Kavin Taylor wrote:
> Curt wrote:
>
> > Do you understand what the word curriculum means?
>
> Yes I do.
No, apparently you don't.
> Once again, you get caught in your attempt at being clever
> and you try to narrow a definition down. Try your little friend
> Wikipedia.
Not necessary as it relates to this exchange.
> Can you admit that you might be teaching math when you suggest
> that gray is one part black paint and one part white paint? Oh wait,
> that's not part of the art curriculum.
And what does that have to do with cleaning up after class, working
quietly, and raising hands? Those nonachievement factors you mentioned
as being somehow a part of an art CURRICULUM?
You wrote: "Oh, that's right, you don't make your students clean up
after class.
Or work quietly. Raise hands to ask questions.
No, no social skills." /quote
An art curriculum doesn't cover those factors nor does it cover what
I'd characterize as social skills.
> Or perhaps you could be teaching ethics when you tell students
> they can't turn it another student's work as their own?
Apple.
> Nope, not
No, it's not. You are correct. However, should I deduct for
spelling? ;o)
(That's no me being clever as much as it is you making a typo, btw.)
> art at all.
Orange.
Telling a student not to plagiarize is not the same as teaching them
about linear perspective. Apples and oranges, Kavvy.
Do I expect students to do their own work? Typically, but that's not a
component of the art curriculum. When's the last time you were in an
art class as a student or as a teacher? There are numerous times when
I'll see a student working with another student on an art assignment.
One child feels more confident drawing faces while another can draw
awesome cars. They team up to complete the art activity. Is that
against your apparent ethics? Would you mark that behavior as being
contrary to your imaginary art curriculum? Or have you, as part of the
play you're (I'm assuming here) continuing your work toward
completing, actually created an art curriculum of your own? One, I'm
certain, that has cleaning up after rehearsal, working quietly, and
raising hands to ask questions as critical components. Hmm?
> No Curt,
Yes, Kavin? You have something to add?
> the art curriculum is not just crayons and paper.
This much you have correct.
> Students don't just learn pretty colors when they use crayons.
Oh, I must have missed the part where I offered up that opinion. Cite,
please?
> They might also learn a bit of physics.
I wouldn't be surprised. Took a class as an undergrad, the Chemistry
of Color was the course's name, iirc.
> When a social studies teacher discusses how bronze caused a change in
> society, can't you see how chemistry is touched?
Your point?
> Probably not. It's more important for Curt to try to appear clever.
And it seems, unfortunately, that you have more interest in being
argumentative than having a discussion. I'm guessing THAT's your
point. Enjoy.
> And I'd suggest you re-read the standards.
http://www.pde.state.pa.us/stateboar...ed/pdfarts.pdf
Ha! There's a cool URL. It has farts and skateboards! What more could
you want?
Read and enjoy, Kavin. Maybe that's one thing our exchanges are good
for, eh? We both sit and think a bit. Oh, wait, I don't think. I just
pop off whatever's in my head, right?
> It does suggest a bit more than you seem to believe.
I believe it's time for breakfast.
And I believe you can believe whatever you'd like, but that won't
necessarily make it the truth.
Hth.
--
Curt