lcre

dits

2830

33–3

636

3636

4248

4845

–48

Not

e.St

udio

requ

irem

ents

are

liste

din

desc

endi

ngor

der

with

num

ber

ofcr

edits

byin

stitu

tion.

Mar

ylan

dof

fers

stat

e-ap

prov

edun

derg

radu

ate

prog

ram

sat

four

teen

inst

itutio

ns.S

t.M

ary’

sC

olle

geof

Mar

ylan

dan

dth

eM

aryl

and

Inst

itute

Col

lege

ofA

rtno

long

erof

ferc

ertifi

catio

nat

the

unde

rgra

duat

ele

vel.

Was

hing

ton

Col

lege

does

nota

ppea

rto

beac

tive.

Loy

ola

appe

ars

tobe

activ

ebu

tno

info

rmat

ion

was

avai

labl

eon

the

Web

orby

phon

eco

ntac

t.D

iffer

ence

sw

ere

foun

din

UM

BC

’sco

urse

sre

quir

edof

artm

ajor

san

dth

ose

requ

ired

byth

eed

ucat

ion

depa

rtm

ent.

Dat

aw

ere

gath

ered

from

colle

gean

dun

iver

sity

Web

site

san

ddo

cum

ents

dow

nloa

ded

onM

arch

4,20

09.

14

TAB

LE2

Stu

dio

Bre

adth

and

Dep

thin

Initi

alC

ertifi

catio

nG

radu

ate-

Leve

lPro

gram

s

Inst

itutio

nG

radu

ate

Deg

ree

Stud

ioR

equi

rem

ents

forA

dmis

sion

Gra

duat

e-le

vels

tudi

oco

urse

sC

redi

tsfo

rthe

degr

ee/a

rted

ucat

ion

met

hods

cour

ses

Col

lege

ofN

otre

Dam

eM

AT

inA

rtE

duca

tion

Und

ergr

adua

tem

ajor

inar

tN

one

39cr

edits

with

3in

arte

duca

tion

met

hods

Fros

tbur

gSt

ate

Uni

vers

ityM

AT

BFA

inar

tis

pref

erre

d;if

BA

orB

S,ad

ditio

nalc

ours

ewor

km

aybe

requ

ired

prio

rto

entr

yN

one

42–4

5cr

edits

with

3–4

cred

itsin

art

educ

atio

nm

etho

dsM

cDan

ielC

olle

geM

SU

nder

grad

degr

eein

art

Non

e33

cred

itsw

ith3

cred

itsin

arte

duca

tion

met

hods

Mou

ntSt

.Mar

y’s

Uni

vers

ityM

AT

Und

ergr

adde

gree

inar

t;m

ayne

edad

ditio

nalc

redi

tsto

mee

tM

SDE

stan

dard

sN

one

40cr

edits

with

3cr

edits

inar

tedu

catio

nm

etho

dsSt

.Mar

y’s

Col

lege

ofM

aryl

and

MA

T“S

olid

grou

ndin

gin

avi

goro

usly

defin

edm

ajor

”ha

ving

brea

dth

and

dept

h;ow

nun

derg

rad

prog

ram

requ

ires

tota

lof3

8cr

edits

ofw

hich

24ar

ere

quir

edfo

rart

hist

ory

maj

ors

and

33fo

rst

udio

maj

ors

Non

e43

cred

itsw

ith6

cred

itsin

arte

duca

tion

met

hods

Uni

vers

ityof

Mar

ylan

d,C

olle

gePa

rkM

.Ed

Und

ergr

adua

tem

ajor

inar

t,3.

0m

in.;

36cr

edits

inar

t,12

cred

itsin

arth

isto

ry,p

ortf

olio

Non

e30

cred

itsw

ith9

cred

itsin

arte

duca

tion

met

hods

IMC

P/M

.Ed.

w/C

ert.

Sam

eas

abov

eN

one

42–4

5cr

edits

with

9cr

edits

inar

ted

ucat

ion

met

hods

Uni

vers

ityof

MD

Eas

tern

Shor

eM

AT

Und

ergr

adua

tede

gree

inar

t;if

com

plet

edm

ore

than

5ye

ars

ago,

may

need

addi

tiona

lcou

rsew

ork

Non

e39

cred

itsw

ith3

cred

itsin

arte

duca

tion

met

hods

Mar

ylan

dIn

stitu

teC

olle

geof

Art

BFA

/MA

T(5

year

)Fo

rMIC

Agr

adua

tes

only

:18

arte

duca

tion

cred

its,1

5ar

this

tory

cred

its,9

0st

udio

cred

its,p

ortf

olio

show

ing

brea

dth

and

dept

h,3.

