Info

TASA was created to deal specifically with the transfer curriculum issue, that of transferring freshman and sophomore art courses smoothly and consistently between two- and four-years institutions of higher learning in Texas . Back in the 1960's, the transfer of courses between colleges and universities in Texas was an arbitrary affair, seemingly governed by individual "transfer czars" at each university or by portfolio review, without regard to transcript information. This was a problem not just in art, but across all disciplines. In 1967, the 59 th Texas Legislature created The Coordinating Board, Texas College and University system (changed in 1987 to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board) that was directed to see that all semester hour courses offered in public junior/ community colleges was freely transferable to public colleges and universities. The state essentially subsidized every class a student took in a public institution, and was tired of funding some coursework twice. At that time there were state associations for music and theatre but nothing for art. In the spring of 1968, the Dean of Fine Arts at the University of Texas , Dr. E.W. Doty, at the request of the Coordinating Board, invited music, theatre, and art department chairs from schools throughout Texas to meet in Austin . At the art meeting, the idea of TASA was born. Dr. Peter Guenther, an art historian from the University of Houston , became the first president and by May, after many intense discussions, a constitution and bylaws were written. One of the primary issues was that TASA was not to be run by the four-year schools and that the president would rotate between two- and four-year schools. A slate of officers, Board and working committees were set, again with emphasis on equitable representation. As aforementioned, transferring art courses at that time seemed like a game without rules. Beginning painting might be considered a freshman course at some schools, with beginning drawing and art history survey on the junior level at others. There were no set curricula and each school could require whatever it wanted. One of the first TASA committees was the Academic Standards Committee, which spent 1968 , 1970 hammering out a freshman art core. One of the earliest chairs of this committee was Denny Fraze, of Amarillo College , who would soon be TASA's first president from a two-year school. At first, the committee corresponded monthly and met together in the fall, and again at the spring meeting with the entire organization. During the first years of TASA, these annual get-togethers were just long business meetings, and not nearly as varied in scope or as fun as TASA conferences today. A sophomore art core was next on the agenda, but faced stronger opposition from four-year schools than had the freshman core. Nevertheless, in the spring of 1972, the committee finally approved one, subsequently adopted by TASA. Later that year, the TASA president at the time, Dr. Clarence Kincaid of Texas Tech University , took the entire core before the Coordinating Board in Austin, who approved it. This government approval gave the transfer core "teeth," because the general belief was (and still is) that the Coordinating Board had the power to cut funding to state supported schools. In 1979, Dr. Forrest Ward of the Coordinating Board selected a fifteen-member committee to review the original Core Curriculum in Art . Bob O'Neill of Lamar University and Denny Fraze of Amarillo College served as President and Vice-President of the committee, and other TASA members were included, as usual, equally from both 2- and 4-year schools. TASA members serving on this committee were Paul Hanna, Dr. Bruce Turner, Jean Laman, Margaret Peavy, Dr. Kenneth Prescott, Dr. Mary Alice Brumbach, Dr. James J. Johnson, Arnold Leondar, Barry Phillips, and Dr. Margaret Hicks. Non-TASA members were Carrol Sims, Maurine Burks and George Bunker. Reflecting some of the tensions still lingering at that time, a representative from a four-year university commented on how much difference there was between the quality of instruction in two- and four- year schools, that two-year schools were "inferior." Denny Fraze's response was "that he had received both his BFA and MFA from a four-year school, and if his teaching was inferior, then it must be the fault of the four-year schools!" Thus ended that misunderstanding. Indeed, there may have been a time when many junior college instructors only had bachelor's degrees or incomplete master's degrees, but the simple truth is that in recent years, everyone has an MFA in studio art or other appropriate terminal degrees. Anyway, after nine meetings and two public hearings, the Coordinating Board re-adopted and renamed the Transfer Curriculum in the Visual Arts in January, 1982. In 1990, the TASA Academic Affairs Committee reviewed the transfer curriculum again, with minor revisions, and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB, as it was now called), again approved it. In the 1990s, the THECB initiated the Common Course