The purpose of this report is to focus the Board's attention on two areas of critical importance at Goddard: educational quality and governance. I want to raise this issue of academic priorities in order to have the Board of Trustees better informed about the nature of our academic programs, and at the same time begin the dialogue that will generate a full discussion on these priorities within the community. In addition, I will propose a method of addressing each of these issues in a way that will help to maintain Goddard's leadership in the areas of academic and democratic innovation.

Goddard's historical heritage and its reason for being are its educational quality and its leadership in innovative education. Innovation, however, once institutionalized, runs the risk of becoming the status quo, and hence there is a continuous need to review what we do and how well we do it. One of the most pressing priorities for the undergraduate curriculum is to develop a clearer focus. From my perspective, the campus program attempts to be all things to all persons. To be sure, our individualized approach to learning allows students to develop programs in widely diverse areas. However, most colleges now say they provide individualized attention for students, and though they may not do so in the Goddard model, the concept of individualization in itself is no longer adequate to identify a college as innovative. At the very least, the individualized process of learning must be linked more closely with specialized areas of study to clarify Goddard's special niche. We need to clarify what this niche is to improve admissions, the quality of learning for students who elect to come to Goddard, and plans for faculty development in the areas we identify as especially ours. The faculty has long recognized the problem and are concerned about the need for more depth, especially in the area of upper-level courses and specialized course offerings.

Other progressive colleges emphasize various strengths. Bennington emphasize the creative arts; Marlboro emphasizes the humanities; Hampshire emphasizes the humanities and sciences; Green Mountain has identified environmental issues as its area of particular strength. What areas would Goddard identify as those of particular strength ? to be offered, of course, in the particularly Goddard process of individualized learning? Should Goddard's curriculum develop a focus that will give students more depth than breadths in limited fields?

The off-campus program, interestingly enough, has a more defined focus than that of the campus program. Five of the six areas provide more depth in the curriculum in large part because there are only six areas. The need here is to explore the possibility of carefully and deliberately identifying additional areas where there is a need that we can provide and market successfully. Therefore, the most important academic priority for the ofd campus endeavors is to continue to work in the area of program development.

One advantage of focusing more clearly on what our areas of educational quality are is that we can then develop better guidelines for faculty development. If Goddard continues to try to be all things to all persons, then our faculty will also be reflective of the present curriculum, in that the faculty expertise is quite diversified academically. If, on the other hand, we identify the areas where we need more depth in an academic discipline, then we may gradually strengthen those areas as opportunities arise. Under the governance document, the faculty have the authority and the leadership role in making recommendations in curriculum changes.

In this regard, I would like to raise one particular concern. Goddard's reputation rests in large part on the relationship that students develop with core faculty; yet during the Fall semester only 58% of our group studies were offered by full-time core faculty. The rest were facilitated by associate and part-time faculty. Although the level of instruction provided by these instructors may be excellent, they are not Goddard's full-time core, and students have a right to expect to be served by regular, full?time faculty. The faculty have raised concerns about the associate model. We also need to reexamine the teaching loads of our core faculty, since many faculty last semester taught only one group study because of their release time to do other, mainly administrative, tasks. (A special report on teaching loads prepared by an outside consultant will be mailed to the Board before the upcoming meeting.)

Given our scarce resources, Goddard must also take into account the financial implications of the current teaching/learning model. During the past five years, the community has financially supported the instructional budget greater than any other aspect of the College. Between the years 1991 to 1995, the instructional expenditure rose from $638,914 (1991) to $1,659,290 in 1995 (a 160% increase). The instructional budget has more than doubled in five years, yet the enrollment has only grown from 363 (1991) total students to 456 in 1995 (a 20% increase). These financial figures indicate that our instructional costs have far exceeded the revenue gained from the additional student enrollment (see attached chart).

We have addressed the issue of governance head-on over the past several years as a result of recommendations of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, our accreditation body. If we are to become the best progressive college in the country, we need to continue to make significant changes in this area. As you recall, governance was the first and probably main reason that our accrediting association refused, in 1993, to lift

our show cause status as to why the Association should not place the College on probation. "We find that the College does not now satisfy this criterion [governance]," wrote the Association in its 1993 letter:

"As a result, the institution faces extraordinary difficulties in addressing the challenges it confronts. Indeed, in the words of the visiting committee, 'many problems stem' from the 'instabilities' of governance at Goddard, and the College 'is weakened by continuing conflicts over recognized authority and decision-making roles.'

Developing effective governance continues to be an extraordinary challenge for the College. Since the last comprehensive evaluation seven years ago, we note that the Goddard community has adopted and rejected three governance systems, and that debate about governance has been almost continuous during that time...

The Commission's standards specify that among the prerequisites for effective institutional governance is the need that the 'authority, responsibilities, and relationships among the governing board, administration, staff, and faculty are clearly described' and that 'the board, administration, staff, and faculty understand and fulfill their respective roles as set fourth in the institution's official documents.'"

I am happy to report that committees are already working to address concerns in the areas of educational quality and governance, and we shall update the Board at its meeting in June.

back to top