0or

bette

r

6cr

edits

thes

is35

cred

itsw

ith15

cred

itsin

art

educ

atio

nm

etho

ds

MA

T(2

year

)B

FApr

efer

red;

BA

orB

Sw

ith40

orm

ore

stud

iocr

edits

,12

art

hist

ory

cred

its,p

ortf

olio

with

dept

han

dbr

eadt

h;ad

ditio

nal

stud

ioco

urse

sca

nbe

requ

ired

6cr

edits

thes

is,

oppo

rtun

ityto

take

15cr

edits

mor

e

60cr

edits

,with

15cr

edits

inar

ted

ucat

ion

met

hods

15

TAB

LE3

Art

His

tory

inA

rtTe

ache

rP

repa

ratio

nat

the

Bac

cala

urea

teLe

veli

nM

aryl

and

Sta

te-A

ppro

ved

Pro

gram

sfo

rA

rt,K

–12

Cou

rse

Mou

ntSt

.M

ary’

s(B

A)

Gou

cher

(BA

)

Not

reD

ame

(BA

)M

orga

n(B

A)

McD

anie

l(B

A)

Tow

son

(BS,

5ye

ar)

Uof

MD

,B

altim

ore

Cou

nty

(BA

)Fr

ostb

urg

(BFA

)

Uof

MD

,C

olle

gePa

rk(B

A)

Uof

MD

,E

aste

rnSh

ore

(BA

)In

stitu

tions

requ

irin

g,n

(%)

Wes

tern

Surv

eyI/

II6

66

86

36

668

of10

(80%

)M

oder

nor

20th

Cen

tury

Art

33

33

43

5of

10(5

0%)

Cri

ticis

m/T

heor

y3

33

3of

10(3

0%)

Non

-Wes

tern

33

2of

10(2

0%)

Ele

ctiv

es6

612

63

Tota

lcre

dits

99

99

1212

1212

1515

Not

e.M

aryl

and

offe

rsst

ate-

appr

oved

unde

rgra

duat

epr

ogra

ms

atfo

urte

enin

stitu

tions

.St.

Mar

y’s

Col

lege

ofM

aryl

and

and

the

Mar

ylan

dIn

stitu

teC

olle

geof

Art

nolo

nger

offe

rce

rtifi

catio

nat

the

unde

rgra

duat

ele

vel.

Was

hing

ton

Col

lege

does

nota

ppea

rto

beac

tive.

Loy

ola

appe

ars

tobe

activ

e,bu

tno

info

rmat

ion

was

avai

labl

eon

the

Web

orby

phon

eco

ntac

t.D

ata

wer

ega

ther

edfr

omco

llege

and

univ

ersi

tyW

ebsi

tes

and

docu

men

tsdo

wnl

oade

dM

arch

4,20

09.

16

TAB

LE4a

Art

Edu

catio

nM

etho

dsin

Art

Teac

her

Pre

para

tion:

Cre

dits

atB

acca

laur

eate

Leve

lin

Mar

ylan

dS

tate

App

rove

dP

rogr

ams

for

Art

,Pre

-K–1

2

Cou

rse

Gou

cher

(BA

)M

ount

St.

Mar

y’s

(BA

)N

otre

Dam

e(B

A)

Uof

MD

,E

aste

rnSh

ore

(BA

)M

orga

n(B

A)

Uof

MD

,B

altim

ore

Cou

nty

(BA

)Fr

ostb

urg

(BFA

)M

cDan

iel

(BA

)To

wso

n(B

S,5

year

)U

ofM

D,C

olle

gePa

rk(B

A)

Art

Edu

catio

nM

etho

ds(c

redi

ts)

03

3(e

lem

enta

ry)

33

33

elem

enta

ry,

3se

cond

ary

4el

emen

tary

,4

seco

ndar

y6

elem

enta

ry,

6se

cond

ary

3m

etho

ds,3

criti

-ci

sm/a

esth

etic

s,3

tech

nolo

gy/2

-Dm

etho

ds,3

3-D

met

hods

Tota

l0

33

33

36

812

15

Not

e.C

redi

tsar

esh

own

forM

etho

dsco

urse

son

lyan

ddo

noti

nclu

depr

actic

um,fi

eld

expe

rien

ce,o

rstu

dent

teac

hing

.App

rove

dpr

ogra

ms

that

appe

arto

bein

activ

ear

eno

tlis

ted.

The

sein

clud

eW

ashi

ngto

nC

olle

ge,L

oyol

a,an

dU

MB

C.F

orM

orga

n,I

was

nota

ble

toid

entif

yin

mat

eria

lsav

aila

ble

onlin

eho

wa

maj

orin

fine

arts

of51

cred

itsw

itha

fore

ign

lang

uage

requ

irem

ento

f6

cred

itsan

dge

nera

ledu

catio

nco

urse

sin

terf

aces

with

seco

ndar

yce

rtifi

catio

nre

quir

emen

tsof

42cr

edits

.May

mee

tor

exce

edno

rmal

requ

irem

ents

for

aB

A.A

llda

taga

ther

edfr

omco

llege

and

univ

ersi

tyW

ebsi

tes

and

dow

nloa

dabl

eca

talo

gues

Mar

ch4,

2009

.

