Review of CSULA Theatre and Dance Departments Reviewed by: Dr. Jeffrey Koep, Professor of Theatre/Dean Emeritus, UNLV Dr. John Mayer, Professor/Chair of Theatre, CSU Stanislaus Dates of Visit: Monday and Tuesday, February 21 and 22, 2017 Table of Contents General Overview of Department 3 Evaluation of Program Quality 4 - 13 Commendations of Strengths, Innovations, and Unique Features 14/15 Opportunities for Improvement 16/17 Overall Recommendation to the Review 18 2 General Overview of Department The focus of this report was on two of the three entities, theatre and dance, within the Department of Music, Theatre, and Dance at CSULA. The external reviewers were fortunate to interview members of all constituencies related to those areas including students, staff, faculty and administrators. This appeared to be the first meaningful external review since 2004. The department has an impressive history and continues to offer majors a positive and meaningful educational experience; however, the department is in strong need of redefining itself through a thorough internal planning process. From the reviewer’s perspective, one of the first steps in this planning process is to separate the individual departments, so that music and theatre/dance become standalone departments, due to the unique needs of each individual area. The marriage of the two departments that occurred approximately 6 years ago has reaped few discernable benefits, and in fact, has probably hindered growth in the individual areas. The relentless changing of leadership both departmentally, as well as in upper administration, has further delayed important decision-making that might have helped the theatre/dance area to develop a consistent plan for moving forward. This time right now can be a meaningful moment in the development of these programs if all the interested parties get together to collectively shape the future directions of the department. 3 Evaluation of Program Quality History, Mission, Goals, and Objectives: The Department enjoys a rich history of delivering quality theatre education; however, changes in administrative/managerial roles over the past 14 years or so have led to inconsistency in terms of a unified pedagogical focus by the faculty. This appears to be due in large part to a lack of ongoing communication between all of the faculty members. During this review, one of the primary questions that seemed to be bubbling just beneath the surface was whether or not this was a venue for professional training, or rather a hub for a broader-based liberal arts education. In fact, during the initial orientation of the reviewers, CSULA administrators stated: “Theatre has a BFA program masquerading as a BA.” When this sentiment was shared with departmental faculty, the reviewers met with mixed reactions. Certain faculty felt that a true broad-based theatre education was not as strong as the pressure to prepare students for the profession, while others felt it was the opposite. This is clearly a primary question that must be answered in a viable planning process. The faculty universally agreed that CSULA is ideally located geographically for a theatre program to thrive given its immediate access to the professional television, theatre, and film industry. The purview of the reviewers is not to dismantle and design a new department, but rather to observe and report. The recent history of the department over the past 10 years or so, suggests that 4 this is a department caught in stasis resulting in limited growth and innovation. The previous statement may seem damning - such is not the intent of the reviewers. Changes within the Department have occurred largely due to administration’s attempts to consolidate and reorganize. The result is that the faculty, justifiably at some times, has used as an excuse, or has blamed administration for the department’s lack of progress. Creating a Department of Music, Theatre, and Dance in a merger that was never fully supported, completed, or accepted has left the Department void of any true planning processes that might/could result in a Mission Statement that speaks to CSULA’s unique programs in theatre and dance. The Mission of Theatre and Dance, as reported in the self-study under section 1.2a, is not a focused statement. Section 1.2, which states the Mission of Music, Theatre, and Dance is slightly more focused; however, the result is, as one faculty member put it, a series of courses that are offered but are not truly connected to any department mission or goals. In short, faculty members teach courses with high quality for the most part, but rarely communicate as a synergistic group. The development of a mission statement and the resulting supporting documentation document is essential to breaking the logjam that has been created. Again, this moment in time can be an extraordinary opportunity for a clearly a multi-talented faculty and staff to recommit to a strong path for positive growth and change. The goals and objectives, as written, are in keeping with best practices. The difficulty is, as stated in the self-study: “Given the merger with Music, the 5 work of creating measurable goals and objectives, across three disciplines (music, theatre and dance) has not been a priority task. Additionally, many in the Theatre arts and Dance program have stated confusion about how to create any measurable goals and objectives in a program that includes all aspects of the disciplines: technical, performance, history, theory, and more.” (Page 4, Section 1.4.) Best Practices in all of higher education REQUIRE measures in all disciplines. For example, in Section 1.3 goals and objectives are listed discretely for each area. In the Design and Production area the Set, Costume, and Lighting Design areas are listed. Close examination reveals that “design”, or the process of designing, is given little attention compared to the techniques of construction, etc. The skills acquired are marketable, if that is a goal, but students wishing to actually design, or pursue a graduate degree is design, will need more than technical skills and should include play analysis, basic of design, etc. The conclusion that “design” is lacking is due to what is presented in the self-study. Interviews reveal there is a dearth of actual design faculty, full or adjunct. At present, there appears to be no full-time faculty dedicated to the design area as borne out by the fact that non-faculty designers are hired for actual productions. The hiring of full-time tenure-track faculty design member(s) is a major priority for the theatre department moving forward. This leads to a need that must be seriously discussed BY ALL FACULTY. This year, 2016-2017, only two mainstage productions were produced by the Department. The reviewers were told this was not the norm, but there appears 6 no agreement on how many productions the department will produce each year. Season selection seems without a format that engages all faculty and appears to be built more by individuals who want to direct specific productions; whereas, a season planning process should best be developed through a process that places the development and education of students in theatre at the forefront. Questions such as: “What periods do we need to introduce students to?” “What areas are lacking in our season?” “How do students in management areas learn to market a season?” are a few questions that need be addressed. The “performed readings” organized by one faculty member that features professional actors and some students exposes students to dramatic literature and its interpretation through the spoken word, and provides a strong base that should be continued; however, the needs of the students for more actual production experience should fuel this ongoing project. The M.A. in Theatre continues despite the retirement of a faculty member who championed the program. The program continues under the leadership of a faculty member from Dance. Here again, lack of a plan, agreed to by the faculty as whole seems, suffers from a lack of collaboration. How this degree fits into the scope of the ENTIRE is ambiguous. Simply put, there appears to be no common plan for the future of the M.A. What is its goal? Is it worth departmental resources moving forward? The MFA, a shared program, received many positive comments, and appears to be poised for growth. How this program fits within the Theatre and 7 Dance program appears, from the self-study not to have been widely addressed. Given the geographical location this can develop into a premiere program. Theatre’s involvement seems a bit service-oriented at present, but the director of the MFA program certainly has an excellent plan for growth and quality, which is supported by the theatre chair and several faculty members. The entire faculty must address the nature of the ongoing relationship of the MFA program to the theatre department. This is important because future plans articulated by the MFA director indicate an increase in students, which may prove difficult with so few performance/acting-based faculty in theatre. Again, the existing theatre faculty’s specializations do not match the needs of a thriving performance-based program. All issues mentioned in this section of the review can be addressed by and with present faculty; the key seems to be putting aside individual “silos,” a word much mentioned, and creating common “buy in” by the entire faculty. Program Data: Enrollment Data & Impact of Enrollment Trends: Actual enrollment has been a bit of a roller coaster. At the initial meeting very low number of majors were mentioned. The Chair informed the Reviewers that as of Fall 2016 the Department had over 150 students self-identifying as theatre majors. This is certainly a robust figure and if it can be sustained will lead to a solid core of majors that could be accommodated by the number of full-time faculty presently within the program, but the problem remains that the specializations of the departmental members do not mesh to provide an overall experience that an incoming major would need.