Yes, I had an artistic problem:
I applied for a faculty grant to attend the conference in Chattanooga. Our school provides monies for faculty to pursue a number of things that are usually divided into three areas:
A. Professional development that leads directly to classroom teaching (i.e., a conference sponsored by the College Board for teaching AP Three-Dimensional Design or a workshop on hand-building with Randy Johnston.)
B. Professional development that indirectly leads to classroom teaching (i.e., a conference on Learning and the Brain, or a workshop on Strategies for Teaching Boys.)
C. Personal development for the teacher outside their area of expertise (i.e., guitar lessons for a non-music teacher.)
The feedback that I got was that committee did not want to fund my proposal because "we don't do that kind of teaching here." At first I was amused, but then I slowly got angry. I couldn't figure out what language it was that they objected to: Monologic presentations are out and collaborative explorations are in? Were they objecting to the format of the conference? That topics include Aesthetics? Studio Based Learning? Learning Environments? Were these topics that they couldn't understand or relate to? It was puzzling and frustrating at the same time.
In talking with my department head, it became clearer to me that this might be one of the hills that I die on. I feel like we have to show MORE how studio based learning is not only as valid as classroom based teaching, but in many instances, should be the preferred way of teaching in the classroom. My goal with this conference is to come back and have more information to run an informative teaching session for young teachers and open their eyes to how studio based teaching can impact all curriculums.
That said, the committee did fund some of the conference but not all, as they usually would. My department will make up the rest. A small hurdle cleared...
(in the interest of disclosure, the image at the top of the page comes from the UTC website...)