17

TAB

LE4b

Art

Edu

catio

nM

etho

dsin

Art

Teac

her

Pre

para

tion:

Cre

dits

atM

aste

rs’L

evel

inM

aryl

and

Sta

te-A

ppro

ved

Pro

gram

sfo

rA

rt,P

re-K

–12

Cou

rse

MA

TN

otre

Dam

e(M

AT

)M

cDan

iel(

MS)

Mou

ntSt

.M

ary’

s(M

AT

)

Uof

MD

,E

aste

rnSh

ore

(MA

T)

Fros

tbur

g(M

AT

)

St.M

ary’

sC

olle

geof

MD

(MA

T)

Uof

MD

,C

olle

gePa

rk(M

.Ed)

Uof

MD

,Col

lege

Park

(IM

CP)

MIC

A(M

AT

)

Art

Edu

catio

nM

etho

ds(c

redi

ts)

33

33

3–4

69

915

IMC

P=

Inte

grat

edM

aste

rs,M

.Ed

with

art.

18

WHAT IF THEY BELIEVED US? 19

course allows students immediate involvement in the essen-tial problems in the translation of ideas into 2-dimensionalvisual expressions. Students will explore a variety of materi-als and techniques in many media. (http://www.UM Easter-Shore.pdf)

Such modernist course descriptions appear to be basedon a Bauhaus-style curriculum or, more accurately, a cur-riculum generated in 1899 by Arthur Wesley Dow. They donot necessarily reflect contemporary art and design prac-tices that emphasize visual thinking, problem solving, orinquiry, nor do they seem expansive enough to explore thevocabulary that is descriptive of contemporary art (Gude2004). Furthermore, these descriptions appear to perpetuatethe early-twentieth-century notion that the elements of art andprinciples of design are the rightful core of a school art cur-riculum, when meaningful engagement with more dynamicand relevant concepts, themes, ideas, and questions mightprovide art educators with deeper grounding. Although onecould further analyze course syllabi, assignments, and stu-dents’ assessments of instructors’ conceptual orientation, itis important to recognize that some colleges are beginning torethink both the foundation sequence in design and the tradi-tional foundation structure that is based on a traditional set ofmedia investigations. One such example is the art foundationsprogram of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County,which offers a four-course sequence in visual concepts thatexplores two-dimensions, camera vision, three-dimensionalform, space, and interaction, and time-based media.

Question #3: What Level of Sophistication DoCandidates for Pre-K–12 Art Have in ArtEducation Theory and Practice?

For the purposes of this study, art education methods are de-fined as content-specific and do not include student teaching,internships, or other education requirements. The focus ispedagogical, developmental, and contextual to teaching artin K–12 settings. Data suggest that undergraduate programsvary in their methods requirements, which range from zeroto fifteen credits and are typically offered as a single three-credit course covering grades pre-K to 12 or are separatedinto two pieces, one concerning elementary and the other sec-ondary methods. As an exception, one state university, theUniversity of Maryland, offers an art methods course specificto criticism and aesthetics as part of its five–methods coursesequence.

For some reason, graduate-level initial certification pro-grams typically require even fewer credits in methods thanundergraduate programs. In these graduate programs, re-quirements range from three to four credits, with two notableexceptions—the University of Maryland, which requires aset of summer courses in art education to be taken prior to ayear-long internship; and MICA, which complements fifteen

credits of art methods with another nine credits in educa-tional psychology, foundations, and special education—alltailored specifically to reflect art education philosophy, the-ory, and practice, and essentially doubling the amount of arteducation courses to twenty-four credits (see table 2).

Even if the typical three to six credits in art educationmethods are cutting edge, it is not likely that the philosophy,theory, and practice presented in one or two courses couldoverride the instructional models experienced in studio andart history classes. One must assume that teachers will em-ulate models for practice that they have experienced in theirown art education, for better or worse. It is hard to conceivewhat lessons about art education pedagogy, children and ado-lescents’ artistic growth, strategies for teaching, curriculumdesign, history of the field, and contemporary developmentscould be delivered within the limitations of a single three-credit course, or even within two courses.

Summary: Course Requirements for InitialCertification

This survey of Maryland’s approved programs suggests thatcontent-area expertise in this state might best be describedas having breadth but not depth. The programs here displayfour serious shortcomings: First, the breadth of studio courserequirements does not typically accommodate a concentra-tion in which more depth might be achieved; when studentsare afforded the opportunity to create an independent body ofwork, they are catapulted to that stage without receiving suffi-cient intermediate-level grounding. Second, the perpetuationof modernist theory, as implied by many design course de-scriptions, does not reflect contemporary theory or practice inart. Third, requirements for global art history and contempo-rary art studies are largely missing from curricula. Fourth, arteducation methods coursework is entirely missing in at leastone program, and in many programs, the methods coursesare too few to make a difference in shaping the way thatstudents will eventually teach and are typically not substan-tial enough to ensure that teachers are well grounded in arteducation practice, theory, and philosophy. Related factors,which this study does not examine, are the K–12 classroomexperience that studio faculty teaching art education may ormay not have, and the advanced studies that K–12 educa-tors instructing at the college level may or may not have.In either case, it is possible that students could be seriouslyshortchanged in their preparation.

