Matt has interesting points to the rebuttal for accreditation of
professionals.
I've been wondering about accreditation of interpreters. The National
Association of Interpretation is proposing accreditation for interpreters. It
costs money to apply  and go through the process. (Just like it does for
organists in the American Guild of Organists who audition for accreditation at
various levels of musical and academic proficiency.)

This cost will not be easily absorbed by small independant sites who are not
linked with the National Park Service or by individuals- who by the nature of
their jobs - never get paid a decent wage.

I also have thoughts about what will be missing from the check list of what it
takes to be a good interpreter - good enough to pass muster for accreditation
on paper.

Like music (the organist thing again) - you've got to be seen in action with
live, ever changing audiences to really see if you can do what the job calls
for.

Has AAM considered this level of museum professional - or, are
interpreters/guides/museum teachers/docents still considered ancillary to what
museums are all about???
(There's a lot of museum curators out there that couldn't give a decent mixed
audience public tour if their endowments depended on it. I've been both a
curator and a front line staff person - The public needs both.)

Will we have two accreditation granting agencies if AAM and NAI don't reach a
point of agreement?

Just idle Saturday thoughts....

Katie Boardman