Brief Overview of RISD Planning Efforts (1980-Present) David Bogen, Associate Provost for Academic Affairs January 21, 2010
Purpose(s): • To locate current work of long-term/strategic planning within the longer history of planning at RISD. • To give a brief overview and “guide for reading” for the documents we are providing to members of the Core Group. • To begin to document some of the recurring issues and themes that emerge across this longer arc of institutional work. This overview follows a chronology of some of the key documents that comprise the history of planning efforts at RISD over the past three decades. It is intended to provide an initial indication of the different approaches and processes that have been used and to begin to track some of the persistent and/or changing themes involved in institutional planning at RISD. The main focus will be on the Hall “RISD 2000” Plan, the Schutte Plan, the Mandle 10-year plan, the Deal Academic Plan, the 2006 NASAD/NEASC Accreditation and Institutional Response, and the Coogan 2008 Academic Plan (see list of “Key Documents” below). Like all institutional histories, the history of planning at RISD is complex and consists not only in a collection of documents, but also in the lived experience of the many people who have engaged this history in one form or another over the past 30 years. This overview is therefore not proposed as a definitive or complete account, but rather, it is intended as a first pass at locating our current work within a shared understanding of some of the key elements of this history, and as a starting point for further discussions concerning “where we want to go from here.”
Key Documents: Following is a list of key documents that have been included in the archive of planning and evaluation documents on the Google site for this Committee. (Note: Committee members have been asked to read all the documents in italics in preparation for the January 26th meeting of the Core Group. ) Planning Documents: 1) RISD 2000: A Strategic Plan for the Rhode Island School of Design (Lee Hall, 1980) 2) Strategic Planning at Rhode Island School of Design: Report and Executive Summary (Tom Schutte, April 1989) 3) Rhode Island School of Design: The Ten-Year Plan (Roger Mandle, October 1998) 4) RISD Academic Plan (Joe Deal, October 18, 2000 Draft) 5) Strategic Plan Process: A Proposal (Joe Deal, March 4, 2005)
6) Long-Range Plan for the Museum of Art (Hope Alswang, January 2007) 7) The RISD Academic Plan: Our Next Decade (Jay Coogan, Draft V.2.1, January 16, 2008) Evaluation Documents: 1) RISD Academic Plan Update (Joe Deal, May 8, 2004) 2) Rhode Island School of Design Institutional Self-Study (February 1996) 3) NEASC/NASAD Joint Visitors’ Report (April 1996) 4) AAM Museum Accreditation Report (September 14, 1999) 5) Rhode Island School of Design Institutional Self-Study (January 2006) 6) NEASC/NASAD Joint Visitors’ Report (September 2006) 7) Administration’s Recommendations: NEASC/NASAD Strategic Issues (revised March 7, 2007) 8) NEASC/NASAD Accreditation Report: Provost’s Review (Jay Coogan, Spring 2007)
The Hall “RISD 2000” Strategic Plan (1980) I.
Overview of Process
According to the May 1982 “Update to RISD 2000,” the RISD Board of Trustees reviewed the “RISD 2000” plan on September 8, 1980, and voted to adopt the following four “policies” as an affirmation of RISD’s “continuing commitment to excellence in education”: 1) To increase the size of the student body. 2) To improve and expand our facilities. 3) To assure additional adequate housing for students. 4) To conduct a feasibility study to evaluate potential resources for a capital campaign. A Special Faculty Meeting was held on October 28, 1981 “for the purpose of discussing the Institutional Self Study and the RISD 2000 Plan.” According to the minutes from this meeting, the “RISD 2000” Strategic Plan was developed by John Stevens, Vice President for Administration, and the other Vice Presidents of the College “with the consultation of the Division Chairmen” (p. 3). A number of questions were raised by the faculty at this meeting regarding both the specifics of the plan and the process by which it was developed. A resolution was introduced by Merlin Szasz that stated: “On the basis of the information and rationale presented in RISD 2000, relative to the maintenance of quality education while enlarging the college to 2000 students, the faculty finds the conclusions insufficiently supported. The faculty therefore cannot support the RISD 2000 plan, but is willing, through appropriate faculty committees, to explore the problems raised in the proposal to determine its feasibility” (Addendum to Minutes of Special Faculty Meeting on October 28, 1981). This resolution was passed by a unanimous voice vote of the faculty. -2-
II.