What accounts for this state of affairs? One factor thatcomplicates teacher preparation in art, at least in Maryland,is that teachers must be prepared to teach students from earlychildhood through adolescence. Simultaneously, there is areal need for both breadth and depth in instruction. I invitedtwo Maryland supervisors of large districts to share theirthoughts on why both breadth and depth were important in

20 CARROLL

teaching art education. In an e-mail on June 10, 2009, MarkCoates, from Howard County, offered his thoughts:

Breadth is really important for us, as we want students to ableto teach drawing, painting, printmaking, sculpture, crafts,mixed media—and at the high school level photography anddigital media. . . . By not having depth in their work, acandidate cannot have the understanding that comes withbeing invested in art making. Teachers need to understandthe art making process personally in order to teach thosebehaviors to their students. Helping kids to work throughideas and materials requires a deep understanding that goesbeyond technical understanding.

Further elaborating on Coates’ response, Linda Popp,Baltimore County, wrote on July 17, 2009:

Our strongest art teachers are artists. They are experiencingthe same artistic process that they are presenting to the stu-dents. It’s not something they’ve read about, or were taught,but the way they are living. It’s that deep exploration of anidea that then may lead to a new idea. It’s what we are askingthe students to do. We need to be doing it ourselves. I thinkit is especially important at the high school level. Teacherswho have a “concentration” in their own work are better ableto help students find their own voice in their work. They un-derstand how you can take an assignment/student problemand make it your own. It is the lens that you use to look atany problem.

Given the desire these administrators articulate for bothbreadth and depth—or what is also called “content areaexpertise”—I began to wonder if the standards by whichwe judge both programs and individual candidates are partof the problem. Is this a case of national or state standardsset too low? Do standardized tests help in assessing contentarea expertise? In the following section, I will look at both.

MINDING THE GAP

Is It a Question of Standards for Teaching Art?

Certain agencies, such as state departments, regional ac-creditation bodies, and national testing vendors have the re-sponsibility to ensure that state-approved programs meet setstandards. The NAEA maintains a set of standards that areconsistent with the standards used for accreditation and reac-creditation by the National Association of Schools of Art andDesign (NASAD) and the National Council for the Advance-ment of Teacher Education (NCATE). State departments ofeducation may also use additional standards if they so choose,such as that set by the Interstate New Teacher AssessmentStandards Consortium (INTASC) and the Essential Dimen-sions of Teaching (EDoT). It is somewhat striking that allthese different sets of standards list content-area expertise as

their first priority, with a special emphasis on both depth andbreadth in the specific content areas. The following examplesillustrate this point.

NAEA Standards

NAEA standards (2009b) for art teacher preparation pro-grams with a focus on the content of the visual arts, whichare inclusive of the NASAD and NACTE standards, note thatteacher education programs in the visual arts should:

• Enable candidates to study and engage in the processes ofart making involving traditional and contemporary studioapproaches

• Enable candidates to concentrate in one or more studioareas

• Engage candidates in inquiry in the history of art, enablethem to acquire knowledge of the context in which worksof art have been created, and foster respect for all formsof art

• Include study of a diverse set of traditional and contem-porary artists.

State Standards for Undergraduate TeacherPreparation

The Maryland Higher Education Commission calls foracademic rigor that gives teachers “the depth and breadth nec-essary to effectively teach their subjects” (1995, 1). The samedocument also calls for “campus-wide attention to the impor-tance of ensuring the highest quality instruction—across thedisciplines in the arts and sciences—that will serve prospec-tive teachers. In particular, efforts should be made to improveinstruction at the introductory level” (2).

The 1994 Essential Dimensions of Teaching (EDoT)

The Essential Dimensions of Teaching include the follow-ing standards:

Teacher candidates and teachers will:

1. Demonstrate mastery of appropriate academic disciplinesand a repertoire of teaching techniques

Knowledge

a. Describe theoretical framework and the concepts, princi-ples, facts, and modes of thinking of the subject are to betaught.

b. Discuss historical and current trends and issues within thesubject area(s).

c. Describe major pedagogical theories, concepts, principles& strategies appropriate for the subject area(s).

WHAT IF THEY BELIEVED US? 21

Analysis

a. Interpret the contributions of major thinkers in the subjectarea.

b. Compare and contrast significant forms, elements, andprocesses of the subject area.

Action

a. Model the attitudes, dispositions, and behaviors related tothe subject area(s), e.g. the teacher as scientist, writer, artist,etc.

