Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1992 - 60

Statement
U.S. Postal Service Statement of
Ownership, Management and Circulation,
as required by 39 U.S.c. 3685.
IA Ti I' of Publica on ID&T
IB Publication 0.· 10526765
2. Date of FIling: 23 September 1992.
J Frequency of Issue Spring. Summer Fall.
Win er and Special Issue In September.
3A o. of Issues Published Annually 5.
3B Annual Subscnptlon PrIce S60
4 Comple I' Mailing Address of Known Office of
PublICation: USITT, lOWest 19th Street. Suite 5A
r!w York. NY 10011-4206 INew York Countyj.
5 Complete Mailing Address of the Headquarters
o' General Business Offices of the Publisher:
usm. 10 \IIest 19th Sreet. Suite 5A, ew York.
Y 10011-1206 INew York Countyj.
6. Full Names and Complete Mailing Address of
Publisher: USITT, 10 \IIest 19th Street. Suite 5A
ew York.
10011-4206; Editor: Eric Fielding.
Len-Handed Design. 966 East 1030 orth.
Orem. UT B4057; Managing Editor: Enc Fielding.
Len·Handed Design. 966 East 1030 orth.
Orem. UT 84057.
7 Owner: United States Insmute for Theatre
Technology. Inc.. 10 \IIest 19th Street. Suite 5A
ewYork.
IDOl H206Inon-profitj.
8 Known Bondholders. Mortgagees. and Other
Security Holders OWning or Holdng I percent or
more of Total Amount of Bonds. Morgages or
Other Secunties: one.
9 For Completion by onprofit Organizations
Authonzed to Mall at Special Rates IDMM SectJon
423.12 only}. The purpose. funnion. and
nonprofit status of thiS organization and the
exempt status for Federal income tax purposes:
II J Has Not Changed during Preceding 12
Months
10. Extent and Nature of Circulation:
Average Actual No.
No. Copies
Copies of
Each Issue Single Issue
Published
DUring
Precedlflg
earest to
12 Months: Filing Date:
A Total o. Copies
Printed:
B Paid and/or
requested CIrculation.
I . Sales through
dealers. etc.
2. Mall Subscnptions
C Total Paid and/or
requested Circulation:
D. Free D,stnbution by
II, Carner or other
means:
E. Total DISlrlbuition:
F Copies not
dlstrlbu ed:
I a 'ce use. len
over, unaccount
ed. spoiled aner
printing
2. Return from
ewsAgents
G Total

4792

4999

4098

4582

4098

4582

508
4606

308
4890

186

109

o
4792

o
4999

I I. I certIfy that the statements made
by me above are correct and complete:
ISlgned) Debora Kingston. Manager.
Finance & Operations.

1992 FALL

TD&T

If target competencies are all we're
providing, we need to call it that, and
not "Curriculum Guidelines."
Second, a list of competencies
does not address rhe problem of
small, two person departments which
have theatre programs and already
argue that they provide adequate
training for their design and technology (as well as their acting and directing) students. Such educators will
likely only interpret these competencies as describing their existing programs and will not be moved to
improve either the depth or breadth
of their programs. Nor will such (necessarily) imprecise competencies
motivate administrators to demand
improved curricula in the programs
they supervise.
I do agree with Brian (in other
personal correspondence with him)
that the danger of model curricula is
that they tend to become minimum
standards and discourage progress
beyond that level. However, I much
prefer curriculum models with typical
course content descriptions because
they offer clearly understood minima
for course work and production experience which are much less open to
interpretation by self-serving faculty.
For example, was there a course in
basic scenic construction? Did it
include study and training in flatwork, platform, stair construction,
etc? There are also "yes or no" questions, bm they are much less open to
subjective interpretation than, "Can
Suzie 'paint scenery at a moderate
level of competence?'"
The reason so many people are
afraid of curriculum models is that
they know their own programs would
not compare favorably. Neither models nor competencies will insure a
quality program but at least models
offer specifics which should be
included in any basic program.
Curriculum models are more useful because they provide some
specifics. They will not even apply to
most strong programs which already
exceed the model in nearly every area
but they will apply to those third-rate
programs which would have to rise to
meet the minimal offerings suggested
by the model.
The ideal example exists in our
public school system which has similar problems. While we may not be
able to ensure a quality science education (for example) due to the huge

variances in teacher ability, per pupil
financial support, level of facilities
and equipment, and parental support;
we can indicate that all students
should have a course in chemistry (or
stagecraft) before they will be considered properly prepared.
All that aside, what abom the article itself? In general it is well wrinen.
I do take issue with the paragraph
regarding a rejection of curriculum
models. As original chair of thar comminee, I was at the meetings. It is not
true that "no one wanted to imitate
others." First, there was a split
between those in attendance. Many
favored the creation of a model which
they could use as leverage with their
administration to add courses to their
programs in order to strengthen
them. Second, the way the statement
uses the word "imitate" connotes
some rote copying of a standard
rather than emulation of an example
which was the original intent. The
statement really only reflects Brian's
attitude, not any consensus of those
in attendance.
I also object to the first paragraph
under "How the Guidelines... ," especially the final sentence. Brian has
conveniently ignored the fact that the
original model contained course
descriptions which were to be expanded so that members of our profession
and administrators would be able to
actually see the types of skills and
knowledge which a typical course
should cover. Those course descriptions would have answered Brian's
objections.
I agree most strongly with Brian
in the "Between Standards..." section
and I would make the same argument
for curriculum models.
As to the issue of "Professional
Obligation," the problem is that
schools have not behaved professional
due to a variety of limitations and
because self regulation nearly always
produces a result of the lowest common denominator. That's another reason why I favor specific models over
general competencies.
In conclusion, although I have
strong philosophical differences with
Brian, I hope this article will stimulate further response and development. I would also support publication of the complete Guidelines
themselves after a period of response
from the membership.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1992