Overview of Key Areas of Focus/Themes
The “RISD 2000” plan focuses on a series of economic, demographic, and infrastructural threats to RISD, and includes extensive statistical analyses and projections of admissions/enrollment, operating revenues and expenses, capital needs, and program needs. It also includes a special report on “RISD’s computer,” which was a mainframe computer that appears to have been at a point of implementation during the period of this report. The plan notes, among other things, that the demographics for recruitment of the traditional base of RISD students were projected to be less favorable going forward and that the new (Reagan) administration was putting forward proposals for reducing federal support of higher education. The core of the plan is aimed at addressing these external threats through new revenue creation based primarily on the growth of the student body combined with a series of organizational efficiencies in academic administrative structure and scheduling. Key proposals include: The growth of the RISD student population to 2000 by the year 2000; enhanced admissions/recruitment efforts to achieve this goal; expansion of “non-traditional programs” such as extension and summer programs, off-campus programs, and “educational films for television and similar enterprises”; expansion of dormitory facilities to house a greater number of students; capital projects to enhance academic and museum facilities; and a plan for the reorganization of Academic Affairs.
The Schutte Strategic Plan (1989) I. Overview of Process From Douglas Doe: “In March 1985 Tom Schutte set up a small committee of senior staff led by the VP for Academic Affairs to examine all aspects of a long term planning process…in July 1986 he announced a committee composed of the VP for Academic Affairs, Museum Director, VP for Administrative Services, Director of CE, two trustees, five faculty, and two students. Felice Billups, Director of Institutional Research, served as the support staff. They set up five task forces made up of committee members and other RISD personnel to examine specific issues.” Statement from Schutte letter to Faculty, Staff and Trustees on purpose of Strategic Planning at RISD (September 9, 1986): “In the last several years, many of us—faculty, administrators, students, and trustees—have recognized that RISD needs a clear statement of mission and a set of priorities which support that mission. It is the task of the Strategic Planning Committee to develop goals and priorities in a manner which is comprehensive, realistic, involving the entire RISD community, and sensitive to the rich history and
-3-
traditions of the Rhode Island School of Design.” Membership of original Committee included: Paul Nash, VP for Academic Affairs (and Chair), Jim Barnes (Architecture), Lou Fazzano (Trustee), David Frazier (Painting), Fran Gast (VP for Administrative Services), Gregor Goethals (Grad Studies), Tricia Hennessey (Graphic Design), Johnette Isham (Director of CE), Constance Mussels (Alumni Trustee), Franklin Robinson (Director of the Museum), and Merlin Szasz (Industrial Design) In addition, 5 students and 2 additional faculty (Gareth Jones and Cathy Seigal), participated in the Committee over the time of its existence. The Committee worked for 2 ½ years, delivering an interim report in July 1988 and a final report in April 1989. II. Overview of Key Areas of Focus/Themes Focus on “change”: Each of the 5 task forces was assigned to research a specific area of change (Demographic, technological and economic change; changes in relations with Providence; changes in relations with competitive and cooperative institutions; changes and trends in art and education; changes in philanthropy and support of higher education) Core of plan focuses on 4 areas of organizational change and development (from Executive Summary): 1) Clarification and strengthening of Governance (“the adversarial attitudes of the past are unaffordably costly to RISD”) 2) Restructuring of Academic Organization (“to strengthen the management capability and influence of academic administration at the College”) 3) Review and revision of the Degree Program Curriculum (“to achieve the most appropriate balance among liberal arts education, art and design education, and specialized coursework in a field of concentration”) 4) Financial Development (“with a limit on the enrollment of degree program students…[RISD needs to] substantially increase non-tuition sources of support for RISD programs and facilities”) These organizational changes were intended to serve as a foundation for continued improvement in 5 key areas: 1) Increase in support for faculty accompanied by changes in schedule and improvements in advising 2) Improvements of equipment/technology and facilities 3) More financial support for students 4) Clarification of role and direction of continuing education and graduate programs 5) Improvements in management and communication at all levels
The Mandle 10-year plan (1998) I.
