As we approach the summer Board meeting devoted to academic and student affairs, it seems that the focus is shifting to the more immediate needs of fiscal accountability and budgeting. In my view, a crucial, countervailing question is: "Why must the financial viability of the College, however vital, continue to distract us from the broader and equally urgent educational dimensions of our work and mission? What went wrong, that we need to once again dig ourselves out of a financial mess?"

I'd like to take the opportunity of this report to assure the Board that, despite these problems and the resulting impact on morale, the faculty is still working hard to fulfill the historic mission of the College. And I will attempt to do so, using the President's suggested criteria -- vision, viability, and visibility. I still like to think that we could craft such criteria in a collaborative way; and have them reflect the more communitarian ethos of Goddard. Instead of having them imposed, we might be invited to comment on their feasibility and fit with the mission of the College.

Vision ...

Unlike most institutions of higher education, Goddard has always been quite clear about its purpose; it remains clearer than most about its role in the cultural context. We have seldom been at a loss for a collective vision of our shared values. Each leader who comes to the helm, understandably seeks to put his or her twist to the College's purpose but essentially it has been to provide a progressive democratic alternative to conventional educational practices which tend to disempower participants.

Simply put, I and many others are still unclear about Dr. Mossberg's vision for the future of Goddard. Numerous issues spur this concern; I offer a select few: Where are we in building upon the rich and strong traditions of this College? What happened to the follow-up committee to the Future Search conference? Why has CEC been unable to move along on this visioning task? What is the source of those rumors about a plan "Goddard 6" -- revamping and reorganizing the residential program? And how will a refocused vision help us fulfill our educational purpose?

Yet, there is some continuity of vision still in place. We, as a Board, finally have the opportunity at this meeting to review and discuss the latest version of the report from the faculty, "Articulating Our Curriculum Vision." In various forms this report has been around for three years and has yet to receive comment from the Board or the President. This vision is used as a guide for what we do conceptually in all Goddard programs, and in its details, in the residential program in particular. The faculty is especially hungry for Board input. Please read this and be ready to critique it in the forum where it is presented.

Another recent highlight is the topical, indeed compelling, senior study of campus graduating student, Kai Malloy. Many students come to Goddard because of its democratic traditions. A few, like Kai, deeply engross themselves in these issues in order to translate them into current practice and to keep them alive. For those who would like, I'll request copies of Can Democracy Survive at Goddard College? from Kai. Revisiting our history and refocusing those values in a new time is the current need. We don't need a revisionist history, but a critical, collective look at where we've been and where we need to go.

I can't imagine that Goddard has ever had a shortage of new, creative ideas. Vision is not our immediate need. Resources to fulfill it are.

Viability ...

The College's viability, in large part, is a function of how well we live our mission. I think that you will see that despite severe morale problems, the faculty remains focused on its work, as can be seen in the notebook of program review reports compiled by Helene Mandell.

There is reason to be pleased with the current status of academic programs. Directors, for example, have completed an initial review of their programs according to an agreed upon framework (see notebook compiled by Helene). The growth of our newest programs, interdisciplinary Arts and Health Arts, is strong. A new initiative, Building a Sustainable Campus for the 21st Century, is gaining community support to develop a master plan in all systems of the College. This spring Helene initiated a series of weekly faculty lunches (beyond regular faculty meetings), which were well attended, to create space for further discussion on issues of teaching and learning. Also, after some recent experiments, the residential program endorsed the notion of a foundations course for all new campus students.

In addition to these important advances, however, confusion lingers about the process for approval of new programs. Notably, faculty members have only been marginally involved in the discussions of the programs in DC and at Presidio. Academic leadership and the Academic and Student Affairs Committee can hopefully clarify this process at this meeting, so that new initiatives can better acquire faculty sponsorship and support.

Moreover, there are a number of concerns about fiscal viability. Maintaining a focus on our academic responsibilities is difficult when planning for the next academic year is interrupted with another budget crisis three weeks before the end of the fiscal year. Fewer people than ever have a role in budget building and budget monitoring. It seems prudent to ask whether the problem could have been lessened or even avoided if a body like CEC still had its historical role of oversight? Goddard is now on its fourth CFO in less than 2 years. Where's the stability here? And there is great concern about the seeming over reliance on legal services for investigations. Are these seemingly unmonitored practices really necessary in such a small college when academic needs continue to go unmet?

There are yet other concerns about the stability of the College. The President has projected the history of the College to show that times of growth have coincided with leadership stability. (I think that the actual data will show slow but steady growth since 1980, no matter who's been in charge.) If we believe that leadership is a shared trait delegated and dispersed throughout the roles of the College, it seems we are in serious trouble. There is "a revolving door of administrators." We end up with people in key positions who have little knowledge of the history and ethos of the College. Over the last two years a number of key faculty and staff have left. Others are certainly contemplating this move. And of most concern is the fact that, as of this writing, 6 faculty members remain without contracts, despite successful evaluations and recommendations for reappointment. This certainly threatens the stability of programs. If students were to discover this, attrition would be a likely outcome.

