"Excellence in Teaching: A Common Goal"
A National Conference of Chief State School Officers and College and University Presidents

Presentation of the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute as a case study of how university-school collaboration can strengthen teaching and improve learning in the nation's schools

February 17, 1983

The Panel:

­A. Bartlett Giamatti, President, Yale University
­Ernest L. Boyer, President, The Carnegie Foundation for The Advancement of Teaching
­James R. Vivian, Director, Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute

Questions and statements from the floor:

­Jack Peltason, President, American Council on Education
­Michael J. McCarthy, President, St. Mary of the Plains College
­Harold T. Shapiro, President, University of Michigan
­John B. Duff, Chancellor of Higher Education, Massachusetts Board of Regents
­James A. Winn, Associate Professor of English, Yale University
­Mark R. Shedd, Former Commissioner of Education, State of Connecticut
­Jules D. Prown, Professor of the History of Art, Yale University
­Leon Botstein, President, Bard College and Simon's Rock of Bard College
­Robert L. Payton, President, Exxon Education Foundation
­Barbara W. Newell, Chancellor, State University System of Florida
­Michael G. Cooke, Professor of English, Yale University
­Norman C. Francis, President, Xavier University of Louisiana
­William J. Sullivan, President, Seattle University

A. Bartlett Giamatti:

I just want to say a few words, and my colleagues will add a few, and then we really do want to have a conversation.

About five years ago, actually it's six years ago, Jim Vivian­I was teaching English­came to me and asked if I would like to participate in a project that he was developing that was going to be called the Yale New Haven Teachers Institute. He said he wanted to work with people like me and Professor Howard Lamar and with teachers and administrators in the New Haven public school system to design a project that would build on the success of the History Department­ that Yale had had beginning, oh, some nine years ago­by making available the resources of Yale, its faculty and other resources, more broadly and widely to assist the school system in the City of New Haven. I didn't think I had a summer job at that point, and I had taught in something called the Yale Summer High School and some other areas around here. I was very interested in participating. And I was going to lead the Institute's first seminar for teachers on student writing, when the Trustees of Yale changed my job, and I had to respond to a different, though not a higher calling, I must say. Howard Lamar, who at that point was also a Professor of History, has since become the Dean of Yale College. I figured if it could happen to me it could happen to him. But he has also remained a strong supporter and advisor of this program. And, indeed, the current Dean of Graduate School, Keith Thompson, who is the person who first assisted Jim in designing the program in the sciences when Keith Thompson was then a Professor of Biology, which he still is, and Director of the Peabody Museum of Natural History. I only say this to indicate the extent to which the institutional and human, personal support for this project and program here at Yale is very real and very deep.

The Institute is founded on the recognition that the interests of Yale and the interests of New Haven and of higher and of secondary education are absolutely intertwined. We believe that the mutual interest between city and college, between school and college, has to be more widespread. As I said last night, there is in my view no more important recommendation in the new Carnegie Report than the one that calls for universities and schools to develop partnerships of the kind that we hope or try to develop here, based on the needs as determined by principals and teachers in schools. That has been, at least, our fundamental conviction. We are delighted to see the Report shares it. Both aspects of that recommendation, I think, are essential. Not only that universities and schools work together, but especially that the people in the universities work with the colleagues in the school so as to encourage them to show us how we can best organize our resources to address their needs. That is a fundamental principle and central feature of our Teachers Institute. From the beginning teachers have played a leading role in the design and conduct of the program, and I think that is indispensable to its success. The best evidence of that success is what the teachers themselves tell us about how their experiences in the program have assisted them in their own teaching and how the Institute has strengthened their preparation, how it has raised their morale, how it has heightened their expectations of the students' ability to learn, and bow in turn it has improved student learning in their own classrooms.