Overview of Process
-4-
Seen as a culmination of a history of planning efforts across the period of the Mandle administration, beginning with the renewal of the long-range planning process in 1993, and including the Campus Master Planning process (begun in 1994); the Institutional Self-Study Accreditation process (1994-1996); the Museum Long-Range planning process (1994-97); as well as a number of other meetings and planning groups (Library Planning Committee; Campaign Planning; Student Housing Sub-Committee; and Central Block Planning Committee, etc.) Ten-Year Plan Task Force (Summer 1998): “This group, comprising representatives from the Board, academic administration, and staff, was charged with two tasks: 1) To develop themes around which the short and long term goals for RISD could be focused, and 2) to establish a short list of priorities for the campaign and more immediate campus needs that would go beyond the scope of the campaign.” (from “Presentation to Faculty,” September 12, 1998) The Task Force members included: Roger Mandle, Hardu Keck, and Phillip Johnston; trustees Dana Newbrook, Kathy Parsons, and Bill Watkins; and Deans Jay Coogan and Mike Everett. The Deans Advisory Council elected Cathy Seigel to serve, but she is not listed in the minutes. Other administrators who attended meetings are Felice Billups, Jeff Apfel, and Mike Franco. II.
Overview of Key Areas of Focus/Themes
“The Ten-Year Plan” was sub-titled “RISD’s Next Decade: Creative Quality Through Community, & Integration & Global Connectivity.” These themes of Community , Integration , and Global Connectivity are reiterated, in various ways throughout the plan. Focus on “change”: The first paragraph of the “Ten-Year Plan” expresses a vision of the development of RISD’s historic mission in the context of changing conditions of professional practice, student demographics, technological advancement, and advancing globalization. Its focus is on the development of RISD as a “place” where: “…students from widely diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds bring an increasingly global view to their roles as aspiring artists and designers; there is renewed commitment to RISD’s unique sense of community through new and renovated facilities, shared spaces and programs; exciting new programmatic interactions between academic and Museum departments set new standards for such collaborations; interdisciplinary endeavors create constantly evolving artistic and design expressions; new technologies are integrated more fully into teaching and learning; the Museum’s collection and facilities are expanded and enhanced, and its public programs reach new heights as educational and cultural resources for Providence and the surrounding region.” (p. 15) This statement articulates a clear desire to coalesce and integrate the many facets of RISD through the redesign of the RISD campus and the creation of interconnected, collaborative programs that work across departments, across
-5-
technological platforms, and between the Museum and the College. It is, at essence, a vision of RISD as an integrated, residential College, built around a series of new facilities, organized by the concept of “The RISD Center.” The subsequent report includes schematic plans and pricing for facilities and operations for a new Library, the RISD Center, expansion of support for academic development, a new ISB facility, new Foundations Studies studios, expansion of the Metcalf facility, expansion of Painting, new facilities for Architecture and Design, endowed scholarships, endowed professorships, Museum renovations, new technologies, and curriculum development funds. It is a picture of institutional development timed to a capital campaign (see “Proposed Ten-Year Plan and Campaign Timeline”). It is self-consciously “tilted” toward buildings/facilities, and is explicit about the financial and operational tension between this emphasis on physical plant and the human and organizational resources required to run these new facilities (see “Financial Plan”).
The Deal Academic Plan (2000) I.
Overview of Process
The academic planning process was initiated in the fall of 1999 when the Deans were asked to work with faculty to develop plans for their divisions, including separate plans for each Department. These plans were reviewed by Academic Affairs in spring 2000. Other groups and committees were also consulted during this period of review, including the Enrollment Task Force, a Student Advisory Committee, the Instruction Committee, the Deans’ Advisory Committee, the Technology Task Force, a subcommittee of the Education and Student Life Committee, the Board of Trustees, and a group of faculty and Department Heads appointed by the Provost to review digital technologies as part of the overall curriculum. These efforts were supported by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning (see RISD Academic Plan, 10.9.00 Draft, “Introduction”). II. Overview of Key Areas of Focus/Themes The tension between quality of educational experience and financial sustainability: “The qualities that distinguish RISD among other colleges of art and design—the breadth, richness, and depth of its academic programs and the quality and diversity of its people— also make it resource-intensive and costly to maintain at such high standards of excellence. Students and their families pay higher tuition to RISD than is charged by almost any other college of art and design, and a lower percentage of RISD’s tuition income is returned to deserving students in the form of scholarships and financial aid than at similar institutions…(L)ike other colleges of comparable quality…the financial resources required to maintain the excellence of its academic programs in an increasingly technological and competitive environment have driven the cost of operations up in recent years at a rate -6-
