I like the latter, both because there is indeed Art in teaching, and because "Excellence" makes me want to puke on a yuppy.

I think you're both right. His works better for the ear, but I like yours better conceptually. Yours is also easier to say as an acronym, either as eye-tee-tee-ay or "ittuh." Plus it sounds more creative and less boxed-in. So I'll go with advantage: you.

"Institute for Excellence in Teaching and Training" sounds like something from 1950's Communist China, like a poorly translated euphemism for the government agency that tells you exactly what you can and cannot teach, under penalty of imprisonment, hard labor, or both.

Well, either that or a made-up internet diploma mill that consists of little more than a web site and a paypal address.


"Institute for the Teaching and Training Arts," on the other hand, sounds like an NGO devoted to training teachers.

Mostly, I guess I'm just inherently suspicious of any organization that descibes itself using words like "excellence."

I suggest "Not-So-Stodgy Pedagogy". It 's got ZAZZ.

Hmm.

On the one hand, your version abbreviates better ("ITTA" beats "IETT"). Also, your version does not explicitly promise "excellence" and thus sounds less like blowhard bullshit. On the other hand, the phrasing of your version IS kinda awkward -- the "the" before "teaching and training" makes little sense until you hear "arts", so there's a momentary confusion (I had to read it twice to figure it out, but that's just me, Resident Dim Bulb).

I like the intent of your, but the sound of his.

Glad to be totally unhelpful.

On preview -- aha! dersins agrees that "excellence" is a red-flag word.

Yours is better. Take that, other guy!

The word 'excellence' makes me think of Rush Limbaugh. Also that crap management book from the '80s.

Are you seeking funding in the US? I have a skewed sample, but I've been finding that education organizations that use "Excellence" tend to be politically conservative (anti-union, mostly).

I may be wrong about that one, but there definitely seem to be "code words" in education policy that work as dog whistles for the right or the left. "Choice" or "access" generally means vouchers, for example; "accountability" seems to be anti-teacher and pro-testing.

I work (not really by choice) on the conservative end of that spectrum, so I don't know what the politically liberal codes are. And, obviously, I don't know where y'all are, or want to be, or want to avoid getting involved in.

You may just want to pull up a few education policy group names and try to get a feel for what the "code words" are to make sure you're sending the message that you intend?

Please guys, do keep it coming. This is important data for when we wake up and buy a website tomorrow. We are the only two native speakers around, so these opinions matter. Other brainstorming ideas are also acceptable and encouraged.

On non-preview: "Heh" on Limbaugh and "excellence."

occhiblu: it is an EU context, so although USians will hear it, it's mainly Brits and non-natives that are the audience. He will get a chuckle finding out that he has used Limbaugh code words, that isn't either of our political background at all. As a Canadian it is news to me, too - I've been out of the North American context quite a while.

Does sound a bit art-specific. What about "Technical Institute for Teaching, Training and Industrial Excellence in Schools"?

I agree with the above posters, the use of "Excellence" triggers my inner cynic and implies that it isn't excellent, and it does sound like a re-education program from Mao era China.

I like "Institute for the Teaching and Training Arts" best of the two, but I agree with BitterOldPunk that it's a bit awkward trying to stuff both "teaching" and "training" under "the arts of". Maybe just "Institute for the Teaching Arts"?

Might the 'teaching arts' part confuse people into thinking that the institute is concerned specifically with fine-arts instruction?

As a Canadian it is news to me, too - I've been out of the North American context quite a while.

I wouldn't really have picked up on it being a politically charged word except that I've been writing about education policy for the past year, and our resident expert has been very particular about the terminology we use.

Of the two, I like yours better.

I deal with a lot of charities through my work, and believe me, some of them have a mouthful of a name. A name like this might be benenficial in that it stands out a bit and is more memorable.

I don't know anything about this sort of thing, but does the word Institute need to be used? Have you considered using Foundation or Society or are there different rules according to what it is named?

E.g. European Society for Excellence in Teaching or European Teaching and Training Foundation (which is very similar to a RL charity I deal with) or European Teaching and Training Society?

Obviously, European can be substituted with whatever region or area you scting in.

scting = acting

organizations that use "Excellence" tend to be politically conservative (anti-union, mostly)

I agree but would fine-tune it a bit: in my field (education) "excellence" doesn't mean just 'conservative' - it means "We're going to list a ton of criteria in this booklet and we're going to evaluate/score you on them or expect you to do it yourself." Not coincidentally, that is exactly what a lot of conservative institutions like to do in their quest for quantifiable information, so I think that's why the association.

The opposite, the more socially liberal initiatives, like the word 'Innovation.' "Institute for Innovation in Teaching and Training" would be an example. Or "Creative Solutions."

This will sound crass, but without judging one vs. the other, I'll ask you: what's getting funded? When you look at groups whose goals align with yours, who's doing well, and what language are they using? The language of quantification and safety ("excellence") or the language of new ideas ("innovation")? Your name signals priorities and makes a difference with funders, so think about what they'd value and reward.

Quite subjectively, I'd say that either name sounds jargon-y. I love the arts myself, and agree that teaching is an art, but it's also a science with a lot of research into cognitive development behind it. I worry that a name including "Arts" might confuse donors or supporters about your mission and what you intend to do. It sounds more like a research organization, a teaching and learning think tank, and less like an idea that is in action on the ground. I guess it might help if you can give us the elevator version of your mission - maybe you are a think tank, in which case, it's probably perfect. But if you're actually training people to teach, you might want to go with something that connotes the pragmatic and action-oriented.

I vote: "Institute for the Teaching and Training Arts"

Institute for the Pedagogical Arts. Or Pedagogical Arts Institute. I agree, ditch excellence if you can.

Ars Pedagogica. :)

Which also has the advantage that when you are pissed off at it, you can call it Arse Pedagogica!

Nevermind sounding better, does it reflect what the organization does, deserves some consideration. Then rip a name.

Arts are farts and are rather looked down upon, for no reason, but they are. Drop 'Excellence' completely, some may want excellence, but they get slackness instead.

Engineered Teaching and Training has cache and it's all about that, isn't it./
Use the KISS[keep it simple stupid] priciple and don't overbloviate.

Guys, your feedback has been indespensible to us, and after a sleep we have decided we need to ditch "excellence" and "arts". We are now thinking something short and evocative, rather than descriptive, avoids an unwieldy acronym... and we put a very concrete description in a "byline".

At this moment we are liking

The Modern Institute: Promoting Social Integration through Language Teaching and Training

Any thoughts? We are pretty solid on this at the moment

"The Modern Institute" is a pretty great name if somewhat vague when initially heard.