Numbering System (CCNS) to facilitate course transfer. It assigned a standardized course number to every approved course in its Community College General Academic Course Guide Manual (ACGM), a list of courses for which state funding is provided. TASA helped spread the word and recommended the CCNS to art programs throughout the state, public and private. By 1998-99, the THECB went further and mandated that the CCNS be used in all public institution course catalogs, at least by cross-reference. The THECB is still an influential force today, seeking to provide some kind of overall plan to avoid duplication of curricula, definitely focusing on efficiency and some will argue also the quality of higher education in Texas . Today, the THECB consists of a permanent staff and office in Austin , with a rotating Board of thirty members appointed by the governor. In the late 1990s, TASA was again reviewing the Transfer Curriculum , led by Academic Affairs committee chair, Jim Wogstad of San Antonio College . In the spring of 1998, he sent a questionnaire to all art departments in Texas to determine how the core curriculum was currently being used. After careful review of the survey response matrix, school catalogs, and transfer materials from the THECB web site, the Transfer Curriculum was found to be relevant and consistently transferable at the freshman level. Another more specific questionnaire was sent to find out why some schools gave varying values to the transfer of third and fourth semester core courses. Meanwhile, in April 2002, the membership passed recommendations from the Academic committee to streamline the transfer curriculum offerings in the area of graphic design, digital arts and printmaking to avoid repetitive course descriptions. Since 2005 the Transfer Curriculum has again been closely looked at by TASA's Academic Committee with two comprehensive Texas-wide catalog surveys of freshman/sophomore courses by Committee Chair, Cathie Tyler, and conference panels held at recent TASA conferences (2006 & 2007), since the transfer of sophomore courses still seems to be problematic between some schools. This is primarily because of the advanced hour graduation requirement typical of baccalaureate programs that cause some sophomore level art courses to be taught at the junior level. That particular problem has not yet been fully resolved. However, in the spring 2007, the membership did vote to recommend to the THECB that Common Course numbers be directly included in all freshman/ sophomore course description s regardless of a school's internal number (instead of just cross-referencing from elsewhere in the catalog). This is currently practiced by two-year schools but not required of four-year schools. Other TASA projects are closely related to or spawned by the Transfer Curriculum for the Visual Arts . One seemed almost inevitable, and that was a tedious, five year project culminating in 1999 with a rather hefty document entitled: the TASA Suggested Student Outcomes for Core Courses . In the current climate of budget cuts and academic streamlining,sometimes caused by political motives rather than a quest for quality in education,it had become glaringly apparent that the arts needed to verbalize the "left-brain" language of categorical goal-setting and assessment. The project began with asking various art faculty throughout the state, according to their expertise, to write a rough draft about approved core courses, consisting of course focus, goals, and performance objectives (student outcomes). Outcomes could be listed and identified as psychomotor (or skill-oriented), cognitive (such as critical thinking or specialized vocabulary), and affective (behavioral habits). The rough drafts were compiled and then distributed amongst TASA institutional member chairpersons, with the idea of circulating them as comprehensively as possible through their departments. Changes, additions and deletions were made, with a final draft sent back to all TASA institutional members. This document was presented to the membership as a guide for art departments developing course syllabi, seeking reaccredidation, and of course to clarify the transfer of core courses. Another byproduct of the Transfer Curriculum was been the TASA Professional Standards brochure and TASA's position packet on the MFA as the terminal degree in studio art. Both originally came about during the many meetings between diverse art faculty while working on the transfer curriculum. Both intended to set standards and be a catalyst for dialogue between faculty and administration when policies were planned and/or administered. Both had enough successes to justify a later revision and reprinting of the brochure, made available to TASA members in 2000. The TASA Professional Standards brochure addressed such faculty issues as course loads, contact hours, tenure, promotion, terminal degrees for art areas, and academic freedom and censorship. It was meant to augment similar guidelines published by CAA and NASAD. Another recommendation that TASA will make to the THECB as passed