June 18, 2005
Dr. Linda Beath
Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
Central Washington University
Dear Dr. Beath,
Thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to act as
an outside respondent for this up-and-coming jewel of a
Theatre program at Central Washington University. I felt
welcomed and believe that I was able to get a very accurate
picture of the program’s many strengths as well as the
challenges that face the faculty both now and in the
future.
Geographically, the Theatre department seems ideally
positioned in the region for significant student growth,
and if the curriculum and departmental resources are
properly managed, artistic and scholarly success for
decades to come.
Under the exceptional leadership of Scott Robinson, the
Department is beginning to discuss overall long-term
planning, building on the exceptional areas of
specialization within the department. The overall question
is: what does the department want to focus its energy on?
Who do they want to be, and how will they get there? To
answer these key questions the faculty will need both
support and a mandate from the university administration to
make the hard choices to focus their own, often very
specific, academic and scholarly micro-areas aside in favor
of looking at the overall program needs and goals.
Commendations
The Department seems to be entering into a “golden age”
largely due to the astute leadership of Scott Robinson.
Everyone I spoke to – from students to upper administration
universally praised Professor Robinson. Scott has a fine
sense of both the human and fiscal workings of the
department. He can lead this department to enormous growth
and success.
He has the ability to unite the disparate
voices of the department toward common goals.
Leslee Caul has done an incredible job in her role as
Director of Marketing. CWU’s printed materials are far and
away the finest in the region. They set the standard for
the rest of the colleges and universities promotional
materials. Additionally her work on grants as well as
booking the Children’s Theatre tour makes her an invaluable
asset to the program. Additionally she coordinates the box
office as well – this alone is a full time job anywhere
else. Although she is doing an exceptional job – she needs
help. Without additional support she will likely burn out,
and her loss would be a serious blow to the department.
Dave Barnett and Paulette Bond do exceptional jobs in
running the costume and scene shops. With a program with
THE most ambitious production season in the region these
two individuals are key to the success of the program, and
the quality of the work and the enthusiasm they bring to
their work, as evidenced by their student evaluations and
student feedback is extraordinary.
Dave Barnett is
operating at several disadvantages, having to serve as the
coordinator for McConnel Auditorium as well as building
scenery and props in a very small scene shop provides many
challenges, and yet he continues to succeed at the highest
level.
I am concerned that without significant assistance, such as
a production manager, Dave may also be a candidate for burn
out.
The Children’s Theatre tour is a raging success for this
program. It not only provides practical experience for
aspiring actors and technicians by touring on a day-to-day
basis, it is invaluable marketing for Central Washington
University and the Theatre Department.
Another example of astute leadership is the addition of a
Fiscal Technician. Brandy Bradley performs an invaluable
role for the department. I think the wisdom of having this
technician sets up the department to accommodate the growth
that is occurring and that is likely to continue. This
position provides great assistance to the chair.
This brings me to commend the College and University
administration for the support this department receives.
In these times of fiscal concern the program seems to have
unwavering support from all levels of the university. This
support has manifested itself in personnel and space
reallocations. The renovation of the theatre spaces over
the past several years again positions this program very
strategically for the present and future.
Students I spoke to were very positive and passionate about
the dedicated and enthusiastic faculty within the
department.
Some of the comments were indicative of the
renaissance that is occurring in the program.
“There is a family here.”
“The faculty is passionate about the subjects they teach.”
“The faculty is the best part of this program.”
“These are people you can look up to.”
Of course I was only in the department a very short time,
but this sentiment seemed to be universal. Specifically, I
think the department has made a key hire in Assistant
Professor Christina Barrigan. Her training and experience
coupled with her enthusiasm for her discipline has been
contagious to the students.
Recommendations
As I’ve mentioned, I think this program has the potential
to significantly grow and prosper. In order to continue to
move forward and to accommodate growth the faculty needs to
clearly define program needs in order to best focus
personnel energy and resources both in the present and
long-term. The long-ish history of internal strife and
power struggles has left the program’s energy diffused.
The “honeymoon period” of Scott’s leadership is an ideal
time to implement large curricular change, and there is a
real sense among faculty and staff of “a new day” at CWU.
The department’s core curricular requirements are not being
served. Prioritization in teaching loads and paring away
to the core sequence of the program has been obscured.
There are a plethora of fascinating and valuable course
offerings, yet there is not a clear direction as to the
philosophical and pedagogical profile of the curriculum.
There is a rather “scattergun” curricular approach which
allows students to take foundational, sequential classes at
various times in their academic careers rather than
requiring key classes to be taken sequentially. Some of
this is due to faculty member’s own scholarship activities
taking them farther and farther away from the yet-to-be
defined central mission of the department.
There is an awareness of this significant problem, and
discussions are in their infancy among the faculty, but in
the brief discussions I had there was little if any
movement toward pedagogical focus. What is the CORE of the
program? And how does this faculty serve it? It seems that
in theory everyone is united in the desire to “pare down”
the curriculum but the prevailing thought is “not in my
(scholarship) area.”
This has also lead to emphasis areas
that further diffuse departmental energy. These are
difficult conversations that must occur if the department
is to grow.
