This article appeared in the TACT Quarterly Bulletin,
LI, No. 1 (pp. 9--10)
I am writing this as a member of TACT and not as a representative of any
organization. I have been a professor of mathematics at Texas A&M
University since 1971.
In its last session, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 148,
which required the development by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board (THECB) of a common core curriculum to be adopted by all public
colleges and universities in the state and which would be automatically
transferrable between schools. The bill added a section reading that
THECB, "with the assistance of advisory committees composed of
representatives of institutions of higher education, shall develop
field of study curricula. ... If a student successfully completes
a field of study curriculum developed by the board, that block of courses
may be transferred to a general academic teaching institution and must be
substituted for that institution's lower division requirements for the
degree program for the field of study into which the student transfers."
I hope the other members of TACT are as deeply concerned about this
law as I am. Not only does it take away a significant part of our
right to control our curriculum, but, more importantly, our students
will lose as a result of this law.
We serve in a wide variety of public colleges and universities having
a multitude of purposes and delicate inter-relationships expressed
in formal and informal agreements for the transfer of students.
Working in our own institution, we have each become thoroughly familiar
with the needs of our particular students. Keeping those students
in mind, we have devoted many thousands of hours to developing courses
and curricula precisely adapted to their needs.
Now we are told that we shall all teach within a common 42 credit
core curriculum (with some exceptions allowed), and soon the first
two years of each of our degree programs will have a prescribed
content. THECB and its committee have worked with sensitivity
to the needs of the many institutions in Texas, and the core curriculum
they have produced can be lived with. But it is far from perfect
for each of our schools. For some it requires too much; for others
too little. The problem is not with the requirements at any particular
school; rather it is with the idea that a one-size-fit-all core curriculum
is possible. THECB has done its best with an unreasonable law, but the
effect of the law remains harmful to the students of Texas.
The field of study part of the law has the potential for even more
damage to the delicate interweaving of courses and preparation of
students in Texas. I believe this part of the law may cause the
destruction of the best curricula this state has to offer. Of course,
the precise mandate of these first-two-year curricula will depend on
the wisdom of the committees appointed to prepare them. But how is
a single size plan supposed to suit all of the varied needs of
the students of Texas? Should all mathematics degree programs be
alike? Should the vocabulary lists for first Spanish be the same
throughout the state? What about the differences between the very
best students in Texas and the least prepared? Should these students
be treated alike, or should there be different programs for their
different needs?
I believe that these problems will cause the common field of study plans
to fail after costing the faculties of the state's institutions vast amounts
of time writing them and rewriting curricula already carefully adapted
to the specific students at each school. Not only will the state lose
the large cost of this effort, but the employers of the state will lose
the fully prepared graduates they need to step into the twenty-first
century.
Every college and university in the state aspires to become the best
they can be. Long term plans are drawn up by each college, and
their faculties work hard to make those dreams come true. The core
curriculum bill and related laws may well have the effect of aborting
these plans, leaving Texas with no outstanding public institutions.
Arthur Hobbs
Professor of Mathematics
Texas A&M University