higher than the rate of growth of tuition. …(A)s a result, increasing costs are putting the same pressures on RISD that other top-tier educational institutions around the country are experiencing: to either raise tuition to even higher levels, admit more students, identify other sources of income, or reduce the number and diversity of its programs, the very qualities that make us distinctive” (see RISD Academic Plan, 10.9.00 Draft, pp. I-2,3). This theme was present back to Schutte (and before), but was most clearly stated as a condition of planning in the 2000 Academic Plan. The plan is framed by a set of “Core Values and Planning Assumptions” (p. II-1), a statement of institutional “Strengths and Weaknesses” (p. III-3) and a set of “overarching priorities” that emerge from the distinct Departmental and Divisional Plans. These priorities “include but are not limited to”: • Attract and retain outstanding students; • Attract and retain the best faculty; • Increase the diversity of students and faculty; • Foster greater collaboration across departments and disciplines; • Address space needs through construction and/or renovation of existing facilities; • Improve student access to non-major studio elective and liberal arts courses; • Improve, refine advising process; • Improve access and training in computer and digital technologies (p. III-4) These priorities are then mapped onto a set of factors that “combine to affect the quality of academic programs and the learning experience of the individual student.” These factors are organized into the following broad categories: community, students, faculty, programs and resources, and facilities and equipment (p. IV-1). Of interest: these categories map fairly seamlessly onto many of the general categories for accreditation, with the one exception of “community,” which is the lead category in the “Appraisal and Recommendations” section. The following statement summarizes the starting point for the analysis of the question of community in this plan: Although students at RISD, as elsewhere, have multiple identities, the primary identification beyond the freshman year for most of them is with the major department and, secondarily, either with their graduating class or cultural group. The reason for the strong identification with the studio is the tremendous amount of time and energy invested there. The rigors of the studio and the focus on the individual can even isolate students within the shared space of the studio. And, the lack of a ‘center’ or other common social spaces at RISD once a student has left the dorm discourages a larger sense of community outside of the studio. For those whose cultural, language, or personal differences may make participation in a group difficult to begin with, the isolation can become stressful. Several factors influence or have a direct impact on a sense of community: size, diversity, indoor and outdoor gathering spaces, communication, and organized activities and support
-7-
services, to name a few. (see RISD Academic Plan, 10.9.00 Draft, p. IV-1). This theme of “community” is then analyzed in terms of these different factors (size, diversity, community spaces, communication, student activities and support services), with specific recommendations addressed to each.
The 2006 NASAD/NEASC Accreditation and Institutional Response I.
Overview of Process
NASAD/NEASC Joint Report based on 2006 Institutional Self-Study and visit. Steering Committee for the Self-Study appointed October 2004. Members included: Jay Coogan, Felice Billups, John Terry, Barbara Von Eckhart, Ed Newhall, Carol Terry, Jack Silva, Amelia Koch, Roberta McMahon, David Frazier, Chris Bertoni, Jim Barnes. Steering Committee and its area sub-committees comprised nearly 80 members of the RISD community representing faculty, students, staff, administration, alumni, and the Board of Trustees (see Institutional Self-Study, “Preface,” p. xii) Visiting Team visited RISD March 12-15, 2006. Team members included: Raymond Allen (MICA/NASAD), Kristi Nelson (U. of Cincinatti/NASAD), Susan Kind Roth (VCU/NASAD), Sherry Kerns (Olin/NEASC), Gary Haggerty (Berklee/NEASC), Stanley Rumbaugh (Wheelock/NEASC), Nancy Tessier (Saint Anselm/NEASC) The final report is organized around NASAD standards for institutional accreditation and includes an “Overview of Institutional Strengths and Areas for Improvement.” II. Overview of Key Areas of Focus/Themes All Core Team members will be asked to review the “Overview of Institutional Strengths and Areas for Improvement” from the accreditation team’s final report. It is a concise statement of observed or reported strengths and weaknesses across the range of institutional factors that comprise the NASAD standards. RISD’s stated strengths include its students, exceptional faculty, low student to faculty ratios, recent facilities development, stretched but committed staff, breadth of programs, quality of student work, outreach to the public through the College and Museum, the renewal of faculty governance, strong institutional research and planning functions, etc. The report lists 29 specific recommendations for “areas of improvement,” ranging from completion of work on the updated mission to integrating funding for deferred maintenance into the budgeting process. Included are concerns about the relative isolation of programs, the coordination with Continuing Education, staffing levels, diversity of student body and effectiveness of diversity efforts in hiring and recruitment, levels of financial aid, staffing in student support services, faculty development, availability of appropriate technologies and training, availability of non-curricular gathering spaces, etc.