Reflection

a. Critique one’s own and other’s subject area expertise, e.g.,depth, breadth, and currency.

Given such standards, how are programs with such ob-vious shortcomings in depth and scope being approved? Isit possible that the processes constructed by accreditationor approval agencies do not accommodate a close enoughlook at expert evidence in the visual arts? NCATE, for exam-ple, does not specifically assess visual arts instruction. Hasthe shift from program reviews based on course credits toassessment based on outcomes made it harder for state eval-uators to see the forest for the trees? Or is the existence ofsuch shortcomings a case of not knowing what qualifies asdepth and scope when evaluating art teacher candidate port-folios? Whatever the reasons, it would appear to be possibleto earn the NCATE approval required by the state of Mary-land without necessarily demonstrating depth and scope incontent-area expertise and without offering a single coursein art education methods.

While NASAD does have standards for art teacher prepa-ration at the undergraduate and graduate levels, the only in-stitution that NASAD has accredited in Maryland is MICA,the professional school of art.

Is the Gap a Question of StandardizedAssessments?

Like many states, Maryland relies on the Praxis exams de-signed and administered by the Educational Testing Service(ETS) to ensure that teachers meet a minimum standard, eventhough there is no evidence of a correlation between scoresand classroom performance. The Praxis exams are specifi-cally intended to help assess content-area expertise. Threeexams in the visual arts content area currently exist, eventhough one could dispute the soundness of the assessments,particularly for the so-called studio exam. The plan to rewritethese exams as one exam is good news. However, as eitherpaper-and-pencil tests or computer exams, this method ofassessment is destined to fail the arts—especially if we are

interested in assessing teachers for open-ended problem solv-ing, creative thinking, and meaning-making abilities. At best,the current exams are of limited value in assessing the depthand scope of a candidate’s expertise. The irony is that ETSalso administers the AP exam in studio art, a test that, with itsopen-ended portfolio assessment, stands as a national modelfor reader reliability. Apparently only high school students,not future teachers, are afforded authentic assessment of theircontent-area expertise.

CLOSING THE GAP BETWEEN PROMISES,STANDARDS, AND INITIAL PREPARATION

This inquiry began out of the sense that our public promisesabout the value of art might exceed the capacity of individualart educators to deliver on them. Teacher preparation in artfaces several challenges, specifically its status as a pre-K–12area of specialization and the necessity for its teachers toachieve both breadth and depth in content-area expertise.Furthermore, there are challenges in providing teachers withan education in art that models purposeful engagement withart, empowerment through inquiry, and aesthetic meaning-making.

In truth, the field is only as good as each of its teachers outon the front lines, with real kids in real schools. It appearsthat the gap between our promises and our practice is not dueto a lack of standards, although one wonders if the processof evaluating programs via outcomes has distracted attentionfrom the scope and sequence of required coursework in artand art history. Certainly, the standardized tests required forteaching have been of little help in assessing deep content-area expertise. So what can be done?

Any changes in formal assessments by state departments,educational testing services, or accrediting agencies will takea great deal of time, effort, and resources to implement. In themeantime, it may be more expeditious for individual institu-tions to responsibly examine their own teacher preparationprograms for their capacity to develop content-area expertisein art. Course offerings, especially at the foundation level,the value of current course content, how such courses areconceptualized in light of twenty-first-century thinking, andthe degree to which depth is or could be achieved within in-dividual programs are all matters worth examination. Theseare not only practical issues, but moral and ethical issuesas well. How fair is it to underprepare teacher candidatesfor the profession? How ethical is it to prepare candidateswho will not be competitive in the marketplace or successfulin the classroom, or who will feel insecure when they re-alize the understandings and abilities that they lack? Giventhat underprepared teacher candidates do sometimes secureteaching positions, how moral is it that their young studentsshould receive a substandard art education? Returning to thelarger question posed by this article, is it moral for the field

22 CARROLL

of art education to perpetually inflate promises that cannotbe delivered by the majority of K–12 art educators?

TEN QUESTIONS FOR DELIBERATION

1. Should the BFA in Art Be the Norm Ratherthan the Exception in UndergraduatePreparation for Art Educators?

One conclusion that might be drawn from this study is thatthe amount of coursework required for a BA or BS in arteducation offers breadth but not depth. Even thirty-six studiocredits, typically the high end for a BS or BA, amounts to onlytwelve three-credit courses—little more than the standardarray of introductory-level media-based courses and one ortwo courses in design. Given that a BFA accommodates morestudio work, the odds increase that a student will develop anarea of concentration and gain more in-depth knowledge andexpertise, while still preserving some breadth.

2. Should Student Teaching at theUndergraduate Level Move into a Fifth Year?

Another option in undergraduate initial certification pro-grams is to move the student teaching portion of certifica-tion into a fifth year, following completion of baccalaureaterequirements. Such a shift accommodates a quality check.Students whose work in studio, art history, and art educa-tion courses does not merit continuation into the fifth yearcan complete their four-year degree without penalty, whilestudents whose work does qualify can continue with the pro-gram. This gatekeeping function ensures that candidates havesufficient breadth and depth for initial certification in thefield. However, fifth year programs should also consider in-cluding continuing development in the content area, as wellas additional studies in art education.