This is particularly apparent in the performance area. Too
many artistic niche-based classes are crippling the area
from delivering the necessary core courses. This challenge
may in fact be impossible to remedy given the makeup of the
performance faculty.
Needed is a commitment from the continuing faculty toward a
unified vision of the performance curriculum and how to
implement it efficiently, however given the “age” and
temperament of the professors in performance, the
department is not getting as broad based teaching coverage,
nor are they truly able to decide what the core is yet. So
given this set of circumstances they may in fact need
additional faculty in performance.
No area got more “voice” while I was in residence than did
the Summer Institute. The MA is a complex, compelling and
very unique feature of the program at CWU. This program
seems to be both a blessing and a curse, hence my label of
“the golden ball and chain.”
There is a perception that the Graduate Program is not
valued by the University, and that the University is taking
too big of a cut of the profits and that other programs
receive more fiscal remuneration for their summer
endeavors. I have no idea about what is truth here – but
the perception is that the department is somehow being
punished for their summer degree program.
My perception is that the faculty does not fully recognize
the enormous fiscal opportunity they have created for
themselves. This program generates a significant increase
in each participating faculty member’s salary over a
relatively short period of time. The time demands placed
on the faculty member are significant during the institute,
but they are compensated exponentially more for their
efforts than any summer theatre opportunity they might
undertake anywhere in the United States.
This is a boon in that Theatre Faculty are among the lowest
paid of the professorial ranks nationwide, and this
increase goes a long way toward bridging that gap. But the
large downside of the institute is that this faculty
largely is unable to work professionally outside the
confines of Ellensburg due to the significant pay “cut”
they would receive by leaving CWU in the summer. In
examining the CV’s of the faculty they are quite deficient
in terms of creative activity outside the walls of academe.
They would have grave difficulty in being promoted at other
institutions that I am familiar with, but given CWU’s
promotion and tenure process, professors in theatre can be
evaluated without external peer reviews. If this were to
change it would be very problematic. The golden ball and
chain saps the ability for this faculty to engage in
creative activity and to make professional contacts for
themselves and their students.
It was mentioned to me that one perception is that the
Graduate Program is cannibalizing the undergraduate
program. I agree and disagree. Resource-wise it doesn’t
seem a burden, however energetically, faculty-wise until
the program prioritizes their overall curriculum and
decides what role the Graduate Program plays – given the
fiscal ramifications for faculty – it will continue to be a
drain for both the program and faculty energy.
I would propose some sort of faculty rotation (I have no
idea how to fund this) whereby faculty teach at the
institute on a revolving basis while working professionally
in order to expand their own creative activity.
As was previously mentioned, the department needs help in
the area of Production Management. Their exceptional
Technical Director is asked to wear too many hats while
continuing to serve the needs of a very ambitious
production season. External departmental events take time
and careful coordination. And while Dave Barnett is doing
a marvelous job by serving both the University facility and
the needs of the department, the McConnel Hall event
management needs its own institutional support. By hiring
a production manager both entities would be better served.
The program is also squeezed classroom-wise. As they have
grown the need for classroom spaces has grown
significantly. They need additional classroom space,
particularly if they add musical theatre and dance.
Two “house keeping” sorts of needs require attention. The
seats in the tower theatre desperately need to be replaced.
They were originally purchased in 1982. Due to the design
of the facility, and its emphasis on theatrical
flexibility, the seating is quickly becoming a safety
issue.
Additionally, the department is woefully deficient in terms
of its lighting inventory. The department is forced to
share lighting instruments between McConnel and the Tower
Theatre. With such exceptional spaces (again the finest in
the region) the department must have the lighting inventory
necessary for both spaces. This is also a safety issue in
that students and faculty are forced to haul heavy lighting
instruments between theatres resulting in damaged equipment
and the possibility of injury.
The Departmental handbook has minimal practical use. It is
filled with antiquated rules and lacks real substance. Its
use lies in articulating departmental production
responsibilities. The faculty is tackling this unwieldy
and rule-bound document, but having each and every student
purchase a new handbook each year is a entrepreneurial
money maker for the program, but if the intent is to truly
serve the students as a means of communication, put this
document on the departmental website for all to see and use
– free of charge.
The addition of dance could do one of two things: either
diffuse the departmental energy further, or refocus the
energies of the department in a new synergistic way through
the addition of a degree emphasis in musical theatre. The
addition of the Dance program seems to make programmatic
sense. Actors need to study dance extensively as a key
component of their training, and dance and theatre have a
symbiotic relationship when it comes to musical theatre,
and the needs for design elements in the performance of
dance concerts. This programmatic addition would naturally
create the need for additional resources such as a dance
classroom with a dance floor.
In closing I again want to reiterate my strong support and
admiration of this program as the up-and-coming Theatre
Department in our region. With the strong support of the
Central Washington administration this department has the
opportunity to take the necessary steps to achieve their
programmatic and professional objectives. If I can offer
any further clarification on observations please contact
me. Thank you again for the opportunity to be of
assistance.
Respectfully,
David Lee-Painter
Associate Professor and Chair