-8-
These recommendations also address the need for RISD to further develop its planning processes so that they “more fully integrate academic, facilities, and operations needs.” This summary of “Strengths and Weaknesses” provided a focus for institutional analysis and preparation for a next round of strategic planning, which was envisioned as a broad-based process, including updated long-term Academic and Museum Plans.
The Coogan Academic Plan (2008) I.
Overview of Process
Initially envisioned as part of college-wide strategic planning, the process for the 2008 draft academic plan was initiated in the Winter of 2007 with a series of meetings and then with a request to Departments and Divisions for unit plans based on a set of common questions provided by the Provost. These unit plans were then compiled and worked with in the Deans’ Advisory Council, and a series of meetings with faculty and academic administration were held during AY2007-2008 to review the draft Academic Plan. This process was seen as directly linked to the NASAD/NEASC Accreditation Team visit and final report, and to the “candid picture” provided by that report of RISD’s “institutional strengths and weaknesses” (The RISD Academic Plan, Draft V.2.1, p. 4) The last draft of the Academic Plan was a summary completed in May, 2008. It remained a draft and was never presented formally to the faculty or to the Board of Trustees. II. Overview of Key Areas of Focus/Themes All Core Team members will be asked to review the RISD Academic Plan (Draft V.2.1). It includes a statement of intent that captures key aspirations relating to student educational experience and its connection to the world external to RISD: The Academic Plan is a strategy for ensuring ongoing excellence in art and design education at RISD throughout the next decade. RISD will build on its historical strengths by integrating and making full use of its educational assets. We will put art and design research, experimentation and practice into action, linking with external partners in education, business and culture to build opportunity for students and graduates to create a better and more sustainable world. We will communicate the value of RISD’s education to attract and retain the best students and to build important partnerships for the college. (The RISD Academic Plan, p. 4) Key words (from “Summary”):
-9-
RISD is committed to providing our students with exceptional critical- thinking, form- making, writing and presentation skills… A primary goal is to delineate and create pathways and partnerships between areas of the college, including the RISD Museum, while maintaining our core academic strengths… …the Plan presents flexible curricular structures that will activate interdisciplinary potential and collaboration and integrate studio and liberal arts practices. RISD will also increase collaborative relationships with the outside world …[and provide] active support of faculty in exploring innovative reaching and research … (D)esigners must be fluent in new technologies… Environmental, cultural, social and political awareness are at least as essential as technological acuity… RISD will also support cultural diversity, diverse perspectives, and enhanced sense of community … Key areas of focus (from “internal survey”): Academic Programs, Student Life, Changing Students, Financial Aid, Deferred Maintenance, Compensation, Resource Needs. The Resource Picture: As we embark on carrying out the new Academic Plan, we must develop the fiscal resources to support it without compromising our educational mission. New revenues will come from the following four major sources: ambitious fundraising; increased enrollment; other operations (Residence Life, retail operations, Continuing Education, and the Center for Design and Business); and reallocation of resources and reduction of current operating expenses. Maintaining equilibrium between revenues and expenses will guarantee a structurally balanced budget for RISD (p. 8).
Core Themes In reviewing these documents, certain core themes emerge as consistent elements across the range of planning and evaluation that has taken place during this period. Sometimes these themes appear as statements of institutional commitments or values, at other times as aspirational statements, or as areas of institutional weakness that stand in need of solutions. None of these themes will be surprising for members of the RISD community who have been involved in these discussions over the past several years, but it is important to articulate them here since they
-10-
have remained a consistent part of the discourse on RISD’s future for more than two decades. These core themes include: 1) The Need for Enhanced Community/”Centering” of Community and Student Experience 2) Diversity of Majors/Programs vs. Need for Openness/Interdisciplinarity 3) Integration of Financial/Academic Planning 4) The Need for Financial Sustainability/“Balance” 5) Questions of Size and Scale of the Institution 6) Issues of Space and Facilities Improvement and Planning 7) Changing Demographics and the Need for Improved Recruitment/Enrollment Management Strategies 8) Need for Comprehensive Advising/Student Services 9) Questions of Museum/College Governance and Integration of Programs 10) Integration of Technology Advances in Curriculum 11) Evolving Graduate Programs: Structure and Support 12) Public/International Outreach: Structure and Support 13) Potential for Expansion of Continuing Education/New Markets
-11-