The second thing that I think is indispensable to our program is that through it we make available the great resources of this place and the greatest resource which is the heart of the place and which is the faculty. Not only the faculty who work with the Institute, but Professor James Comer, an extraordinarily distinguished colleague in the Department of Psychiatry of the School of Medicine has been for a number of years working with Yale through the Urban Academy, as we call it, to work with elementary schools in the City of New Haven, particularly minority and disadvantaged students. It is not something that is new because the Urban Academy, in fact, is much older than the Institute in some ways. The fact is that the great resources that a place like this has are not the ceremonial wind-up toys in the administration but are in fact the faculty. And that is the heart of it. The collegial relationship between the Yale faculty and the New Haven school faculty is, of course, I think the spirit that animates it and is essential to its success. And I must say that the University faculty­a number of them are here­can attest, I know have learned as much in lots of ways from the colleagues in the school system as the other way around.

In 1979-80 I had the pleasure of serving on the Commission on the Humanities, National Commission on the Humanities, chaired by then President of Stanford Lyman, who is here with us. I am delighted. And on that, in the course of that Commission and in the course of its remarkable Report for which he was mostly responsible, we concluded, and I quote that Report, "that a dramatic improvement in the quality of education in our elementary and secondary schools is the highest educational priority in the '80s." That Commission further said that "programs of school college collaboration offer the best opportunities to strengthen the instruction in the schools while providing intellectual renewal for teachers." That is what we hope happens at the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute. The Commission also concluded, and we genuinely believe based on our experience in New Haven, that a partnership like this can be effective only if it is long-term, if funding can be sustained on a continuing basis. And that is why it is so important for us at Yale to try and raise the 4,000,000 dollars in endowment that we know we must raise to be able to continue this effort, and why we are frankly so grateful for the longer term support that we've been able to win from the National Endowment for the Humanities and, indeed, from the support of foundations and some fifty local corporations who have understood very well that the quality of the public school system here is as much in their interest as it is everybody else's.

Those are just some introductory comments of my own and in some sense my own perspective. From my remarks this morning in introducing Ernie Boyer you know how highly I regard his leadership and human qualities. A year ago we invited him to visit New Haven and prepare a report for us on our Teachers Institute. He brought to that evaluation an unsurpassed knowledge of this area of educational activity, as I think he has an unsurpassed knowledge of all areas. His wise report was immensely valuable to us in helping us to continue to think about how better to shape and work with the teachers and on our Institute, and I am so delighted he has agreed to be with us this afternoon, with Jim and with me, to comment on and say a few words about the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute. And if you would say something, sir, if you wish to, and then we will turn to Jim, and we can talk about other things.

Ernest L. Boyer:

It is true that a little over a year ago President Giamatti asked if I would evaluate a project which I confess that I had not known about, the Yale New-Haven Institute. After we juggled calendars and negotiated times, I did come to New Haven for two days. I think the record should show that I came with skepticism. Bart was kind enough to refer to a chapter in my life which dates to Santa Barbara where I did for several years spend my time in pursuit of togetherness, and while I enjoyed it, I had much reservation about the commitment of universities to schools, and while there was a lot of talk in the post-Sputnik era. Colleges were fat and confident, and to me it was a kind of a "big brother" mentality. And I just couldn't quite believe that Yale was authentically engaged with the grubbiness of public school teaching, except perhaps on the margins. So, I can tell you I came knowing very little, but I must say with great reservations. And intended­ because Bart was so straight-forward in his introduction to this­intending to say, to call the shots precisely as I saw them.

Well, after these two days of very intense round-the-clock inquiry into a third day, I left a believer. And not that there were not problems, which I will mention in a moment, but without belaboring this, this to me was a program genuinely that worked. And President Giamatti has just cited in his splendid introduction what I think are the several keys to its success. First and foremost is the fact that it has had support from the very top, and I don't know any way for an effort such as this that tries to break out of the existing structure, to make it unless someone who has authority says this is a priority and it must succeed. Bart Giamatti has been during his tenure an absolutely eloquent spokesman for this, as he has on the broader landscape of excellence as well.

