DATE:
April 24, 2000
TO:
Julie Furst-Bowe
FROM:
John Murphy, Dean
College of Arts and Sciences
SUBJECT:
Response to Program Review of B.S. in Art Education
I concur with the consultants’ report and their discussion of the program’s strengths and its opportunities
for program enrichment. Keeping labs current, the use of advisement committees and course availability
and access are issues of common concern and have been, and will continue to be, areas of concern for the
department and college. I also agree with the recommendations made to the department chair and the
program director. The chair and program director have indicated that these recommendations will be
acted upon in the coming months.
It was suggested that the dean investigate the viability of a stand-alone program director for the B.S. in
Art Education. This is an issue of continuing concern for the college and the department. However, the
relationship of the B.S. in Art Education and the B.F.A. in Art requires very close coordination of the two
programs. Many of the requirements and courses of the two programs overlap. It is felt that at this time a
single director who has responsibility for both programs best serves the students in the two programs.
The department is planning a retreat for next fall to assess its programs and develop a strategic plan for its
future. This topic should be included in those discussions.
Recommendation for the Department Chair:
1. Investigate course duplication and/or overlap and reduce where possible.
Response:
The Department of Art and Design Advisory Committee will continue to schedule regular course
revision requests to ensure that formal course outlines reflect current practice and ensure elimination
of inappropriate course duplication. The department chair will review current course outlines from
departments providing the education core courses to make sure specific art education and core
education courses do not inappropriately duplicate content.
Recommendations for the Program Director:
2. Examine the program requirements in an effort to reduce them to a level commensurate with the
university total credit limits, if possible.
Response:
A program revision will be submitted in the coming academic year. This revision is necessary, in
part, to incorporate changes in the Department of Public Instruction’s mandates (PI 34) which will
soon be finalized. During that revision process, the program’s requirements will be scrutinized to
ensure, among other things, that all the credits to degree are truly necessary. Just as it is currently, the
future (revised) program is anticipated to have a high number of credits to degree because of the
many requirements necessary to keep the program certifiable within DPI standards, in line with
NASAD and in compliance with the university’s curricular mandates.
3. Continue to work with admissions to manage enrollment.
Response:
The department chair and dean will continue to work with the program director to manage enrollment
targets that reflect the best program size relative to support levels. A focused review of class sizes
will take place in Fall 2000 to ensure class sizes are appropriate and manageable. Also, strategies will
be identified to enhance student access to courses and identify ways to enhance student movement
through the program.
4. Investigate student-identified problems with course access and develop a procedure to monitor and
manage overcrowding and course access.
Response:
The program director and department chair will work to ensure that enough sections of sequential
courses, as well as other key courses, are offered each semester to meet the demand. Also, as the new
Datatel system is brought up to speed, checks for student standing, pre-requisites and student G.P.A.
can be used to bar students who are not yet ready for certain classes, which will allow room for
students who are. Advisors to the Art Education students will also be kept abreast of the
overcrowding concerns so that they can help students anticipate and prepare for future semesters.
Hopefully, through a more diligent effort in advising students, careful resource management and
enrollment control, overcrowding and accessibility problems will dissipate in time.
5. Develop the program committee and meet at least once annually.
Response:
Regrettably, the Program Advisory Committee, for various reasons, has not been called together on a
regular basis. It is understood that the knowledge and input of that body is valuable and essential.
The Program Advisory Committee membership will be updated and regular meetings will be held at
least once annually starting with the 2000-01 academic year.
6. Work with Placement Services to develop a plan to improve the use and services provided by that
office.
Response:
The program director has recently begun to discuss ways in which Art Education students might
better benefit from Placement Services. Those discussions will continue. With the recent addition of
services and options, such as electronic resumes and portfolios, improvements to that end have
already been realized.