I really feel sorry for art teachers who have to put up with kids who have absolutely no talent but their parents insist that they do classes in the false belief that their precious little darlings will become a Rodin, Motzart, Van Gogh etc.
I think there is a lot of truth in the saying that "art can not be taught, technique can".
I would go even further regarding technique - I think people can develop their own skills, sometimes doing things better than the established techniques that are being taught.
A great thing that most art teachers do is to encourage an interest in art, but if a student has no talent there is not much you can do.
There is. . . another side to no talent. It is undiscovered talent. I have found over the years that some kids growing up can not work on a flat surface-it frustrates them. These kids are often misunderstood; it is not that they are not talented, it is that they see things in 3D and cannot translate it. To assume one has no talent in art is to assume wrongly and is judgmental. I have seen that it is important to have the crafts, and 3D fine arts in the schools as a venue for those students that have talent, have not talent, and are undiscovered. Many times I would walk through the wood shops looking at student projects in there. Sometimes I would see something that caught my eye, and on talking to the student found he had designed it himself. I always probed further and asked if they would be interested in an art class, to go on to the other courses like the Jewelry and Metalcraft, Sculpture or Ceramics. Point being, if you have only seen or tried drawing and painting, how do you know that you could not do something working more with 3D and modeling. Even my animation classes had talented kids that only showed up when working in a 3D animation, not in a 2 D animation. Talent and creativity are too illusive and too subtle to make judgement until all of the stones have been turned over.