Second, and I think perhaps to my greatest surprise I discovered that this did involve in fact the most distinguished faculty at Yale. I found it just hard to believe, but in my, in the dinner meetings and the meetings that were arranged, I discovered that it was a blue-chip commitment by senior professors, ranking professors. Many of them had themselves moved on to distinguished administrative posts, still giving their time. And I must say and here it sounds, perhaps, a bit sentimental­but I was also absolutely persuaded as I listened to these colleagues describe the respect they had for the teachers with whom they worked. This was just a powerful experience, and I think I'm old and calloused enough to know when I'm being had. We all look faculty in the eye, and they look us in the eye. And frankly, I became a true believer.

Third­Bart mentioned this, too­I spent hours with the teachers who had participated, and they have in fact shaped the agenda. I mean by that, in building these summer institute programs what happens is that an area is defined by a faculty, based on his or her experience and professional competence. And then the teachers define the specific area in which they would like to spend the summer term digging more in depth, so that we have a faculty with competence in a discipline but a teacher in the school defining the particular topic. And they negotiate that together. So it is a genuinely shared curriculum that is shaped.

Fourth, and serendipitously I know, but I heard stories that follow- up support that again I found impressive and occasionally moving. One teacher said six months later she was still getting from a Yale professor little memos in the box and reprints from professional articles that said, in effect, "just read this and I thought it would interest you because of what we studied together last summer." One teacher told of a professor from the University who came to her class on several occasions to meet with the students and also to spend time with her in an area. There was such a professional respect and follow-up activity that proved that they had both become genuinely engaged in professional quest that I thought was powerful.

And then there were other tangible benefits. I was only half kidding this morning when I said that the faculty, the teachers in the public schools in New Haven, who told me of the, frankly, the joy of driving onto this campus and feeling they are part of it. Library privileges. They are part of Yale, gosh ... powerful for teachers given the town- gown that occurs any place. There is New Haven and then there is Yale. But not to pick on Yale, that is true in almost any city, town, or village. They had become a part of a community and they felt authentically. They had the badges of that membership and not just a late-night seminar held in some dreary classroom where they were there in and out almost as strangers. So, Yale delivered to say you are a part of our professional community.

These added up frankly to what I found to be an experiment in which the talent of this campus was connecting with the best teachers in the public schools, who incidentally are selected by ranking teachers, never mind if they are called "master teachers." There are in each school members of a network who select teachers among them who they think would benefit and nominate them to participate. And then they spend the summer in effect going back to college, going back to Yale. And leave that summer, I think, going back into the classroom enormously enriched. The proof of the pudding was the fact that one afternoon for several hours I met with some twenty of these teachers. And at least half a dozen of them said, if it wouldn't be for this Institute, I would have moved to the suburb districts long ago because it is tough to stay in New Haven public schools. It is not easy. But if 1 would leave this school district, I would lose the benefit of the Yale-New Haven Institute. Now there is a message there that I think needs carefully to be examined.

Two or three caveats, and I quit. I don't quite know what to do with the debate about Schools of Education. I only remind you that it's true they don't have a School of Education here. I think, frankly, occasionally, the School of Education can provide a filter, if not a barrier. I do know it succeeded here because there were distinguished professors in the disciplines. And one teacher in New Haven told me that she learned more through the two summer institutes­and she had a Masters Degree, I think in literature­she learned more from her two summer term institutes working with the distinguished Yale faculty than she had learned in her Masters Degree in that discipline. I can only underscore the fact that whether it is, School of Education or not, and I don't want to make that a whipping boy, I only say that somehow these teachers urgently want to have, need to connect with, an authentic scholar who can teach them in the area of special interest to them.

Two little footnotes, and then I close. Eventually Yale and New Haven and the community had to decide whether they were going to make this something that was going to be institutionally theirs, or whether it was going to endlessly be on soft money. And President Giamatti made that decision. He has picked up core support here­ and of course they are continuing to search for external support­and they have made it even a long-range plan to build an endowment to sustain it. So, it seems to me they stepped up to that and have answered very responsibly, the question that: "is this simply on the edges or is it for real?" And I am convinced that the answer to that is, "for real."