Regrettably, tensions remain high between the faculty and the administration primarily over issues of governance. Faculty, members (and staff and students) understandably believe ourselves to be largely excluded from "shared decision making" of the College (see attached commentary on "The War on the Faculty" [Hyperlink to Article by the Same name]). For example, there is a troubling lack of search committees. In the past, candidates and a mixed constituent group had the chance to "check each other out." This multi-stakeholder group could practice working collaboratively, raising questions about diversity of staff, and consulting with the President as a vital member of the process. Then, recommendations were set before the President. Currently, a narrow, even dangerous "process" has emerged, managed solely by the President. No one is denying the right of the President to hire senior staff, but if we must all live with the result then we surely deserve an opportunity to share our input through our long-standing tradition of a search process. Consistent with this move toward presidential usurpation of power, CEC remains dysfunctional, with either canceled or insubstantial meetings. There has not been a meeting of the personnel committee for some months -- even for staff. And, as I pointed out at the February meeting, we are still out of compliance with NEASC standards on governance. Amid this instability and lack of proper procedure, it is doubtful that NEASC would conclude that the simple tenure of a president is an appropriate measure of stability or progress.

Visibility ...

Instead of visibility, allow me to suggest the use of Carl Glickman's term "critical study" (Renewing America's Schools, 1993, Jossey-Bass). In today's culture it is relatively easy to manipulate the media and present a positive "spin" on the College. Free enterprise has taught us that image is everything. Substantive internally driven study is what makes us stronger and healthier, however. Thus, it's not the view from the outside that matters as much as that from within.

Solid, progressively-based, program design, regular critical review, and ongoing improvement are what will give substance to a positive, external image. Our students have always helped us sustain our work through word of mouth. Their presence in the world is the best public relations we will ever have. Faculty members know this. Do we also need other kinds of support to meet the challenge of visibility?

Of course! We need to share the accomplishments of all the members of the community. Certainly we need to put our "best foot forward." At the same time, we should not be afraid to openly discuss our more complex challenges and problems. Such incidents as the e-mail debacle this spring are part of that learning process. Had we dealt openly with the negative publicity from this together, we would have been healthier and seen as a resilient, collaborative learning community. We need to invite outsiders in to share our discussions of strengths and weaknesses. It is this honest, free flow of information and open, straightforward analyses of it that will help us develop as a learning organization.

Faculty members also need to be seen and heard on the national stage. The relatively new term of "national faculty" to describe the off-campus members could be a healthy, step, but inventing the term does not make it a reality. As of this writing, only some campus-based faculty members have received the paltry sum of $400 for faculty development purposes such as conference attendance. Except in rare instances, our "national faculty" is not eligible for developmental support: And there is concern about the denial of sabbaticals. Despite promises, there has been even less support in this area than ever before.

When might the faculty expect to hear about its request for an off-campus faculty representative to the Board of Trustees? Certainly different "communities of interest" deserve the consideration of separate representation on the Board.

And where is that College catalogue? How much time and expense have been spent to date by different people on the catalogue that we don't have? Are we the only College in the country without one? Maybe we should surpass this challenge and go directly to the World Wide Web. But then, of course, we will need additional technical support.

There is one highlight here, from the faculty perspective. In addition to the varied ongoing professional accomplishments of our faculty (Numerous colleagues, for example, have published books and articles in their fields.) one effort merits careful attention as it speaks to some of the varied issues I have raised in this report. This fall, Lang Publishers (a flyer is attached to this report) will release a book written by a collection of resident and off-campus Goddard faculty, and edited by Steve Schapiro. Higher Education for Democracy: Experiments in Progressive Pedagogy at Goddard College will tell the current story of what happens at Goddard -- how our values still guide the educational process -- and that Goddard remains a uniquely experimental place. I will try to acquire copies for all Trustees as this is essential reading.

In closing, I want the Board to know that the opinions expressed are mine, but with input requested from all faculty members and received from some. As a representative, I am accountable to these collegial "others" for my views. I asked for and received input for and feedback on a draft of this letter.

I recommend that the Board reinitiate its tradition of open community time at all meetings held on campus to hear from other members of the community. Not having seen a draft agenda, I do not know if this will happen. Others are eager to share their perspectives. Wise stewardship of the College requires that Board members be informed from multiple sources. If there is no open community time at this meeting, I urge Board members to speak with as many members of the community as possible. The picture of the College I project is not a healthy one. I take no pleasure in stating such a troubling view. Please take the time to see if others share this perspective.

back to top