As I have in the past, I wish to use this letter to keep you informed of community issues in preparation for your upcoming campus meeting. Specifically, I will address questions that community members have raised with me during the past several weeks -- issues that I anticipate will be brought to your attention during the Saturday afternoon community input session. By addressing specific questions, I hope to offer you my thoughts on several important issues.

1. Why is the President requiring that all faculty have a Ph.D.?

   I have neither said nor do I believe that all faculty should possess a Ph.D. However, I have stated clearly my goal of collaborating fully with the faculty in an effort to better meet our mission of teaching excellence. In fact, it is my goal to support faculty as they seek to enhance teaching skills, expand their artistic endeavors, increase their academic credentials, 'engage in new forms of community service, explore deeper realms of research and scholarship, and investigate effective avenues of professional development. An academic community, at its very core, has to be a community that supports growth and development. The merits of an institution such as Goddard must be evaluated not only on the growth and development of its students, but also on the growth and development of its faculty and staff. Clearly these patterns of growth are inextricably linked: a faculty and staff who learn and grow are best prepared to support the development of students. L. S. Vygotsky, the post-revolutionary Russian psychologist whose ideas are influential today, envisioned communities of collaborative learners where more-able facilitators lead peers through learning processes. In these collaborative learning communities, it is incumbent upon all members to engage vigorously and continually in the act of inquiry and to think carefully about the processes that allow learning to flourish. Vygotsky's ideas resonate soundly with the progressive ideals of Goddard.

   Inherent in progressive learning communities are dynamic conceptions of learning. None of us can be passive in our learning; stasis is the antithesis of progressivism. To insure that change and growth are the hallmark of all facets of our community, I hope to work with

   -page 2-

   
   the faculty to develop criteria that will allow them to demonstrate growth and ultimately excellence in all of the aforementioned tasks of the faculty.

   In addition to supporting our current faculty and staff in their quest for further education, we must seek new faculty who have demonstrated such commitment. One measure of this commitment to learning is the possession of a terminal degree, such as the Ph.D. The process of obtaining a doctorate requires that an individual demonstrate skills in discipline-specific methods of inquiry. These methods of inquiry, which are the tools of most thoughtful, intellectual pursuits, can only be modeled to students by those who have mastered and practiced research techniques. Moreover, research can lead to new discoveries that inform teaching. The very act of research, then, can lead to more effective teaching.

   There are other, practical reasons why we should be concerned about the advanced credentials of our faculty. In comparison to the other New England colleges and other progressive colleges, Goddard does not rate as highly when the criterion is faculty academic credentials. Less than 50% of our total full-time and part-time faculty have obtained the Ph.D. If we add in the MFA as a terminal degree, we go to 67%. By contrast, Hampshire College, a progressive institution, has a combined Ph.D. and MFA faculty percentage of 82%. This relatively low number of faculty with doctorates can attenuate our efforts to expand our graduate programs. Nearly half of our current students are graduate students and our accrediting association clearly states that if a college offers graduate programs, then those programs must be staffed by faculty with advanced degrees. Standard Five of the New England accreditation criteria states "The preparation and qualifications of all members of the faculty are suited to the field and level of their assignments. Qualifications are measured by advanced degrees held, evidence of scholarship, advanced study, creative activities, and relevant professional experience, training, and credentials." (NEASC Standard 5.2) As we look to the future and contemplate the creation of an innovative, experimental doctoral program, we need to remain aware that we will not receive accreditation for such a program if the faculty teaching in that program do not have doctoral degrees themselves.

2. Why did the Dean for Academic Affairs, Steve Schapiro, resign?

   Steve Schapiro and I reached an agreement that he would leave his position as Academic Dean a semester earlier than called for in his contract. Steve cited in his resignation letter that he left due to "philosophical differences" and disagreements he had with the current "direction of the college." This comes as some surprise to me, given that both Steve and I share similar philosophical beliefs about progressive education and that he was outwardly supportive of my efforts to work with the community in bringing Goddard to the next level of academic excellence and experimentation.

   To be frank, Steve resigned his post because I initiated conversations with him aimed at facilitating his leaving the Dean's position before the end of his term. Our conversations centered not on philosophy, but on performance. While I have high regard for Steve's

   -page 3-

   
   personal qualities and admire his teaching and facilitating skills, I did not find him capable of administering the responsibilities of his senior level management position. I tried to support Steve in growing into his administrative responsibilities by providing him with the time and resources to attend an academic management program at Harvard University this summer. However, he lacks the leadership necessary to shape an evolving academic program and he was unable to provide the fiscal management needed in the area of the College where more than two million dollars are delegated per annum. To insure that Steve will continue to serve the College in a capacity where he can be most effective, I have agreed with him on a contract that provides him with a paid sabbatical and a three year teaching position.

   In agreeing to this contract, we both committed ourselves to moving ahead without public rancor or negative statements. I have honored that commitment by not sharing with faculty and students my views on Steve's performance. As a result, community members have heard only one side of this story.

3. Faculty Proposal for Dean Selection

   The faculty have reacted to Steve's departure by organizing and planning for the selection of the new Dean. Unfortunately, they chose not to include me in this process until after they had developed and stated their proposal. The plan calls for the Dean to be selected by the faculty and to report to the faculty. This plan goes contrary to the Governance Document, the Personnel Handbook, and organizational chart of the College. These documents clearly state that the Academic Dean is a member of senior management, reports to the President, and supervises the faculty. The faculty proposal also ignores the fiscal responsibilities of the Academic Dean; as I alluded to earlier, I presently delegate budgetary oversight totaling $2.2 million to the person in that position. The Academic Dean must also evaluate faculty and work closely with students and staff. The common ground I have with the faculty proposal includes the criteria for selection of a new Dean, the idea of two Deans (one for off-campus programs and one for the on-campus program), the search committee process (although I favor a smaller committee) and for the faculty to study the role of the Academic Dean. The latter actually will take some time and should be forwarded to the Governance Task Force for their consideration.

   The bottom line is that we need an Academic Dean and a possible Dean for off-campus programs as quickly as possible. Nationwide, interested academics usually only consider moving to a new position twice a year (January, or June/July). Given all these considerations, it is my position that I need to adhere to the present governance document guidelines and at the same time attempt to assimilate some of the common ground issues of the faculty.

back to top