Final point, I did probe whether the central office in New Haven was a part of this or whether this was enriching selected teachers, which in itself is good, but to what extent was this having a broader impact. And I would say at the present time not very much. They have in theory­Jim may want to quarrel with me, that's alright. They have in theory the notion that these new curricular developments that each teacher finds in the New Haven project then become part of the central office master plan and others can share. But I'm afraid it gets caught in the bureaucracy. And it hasn't found yet full a way to generalize. On the other hand, if it simply invests in the outstanding teachers, and others know that it is there for them as well, then perhaps the notion of "disseminating," a word that does not trip easily off my tongue, may perhaps be forgotten. I would say I'd give it a score of 95%, thanks to Bart Giamatti and the distinguished faculty of New Haven and Yale.

President Giamatti:

Thank you. Do you want to say a few words, Jim?

James R. Vivian:

Really­other than to say that I have been enormously interested in the discussion this morning­you remarked last evening about prestige, power, preparation for teachers" as being some of the key issues you expected the conference would address. I think these are questions that the Institute is very much engaged with, and I would simply like to be available with you­thanking both of you­to answer questions.

President Giamatti:

Thank you, sir. Well, we really do want to have a conversation. Thank you, Ernie. So, I open it up, turn it over, I think, queries, qualms. . . . Yes, sir. Hello, Jack.

Jack Peltason:

I have a question, now . . .

President Giamatti:

Jack, you know I have been told to ask­and I'll do it once­the speakers to speak into that mike. I don't think you are going to find it easy to get to that mike. So, I've said it, and now why don't you just say it.

Mr. Peltason:

I'll have to project all the way up there. I have a simple and quick question. Have you thought about the question, why did you make it the Yale-New Haven Institute rather than Yale- Connecticut, or . . . ?

President Giamatti:

Oh, I thought you were quarreling with the billing.

Mr. Boyer:

What about the Giamatti-Shedd Institute?

Mr. Peltason:

Must this thing be bilateral, or can it be multilateral, with one university working with many, or several, or two or three?

President Giamatti:

I have a characteristically parochial answer to that, Jack. And that is that I don't think the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute is going to solve all the problems of the public school. I don't think Yale is going to solve all the problems of the country. Yale has trouble enough solving some of its own. The fact is we can make a remarkable, if limited, very real contribution to where we in fact are. We have programs whereby able high school students, and public schools and in some cases other schools, can take courses at Yale when they run out of courses in all the surrounding schools. And we have other ways of helping. But insofar as our obligation is to the City of New Haven in which we are a major part, then it seemed to me that there would always be plenty of teachers, plenty of students, and plenty of need for us to confine ourselves. We could have spread it out to the surrounding towns. I think that we could make the mistake of diffusing our efforts and doing less well with what, with the limited concentration, we think we can do well.

Mr. Peltason:

There was the suggestion, then, that what we learned here, that other institutions and other universities might benefit from that experience; the advice would be that they work with . . .

President Giamatti:

Take on the place where you are in the first sense. And while I hadn't realized at the time­when I was talking to Jim some years ago about remaining inside the City­if in fact then that helps to hold good teachers here, without coercing anybody, because of the presence of this, then that's another good reason for it. Yes.

Michael J. McCarthy:

Have there been any studies­maybe Jim can help you answer this­as to how effective these teachers have been in their classroom as far as pupil gain and that type of thing as a result of having had this experience?

Mr. Vivian:

As President Giamatti said a little bit earlier, it seems to me that the best evidence is what teachers tell us. I don't think we can validly claim that any improvement in test scores­and there has, coincidental with the time that the Institute has existed, been, in fact, an improvement in some of the standardized normative testing in the New Haven schools. But I think it would be specious to say that that is attributable to the Institute. There are too many things that bear on student learning, on teachers' preparation; we're not the only show in town. What is convincing to me is the way in which teachers report to us that it affects their own preparation, their own expectations of their students' ability to learn, and in the end their report to us that it enhances student learning in their own classrooms. There is a study, in fact, that's included in the Report that we prepared for this conference that speaks about the points that I have just made in more detail.

President Giamatti:

Yes, Harold.