3. Should Low-Producing Initial CertificationPrograms Close Out?

Unfortunately, low-producing programs that graduate one,two, or even a few students a year do not constitute a criticalmass that economically merits substantial investment. Nor dothey create a dynamic learning community of art educationpeers. Such programs may manage to offer art education byemploying a single part-time art instructor to teach a singlemethods course, or may assign responsibility to a studio fac-ulty member for whom art education is not a central focus.Might it be more responsible for such institutions to focus onwhat they do well—that is, prepare art majors, BFAs if pos-sible, for entry into graduate-level certification programs inwhich they can find a larger, sufficiently supported commu-nity dedicated to art education? Another option might be forstate departments of education to set expiration dates on stateapproval for programs that are inactive or low-producing.

4. Should Liberal Arts Colleges Refocus onLiberal Arts instead of Art Education?

A liberal arts degree reflects a broad education that can be animportant asset to artists and art educators. Yet, the capacityto offer sufficient breadth and depth in both studio and art his-tory, as well as sufficient art education methods coursework,is decidedly limited in the context of a liberal arts educationand may even be beyond its central mission. Would it be bet-ter for liberal arts colleges to concentrate on doing well whatthey do best and prepare students to command a breadth ofunderstanding that is vital to making conceptually rich in-terdisciplinary connections with art? Under such a system,students undertaking initial preparation in teaching would bedirected to graduate-level art teacher preparation programsthat would add depth to their studies in studio art, art history,and contemporary art.

5. Should More Content-Area Coursework BeAdded to Master’s-Level Studies in InitialCertification Programs?

Preparation for initial licensure at the graduate level raises itsown set of questions. With the exception of programs offeredby professional schools of art, typical programs leading toMAT, MA, and MS degrees do nothing to increase content-area expertise. Rather, they rely on knowledge gained bystudents at the undergraduate level. Graduate-level prepara-tion could provide an opportunity to offer more courseworkin studio art and art history, perhaps with an emphasis oncontemporary theory and practice.

6. Should Art Educators Join in the Conversationabout How to Best Prepare Artists, Designers,and Art Educators for the Twenty-First Century?

The time has come to ask what art teachers—as well asartists and designers—in the twenty-first century should havein terms of dispositions, capabilities, skills, and knowledge.Some people in higher education are already actively en-gaged with these questions, and, as noted previously, there ishopeful evidence that curricular evolution is taking place insome studio programs. Claims about what students will needto do well in the future and to whom the future will belongshould raise important discussions in academia about whatis being taught and how. The “how” of teaching is critical.There is evidence of increasing interest in art teaching at thecollege level from both deans of schools of the fine arts andcurrent MFA candidates. New thinking about pedagogy andcontent at the post-secondary level can be found in a cropof recent books and articles suggesting a surge of interest inpost-secondary art education on which the field might capi-talize (Elkins 2001; Lupton 2005; Madoff 2009; Singerman1999; Tavin, Kushins, and Elniski 2007). Clearly, when look-ing for models to emulate, art teachers will turn to those thatthey encountered as students in their own studio and art

WHAT IF THEY BELIEVED US? 23

history classes. Perhaps it is time to join the conversationabout college preparation in art and its relevancy to today’sartists, art educators, and the younger generation, who willbe the recipients of such an art education.

A less obvious factor worth noting here is that all too often,studio faculty have been dismissive of those who declare arteducation as a major or minor. The message that students donot have to be “that good at art to teach” or the diminishedinvestment of energy in training a future teacher have had anegative impact on the ways that art educators see themselvesand understand the purpose of making or engaging with art.The opposite should be the case: future teachers should beheld to a higher standard by studio faculty and given moresupport, because they will be responsible for teaching others’children.

7. Should Art Educators Initiate a Dialogue withAccrediting Agencies Regarding WhatConstitutes Content Expertise in Art?

Because program approval rests on meeting certain standardsand content-area expertise is high on the list of all involved,art educators may need to have a conversation with accred-iting agencies about what constitutes depth and breadth instudio art, art history, contemporary art, and art education.NASAD and NCATE work together but play different roles interms of approaches to content. NCATE has an official state-ment respecting the accreditation decisions of NASAD inthe field of art education. NASAD has detailed standards forteacher preparation that emphasize art content. NCATE stan-dards emphasize content associated with teaching. NCATEaccreditation is voluntary in some states and required inothers. NASAD accreditation is voluntary in all states andcould serve as a voice for art content in more institutions ifthose institutions chose to participate or otherwise followedNASAD curricular standards and guidelines. It would appearthat many institutions in Maryland are successfully earningNCATE approval for art education programs that do not mea-sure up to the needs of the profession. The same could bethe case for institutions in other states that rely on NCATEfor national accreditation. Accreditation agencies and eval-uations teams may need more information from the field ofart education. More proactively, art educators may want towork directly with NASAD and NCATE to ensure the bestpossible conditions for reviews of art education programs.

