Strategic Planning

Strategic Planning Committee
Minutes/Notes - Wednesday, January 10
Teague Library

Present: Margaret Hampton, Wes Miller, Bob Southard, Doug Bennett, Paul Ogren and Sara Penhale

Regular meetings of SPC -- After reviewing our teaching and class schedules and other commitments, we decided that our regular weekly meeting for spring semester would be on Wednesdays from 3-5:00 p.m.

Updating the Community about our work - Doug provided a draft of an email/memorandum informing members of the Earlham community of where we are with our work. It was decided that we would specify February 1 as the date by/on which we would have white papers available for review by community members (both in print and on the web). SPC members suggested that we include other key dates in the memorandum, along with an indication of implications for engagement with the Board of Trustees. Doug is considering the possibility of scheduling a preview for or presentation to the Board during their first morning session, February 22. (This time may be needed for other board business, however.)

Summary of fall/winter constituency meetings - Doug asked Nancy to write a summary paper of our fall consultations with all campus groups, students, staff, community members etc., as well as feedback received via emails and letters from alumni and parents. The report will identify threads of ideas from the strengths and weaknesses exercises and share the tenor of what we heard during these discussions. It will be important to note in this summary that as we draft our white papers and in preparation for writing the strategic plan, we carefully listened to and considered all ideas shared by the groups and individuals.

Final Strategic Plan -Draft Outline - Doug distributed for discussion a draft outline for the final report.

In response to the first (A) section on "strengths" the following suggestions were offered:

o Add teaching excellence ("dark side" = overworked/over committed faculty)
o Consider adding perceived strengths that Monteze researched from the NSSE and ASQ data*:
- faculty quality and relationships
- collaboration/class participation
- international and off-campus programs
- activism
- diversity of students
- values and character building
- personal attention
(Monteze raised the question of how the perceptions of our current students and those choosing not to come to Earlham disconnect.)
o Quaker as a strength -- Consider adding "values" since many of our students perceive this strength as building character/having values and not as "being Quaker." Many perceive "being Quaker" as more than a religious denomination and often misinterpret that connection to mean that Earlham is limiting, simple, and conservative. (Doug mentioned that he has asked Patrick Nugent to write a pamphlet for our use to introduce both students and faculty to Quakerism.)
o Community as a strength -- Add "disconnected" under dark side. Some do not feel as if we're working together (don't feel listened to). We set high ideals for ourselves in defining "community" and are hard on ourselves because that definition is not achieved. It was mentioned that there is a lack of "class" identity (unlike the subset of communities defined by major and extracurricular interest, especially athletes). This lack of class identity might also affect future alumni involvement with the college.

Discussion of section "B" - Commitments:

o Add "fundraising" and "better physical environment"
(Do we largely direct fundraising efforts toward the operating budget or do we do selective fundraising for specific areas--new buildings, academic programs, etc.) Doug remarked that we have a more sustained and improved level of alumni giving than we did 4-5 years ago.

Under the first commitment on enrollment, it might be helpful to offer three different enrollment models and with each of these models include implications for the budget, facilities, academic provision, etc.
- 1050 (what we have actually managed to achieve)
- 1200 (what we have hoped to reach)
- 1350 (an aspiration we should consider and a level of enrollment our comparison schools have managed to achieve)

Dispersing White Papers for Feedback - Some members of SPC suggested that we design a "homework" assignment to accompany each white paper to motivate community members to take this review seriously. We should ask reviewers to make additions and corrections to what they've read and to request that they include ideas for future planning. Doug's reiterated his original conception of the white papers-to indicate the current state of affairs in each area being addressed and list the issues with which we need to grapple. Monteze suggested we add a third aspect - suggesting models or directions and strategic options (list of choices we're considering). In some reports, we may choose not to add strategic steps. (An example would be the report on fundraising-since we want to involve the new VP for Institutional Advancement in those decisions). Doug requested that we each bring back to the full committee one big idea (commitment/innovation) for consideration (one paragraph or an outline form). The idea should either be an enhancement of something that is already in place or an innovative idea for something very new.

Status of White Papers - Almost all of the white papers are drafted (except for those on Student Life and Community Life). We were reminded that, where appropriate, we were to incorporate or address the work done by the diversity, technology and Quaker aspiration groups. Within the paper on student life, we should comment about the degree to which leadership is given to students and the unique way in which we do service learning here (with a great deal of the responsibility for coordinating the program assigned to students).

Below is a list of the eleven white papers we intend to complete by February 1. We will spend our regular weekly meeting times reviewing sets of 3-4 of these reports.

1. Admissions and Enrollment (including a section on characteristics of entering students)
2. Financial aid
3. Retention
4. Faculty and staff
5. Facilities
6. Budget
7. Fundraising
8. Assessment
9. Student Life (outline)
10. Community Life (outline)
11. Curriculum

Next meeting - January 15 3-5:00 Teague - We will review the following white paper drafts:
- Financial Aid
- Retention
- Admissions/Enrollment
- Budget

________________________________________________________________________
*From that same NSSE andASQ data Monteze included other perceptions (where we are about the same as our overlap institutions and where we are perceived

to be weaker than our overlap institutions).

Valued about the same as at other institutions
- community service
- academic reputation and challenge
- importance of special programs
- financial aid
- quality of social life and extracurricular activity
- internships
- being small
- Quaker identity