Harold T. Shapiro:

I just want to ask you one or two simple, quantitative questions. In any given year, how many regular Yale faculty are involved in the Institute, and over time how many teachers in the Yale system has the Institute worked with?

Mr. Vivian:

There are 360 eligible teachers in the New Haven schools, in the middle and high schools, which is to say all the teachers who teach in the humanities and sciences in that school system. Of those, at this point in time, over forty percent have completed successfully at least one year of the program. And in the survey that we recently completed, most of them said they want to participate again. A sizable majority of teachers who have not yet participated have said they wish to do so in the future. On the University side in terms of Yale faculty, 26 at this point have led at least one Institute seminar; several have led more than one Institute seminar; and in a given year there are seven or eight seminars being offered. There is­that is the most intense involvement of University faculty­there is also a lecture series, a University Advisory Council, and a variety of other ways in which the faculty of this place contribute their time and intelligence and counsel to the program.

President Giamatti:

Yes, John.

John B. Duff:

There were a number of these institutes based . . . that seem similar to this in operation in the late '60s, the early '70s. Generally results were very poor. They helped the teachers for a summer and then they did evaluation a few years later and found that the history . . . of the history teachers in the schools after the institute were not­having read a book on history the year before they entered, and reading eight or nine that year, while a few years later they were back reading no books. Is it? What seems to me is distinctive here­besides what Bart has said, the quality of Yale faculty­is the recurring experience. That did not happen in the Institutes of the late '60s and early '70s. Do you think that is a major fact in your success here?

President Giamatti:

I do, and that is one of the reasons why it seemed to me that there was every reason not to try and do more than you could well, because there was going to be a continuous need to continue to re-engage.

Mr. Vivian:

I might just add to that, that one of the most interesting things to me in reflecting on what we are doing­and a lot of the reflection has to do with comparing teaching in a university or a college with teaching in the schools. I think we assume at the university or college level that good teaching arises from someone who has a continuing engagement in writing and study in his own field. Somehow we don't assume that about public school teachers. I think one of the main conclusions in my experience in the Institute here is that, in the same way that that benefits faculty who are teaching at the university level, it does so as well at the secondary- school level. So that, for the program to be ongoing, For the benefits to be lasting, I guess I might say the program has to be lasting.

Mr. Boyer:

May I just submit­a good question, and I am trying to think of why it might be different here. Back to Bart's response to the intimacy of this Yale-New Haven, I suspect if they had flown in with no negative intentions, and the geography, flown in from Arizona and then back, it would have been fun and stimulating. But there is something about, forgive the term, "institutionalization," and the immediacy and the continuity of it that I think raises it to a different level, and the predictions of success are improved. I immediately thought of the fact that every school I visited­and I wasn't being led around, frankly, on a show case, we just happened to choose randomly. I met with groups of teachers; first of all, as I said, within each school there was a Yale-New Haven administrator or whatever you call these people . . .

Mr. Vivian:

"Coordinators."

Mr. Boyer:

Coordinators, and then I also met over lunch or coffee break, which are very fleeting. I mean I got more gas pains in trying to catch faculty in schools over their coffee breaks and the like because they have about ten minutes. I mean where are these faculty lounges, for God's sake? But the point I am getting to is there in each school I visited a half dozen met me, and they talked about their participation in this one, two, three, or four years. My point is that it had become a part of the school life. And I think that gives it a prospect of being something other than a one-time thing. Just those thoughts went through my mind when you tried to draw appropriately comparisons to perhaps short-term, but not long-term, gains in the past.

President Giamatti:

Jim. Jim Winn is a member of the Yale faculty, English Department.