8. Should More Resources Be Invested inProfessional Development Programs?

The need for professional development is most likely themost critical finding of this study. Most states have require-ments for renewing teaching certificates that are based on ad-ditional hours or a personal professional development plan,and some states require a master’s degree or equivalencywithin a set number of years following initial licensure.Many factors make continuing professional development im-

portant: the need for a sense of community and renewal,the quest to know more about both art and teaching, andfresh stimulus for one’s own professional development as anartist and teacher. In the absence of high-quality, discipline-specific professional development, other outcomes becomemore likely: loss of self-efficacy, pull of school culture, dis-engagement from the field, and diminished joy in teaching.

Some teachers seek workshops, on-line courses, and mas-ters’ degrees on their own to continue their artistic and in-tellectual growth and transformation (Sabol 2006). Yet, eventeachers with advanced degrees need periodic opportunitiesfor renewal. Research on professional development suggeststhat transformation and renewal require an extended period ofengagement in a community, with opportunities to test ideasin practice and then return for dialogue (Garet et al. 2001).In the present economic climate, it is hard to imagine thatmany school districts have the resources to conduct inten-sive, transformational programs, and states will likely have aharder time finding the resources to fund them as well. Cur-rently, the NAEA has offered to help advertise academies thathave been selected according to professional developmentcriteria. Although the NAEA attempts to select high-qualityacademies for their endorsement, could the organization domore to financially support these professional developmentefforts?

9. What Research Does the Field Need onQuality Art Teacher Preparation?

What do we know about what is required to prepare artteachers of quality who will stay in the profession, and thenature of high quality programs? We need research on qualitypreparation of art teachers, the professional development ofart teachers, and art teacher retention to help the field definewhat constitutes quality preparation. Research that makes aconnection between preparation programs and student learn-ing is also necessary; currently, conversations are occurringat the national level about making a direct connection be-tween K–12 student achievement and the institutions whereteachers obtained their preparation (Duncan 2009; Cibulka2009).

10. Should Art Educators Join the LargerEducation Community in Making the Case forMore Teacher Preparation, Not Less—Both inTerms of Content-Area Expertise andPedagogical Preparation?

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (2009) has predicted amassive teacher shortage in the coming decade. In the rushto supply more teachers, many proposals have already beenmade for alternative preparation programs and fast-tracks toteaching. Although Duncan has expressed concern with thenumbers of new teachers that will be required, he has alsobeen clear about the need for quality educators who are pre-pared for the challenges they will face. He notes that “the

24 CARROLL

bar has been raised for successful teacher preparation pro-grams, because we ask much more of our teachers today thaneven a decade ago” (2009). Because we have participated inraising that bar through the promises that we have made, thecredibility of art educators is at stake.

ART EDUCATION’S CREDIBLE FUTUREAT STAKE

Art educators are at a crossroad. Either the claims being madein the name of art education need to be reconsidered, or thefield must step up to the plate and recognize that the currentstate of teacher preparation and professional developmentneeds serious attention, work, and investment to allow artteachers to deliver on these promises. In some cases, thisheightened level of accountability may mean closing pro-grams that are not ethically and morally responsible to futureart educators and subsequent generations of students. Thefield stands to lose ground in the context of interdisciplinaryarts education if the discipline of art offers no substance;“edutainment,” in which drive-by arts encounters have lim-ited impact outside a comprehensive arts curriculum; or artclasses in which little is done to engage learners in purpose-ful engagement with art, empowerment through inquiry, andaesthetic meaning-making. Yet the times are ripe for change.The conversation has already begun. If art educators stepinto the dialogue with our colleagues, perhaps we can findpartners who are willing to help us realize our potential anddeliver on our promises.

NOTE

1. SS#1-VA is a code for noting school district and thatthe supervisor is in charge of the visual arts. This par-ticular quote comes from an unpublished documentdistributed at AEMS’ Dean’s Roundtable, March 10,2009.

REFERENCES

Arts Education in Maryland Schools (AEMS). 2009. Perceptions of ArtsTeacher Preparation: Maryland Coordinators and Supervisors of FineArts Survey Data. Handout distributed at Arts Education in MarylandSchools’ Deans’ Roundtable, Baltimore, MD, March 10.

Carroll, Karen. 2009. Report on the 2008 Summer Teacher Institute. Unpub-lished report prepared for the Maryland State Department of Education.

Carroll, Karen, Henry Jones, and Renee Sandell. 1994. The professional artschool: A notable site for the preparation of art teachers. In Preserviceart education, ed. Lynn Galbraith, 161–71. Reston, VA: National ArtEducation Association.

