This thread was started on the MFC bulletin board today. It's a worthy question for discussion and gets to some political hot button issues that the AOSA membership needs to become aware of. What is "Orff Certification?" Joan Stansbury, chair of the AOSA professional development committee tries to answer:
"The bottom line is that AOSA does not grant certification for completion of Levels training. There is an approval process for courses that meet the criteria for curriculum, teacher qualifications, meeting minimum numbers and returning course evaluations. While all approved courses meet these criteria, there is still variation in content and delivery around the country, as well as variation in mastery among participants. Any kind of certificate of completion that participants receive at the end of Levels training is given by the institution sponsoring the course, not by AOSA. So while people do talk about being "Orff Certified", that label doesn't come from AOSA. It's probably more appropriate to say that someone has completed Level I, II or III." Joan Stansbury - AOSA Professional Development chair.
My goodness but this reeks of politics. We're all circling around the big elephant in the middle of the room. It really is more cut and dried than this very good, politically correct answer would have you believe.
The university that offers the course also gives credit, certification if you will. If you pass the course you are "certified" as having passed the course BY THE UNIVERSITY. You may correctly say that you are "certified" by the university as having passed the course according to the university curriculum and expectations.
The uniqueness of the AOSA Level course system is the partnership with universities and schools. This is also the source of the confusion. At the university level the course can be approved, or "certified" by the AOSA according to prescribed guidelines mentioned above:
"There is an approval process for courses that meet the criteria for curriculum, teacher qualifications, meeting minimum numbers and returning course evaluations. "
If a university course is approved, the participants may say that they have passed the course both according to the university requirements AND the requirements laid out by AOSA. The student may accurately say that they have been "certified" by the university in an AOSA approved Levels course. It's a simple step to then be able to say that the student has been "certified" by the AOSA for having passed the course. It's a little silly for the AOSA to come back and say that they don't actually certify students because they don't hand out certificates! It would be easy for the AOSA to simply give permission for the university to add the words, "AOSA approved" on each certificate. This would satisfy those who desire this type of official recognition for resumes or applications.
What's the elephant in the room? Joan has touched on it very delicately by saying:
"While all approved courses meet these criteria, there is still variation in content and delivery around the country, as well as variation in mastery among participants."
The issue that is causing a lot of headaches is the clash of the different streams of thought in the Orff world. One stream emphasizes curriculum development, another emphasizes harmony and orchestration, yet another feels strongly that the original Schulwerk must be preserved stylistically. Other small streams of thought are being developed and expanded as the Schulwerk grows and spreads throughout the world. It is these differences in the streams of thought that divide us and is what Joan is referring to in the comment above. AOSA must remain above the political fray and can't officially "certify" courses because the ideas of one stream conflict with the "content and delivery" another.
The "variation in mastery" comment is very significant. Because of the necessity of staying above the political fray, the AOSA is forced into a very awkward position saying that someone who has PASSED a university level course that has been presented according to AOSA specifications, by an AOSA certified instructor may STILL not be qualified enough to be considered "Orff certified."
Hopefully, our new "Education" director will begin to tackle these issues and begin to organize the whole program of professional growth for the AOSA. Stay tuned.
UPDATED 8/23/2007
Perhaps a simple statement from the AOSA clarifying the "certification" process would finally be necessary. Perhaps this statement
The American Orff-Schulwerk Association does not award certificates, credits or other indicators of completion of Teacher Training courses. These are the responsibility of the sponsoring institution.
on the Teacher Training Course Application could be amended to indicate that successful completion = certification. In addition, a simple statement could be added to each university generated certificate for successful completion of any AOSA sanctioned level course. It could be "AOSA approved levels course" or something similar. The idea here would be for each participant to have accurate documentation for resumes, registrations, evaluations, recertification, and job applications.
If a teacher passes a Level 1 AOSA sanctioned course, they may say so as long as they indicate the level. Same thing with Level 2. When someone introduces themselves to me as an Orff Certified teacher, my next question is always, "Where did you take your level courses?" That tells me what level they've completed.
You can't fix everything for everyone, but simply saying "successful completion of this course = Level 1 Orff certification" would clarify things for students and for the general music education community. I don't think the way the Levels courses are offered should change and we need to be wary of standardizing things too much! It's a field of wildflowers after all, but there is confusion out there and perhaps it's time for clarification.