James A. Winn:

And taught three summers in the Institute. I would just like to add one thing about the intimacy, having worked in the program, of having a lot of repetition. When we began this program, there was enormous hostility between town and gown, as there had been for many years here. And one of the conceptions that the teachers that came into the program with was of Yale as a terribly closed-off place. This program has been very populous and pluralist, and I think that hasn't been stressed enough yet. We have not selected out the best teachers. Teachers have selected themselves, and they have asked to come in, and we have been embracing of them. I myself have taught teachers whose skills range from very high to shockingly weak in this program. I think, strange though it was, that the program may have done more good to the shockingly weak teachers than to the teachers who have better preparation to start with. The very good teachers, the intellectually committed teachers, who come summer after summer to get an enormous charge in their batteries. That is a tremendously important thing that we do. The teachers who instruct, who write for us curriculum units which we regard as marginal also benefit, and their students also benefit. It has been one of the continuing strengths of the Institute­and I can't stress this enough­that we have tried to reach out into the New Haven schools, and that we have not reached out in a way that was skimming cream. If we had gone to a state-wide or national program, we would almost ipso facto have had to have been selective in a way that we have not been. And it has been one of the strengths of the program that a teacher who wanted to come and who committed him or herself to come to the seminars and write the unit, had the opportunity to come.

President Giamatti:

James.

Mark R. Shedd:

Jim, Mark Shedd. While you're on your feet, could I ask you a question? Much has been said here about the great gains for the New Haven teachers. In my conversations with some of the faculty at Yale, they have indicated to me great gains and benefits that they have made as a result of this engagement. Would you want to make a­do you agree or disagree­and make some comments one way or the other?

Professor Winn:

I agree entirely, and I think that all those who taught at the program­I taught three consecutive summers­would agree with that. If you come from nine months of teaching people aged eighteen to nineteen, who are quite confused about whether they want what you have to offer, to teaching people who are older than you, in my case, for the most part, and who desperately want what you have to offer and who are going to take what you have to offer and "disseminate" it, to use Mr. Boyer's word, very timely . . . (Laughter.) The kinds of challenges that these people pose are different from the kinds of challenges posed by ordinary adults, undergraduates or indeed graduate students, I have never had the experience of passing out a syllabus to a Yale seminar or a lecture course and having the immediate response to be, "why are we reading that?" Which was invariably the immediate response in the Teachers Institute. One has to defend at every turn what one was doing, its importance, its intellectual and indeed pedagogical relevance to the ongoing, daily life in the trenches that these people, bravely and vigorously without . . .

Mr. Shedd:

Do you find that a benefit to you?

Professor Winn:

An enormous benefit to me, an unquestionable benefit.

Mr. Shedd:

In my conversations at various times with school faculty and University faculty, I have been impressed that I have been able . . . that I have been unable to figure out which gains more, the University faculty person or the school faculty person. There is also an enormous increase in the respect and the esteem with which high school teachers are held by University faculty.

Professor Winn:

What they do is infinitely harder than what we do and infinitely more important.

President Giamatti:

I'm not sure of that.

Professor Winn:

And worthy of a salary increment.

President Giamatti:

Jules Prown. Jules Prown is a Professor of the History of Art and has also been a stalwart in this. Do you want to speak to that?

Jules D. Prown:

Yes, well, I think it is one of the most effective aspects of that. But we should be aware of the fact of the craft of teaching, what it means to be a teacher. Somehow teaching at Yale doesn't seem like work, and it doesn't seem like teaching, because of the quality of the students. It sort of carries itself along. You're doing what you do, what comes naturally, and it's enjoyable, pleasurable, and it just works. And there is a new focusing on what it means to be a teacher, and a new appreciation of that. What I think all of us have found in our seminars is that the meetings tend to break into two sections, one of which where you deal with curricular issues, but another where the teachers begin talking to each other about their own experiences. And a kind of sharing takes place between them from which we learn, just from being participants. And in fact they are teaching us because they have that kind of front-line experience that we don't have. And the kind of authority they gain from being in a teaching role with Yale faculty, I think enhances the interchange.

President Giamatti:

I think that's exactly right.