Cibulka, James. 2009. How institutions can leverage change as an op-portunity for educator preparation. National Council for Accredi-

tation of Teacher Education. http://www.ncate.org/documents/QualityTeaching/QT Fall 09v5.pdf.

Day, Michael, ed. 1997. Preparing teachers of art. Reston, VA: NationalArt Education Association.

Duncan, Arne. 2009. Policy address on teacher preparation. Addressdelivered at Teachers College, Columbia University, October 22.http://www.tc.columbia.edu/news/article.htm?id=7195.

Eisner, Elliot. 2002. 10 lessons the arts teach. In The arts and the creation ofmind, 70–92. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. http://www.naea-reston.org/advocacy/10-lessons-the-arts-teach.

Elkins, James. 2001. Why art cannot be taught. Check City: University ofIllinois Press.

Friedman, Thomas. 2008. Hot, flat and crowded: Why we need a greenrevolution—And how it can renew America. New York: Farrar, Straus, &Giroux.

Galbraith, Lynn. 1997. What are teachers taught? An analysis of curriculumcomponents for art teacher preparation programs. In Preparing teachersof art, ed. Michael C. Day, 45–72. Reston, VA: National Art EducationAssociation.

Garet, Michael. S., Andrew C. Porter, Laura Desimone, Beatrice Birman,and Suk Yoon Kwang. 2001. What makes professional development effec-tive? Results from a national sample of teachers. American EducationalResearch Journal 38 (4): 915–45.

Gee, Constance. 1999. For you dear, anything!: Remembering and returningto first principles—Part 2. Arts Education Policy Review 100 (4): 3–17.

Gude, Olivia. 2004. Postmodern principles: In search of a 21st century arteducation. Art Education 57 (1): 6–14.

Hetland, L., E. Winner, S. Veenema, and K. Sheridan. 2007. Studio thinking:The real benefits of visual arts education. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Kagan, Jerome. 2009. 6 reasons the arts matter. Keynote address givenat the Learning, Arts and the Brain conference, Baltimore MD, May 6.http://www.dana.org/news/features/detail.aspx?id=21740.

Levy, David. 2009. Art expert: The problem with school arts programsare teachers “who can barely draw.” Washingtonpost.com, October 13.http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/david-levy-the-problem-with-sc.html.

Lupton, Ellen. 2005. The re-skilling of the American art student.AIGA. http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/the-re-skilling-of-the-american-art-student

Madoff, S. H., ed. 2009. Art school: Propositions for the twenty-first century.Boston: MIT Press.

Maryland Higher Education Commission. 1995. Maryland higher educationteacher education task force report, May 1995. Redesign Teacher Ed.pdf;accessed from http://www.marylandpublicschools.org.

Maryland State Board of Education. 1994. Essential dimensions of teaching.www.msde.state.md.us/paab/pds/EDOTSEPT%201994.pdf.

National Art Education Association (NAEA). 2009a. Learning ina Visual Age: The critical importance of visual arts education.NAEA LVA 09.pdf; accessed from http://naea.typepad.com/lva/.

———. 2009b. Professional standards for art teacher preparation. Reston,VA: National Art Education Association.

National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD).2009. National School of Art and Design handbook 2009–10.NASAD Handbook 2009–10 Oct2009Edition.pdf

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. 2008. NationalCouncil for Accreditation of Teachers Colleges Standards. NCATE Stan-dards 2008.pdf.

Partnership for the 21st Century. 2007. Framework for 21st century learning.http://www.21stcenturyskills.org.

Pink, Daniel. 2005. A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule thefuture. New York: Berkeley.

Simpson, Judy W., Jean M. Delaney, Karen Lee Carroll, Cheryl M. Hamil-ton, Sandra I. Kay, Marianne S. Kerlavage, and Janet L. Olson. 1998.

WHAT IF THEY BELIEVED US? 25

Creating meaning through art: Teacher as choice maker. Upper Saddle,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Singerman, Howard. 1999. Art subjects: Making artists in the Americanuniversity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sabol, F. Robert. 2006. Professional development in art education: A study ofneeds, issues, and concerns of art educators. National Art Education Asso-ciation. http://www.arteducators.org/learning/professional-development.

Stankiewicz, Mary Ann. 2001. Roots of art education practice. Worcester,MA: Davis Press.

Tavin, Kevin, J. Kushins, and James Elniski. 2007. Shaking the foundationsof postsecondary art(ist) education in visual culture. Art Education 60(5): 13–19.

Walker, Sydney. 2001. Teaching meaning in art making. Worcester, MA:Davis Press.

Zimmerman, Enid. 1997. Whence we come? What are we? Whither go we?Demographic analysis of art teacher preparation programs in the UnitedStates. In Preparing Teachers of Art, ed. Michael Day, 27–44. Reston,VA: National Art Education Association.

Copyright of Arts Education Policy Review is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not becopied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express writtenpermission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.