Leon Botstein:

Leon Botstein, President of Bard College. I don't want to puncture these two comments, one, of great benefits to the faculty and the other that says the faculty, excuse me, the Yale . . . and the other one . . . I don't want to reconcile these two statements. But, in any event, I want to ask three practical questions. And that is, do you have any evidence at all from the experience you have had that . . . are there any opportunities for the teachers, the better teachers to have access to classrooms at Yale, number one, in the high school, first question? And if not­if so, what is it like­if not, do you think of it as a positive or at all a constructive possibility? Second, do you have any follow­up of the teachers that have been in the Institute? Whether their own habits of self-development, whatever language you put on it, have changed. That is to say any follow-up on their interest, whether they begin to do other kinds of things, change their interest in teaching? What kind of impact it has had on them in terms of their own professional self-definition? Do they go enroll in graduate school, you know, begin to write, anything of that nature? Third, assuming that it sounds to be a really model program, what advice would you give those of us that are also not in New Haven or at Yale, if one wanted to, pardon the expression, "replicate this disseminatable" project?

Mr. Boyer:

Two rights don't make a wrong.

President Giamatti:

Thanks, Leon.

Mr. Boyer:

Sounds like an educationist.

President Botstein:

What we should look out for?

President Giamatti:

Why don't you speak to that?

Mr. Vivian:

For your first question, to be clear about what you intended, is the question as to their enrollment directly in regular university classes?

President Botstein:

No, my question is teaching . . .

Mr. Vivian:

Teaching at Yale?

President Botstein:

Yes, in other words, having any practice teaching in the Yale context.

Mr. Vivian:

To the extent that has happened, it has been very limited. There are two people that I am aware of who have served as kind of master teachers in our own teacher preparation program here who have been Institute Fellows as well. And that really is the main connection through which a teacher in the public school system might do something on the . . . do teaching on the Yale campus.

Your second question about follow-up and self-development habits and so forth, as you say. I think one of the interesting survey results was that of the teachers we surveyed and we tried to survey all New Haven teachers whether they had been in the Institute or not, whether they had used Institute materials or not­was that former Fellows tended to find teaching much more stressful over the last five years, as compared with their colleagues who had not been in the Institute. But that at the same time they also found they were about twice as likely to find teaching more rewarding. The way I understand that, in part, is to say that their own expectations of themselves have changed. Once they have developed a four-to-six week segment of one course­and that's the most that someone can do in one Institute seminar­once they have seen the kind of work that goes into that and see the result that that gets, it changes their expectations of how they prepare the other three marking periods in that course, not to mention all the other courses they are involved with. So, yes, and I think in a number of ways, not only by returning to the Institute, but also other professional activities that they are engaged in, it does make a contribution in that way.

As for your third question on advice, I've thought a good deal about that in putting together the book that we did, the Report for you, and also as we have begun to have requests to travel and talk about the program. And it seems to me that the central thing that I would suggest, the main thing that I would suggest, is a point that was being made in various ways this morning about the nature of collaborative programs if they are to succeed. And it is, I think, that to succeed one must look to teachers, one must look to the schools, to define the problems and their own needs so that higher education can then marshall its resources and organize them to meet those needs. I think that is how the kind of trust that was being referred to this morning in fact is created.

President Botstein:

But quickly, the unit focus, the units they write, you would suggest that as a copiable . . .

Mr. Vivian:

It is what works here. I think for instance Robert Kellogg, when he evaluated the program two or three years ago now, pointed out that it is one of the things that maintains the rigor of the program. It is something that the seminar works toward, and it is a tangible end-product, in other words. So while in another community a different end-product might serve a similar purpose, it is the purposes that the unit serves that I think are essential. And the theme of the unit is really for someone to think in a structured way about how they are going to apply what they are learning in their own teaching. Not to assume, as I think so many summer programs for teachers do assume, that by better preparing teachers that is automatically going to improve their own teaching, without them having thought formally about, in fact, how that is going to happen. It is the unit in other words through which they translate their experience on campus to their own teaching.

Mr. Boyer:

If I were to identify two areas to make this a franchise­ you know it's like how do you make McDonald's french fries? I think . . .

President Giamatti:

That's not the analogy I could have come up with.

Mr. Boyer:

I think the two elements that I think would make this the franchise, one, these teachers genuinely seem to feel that this is something that has been created for them. That is, they believe it is not, they are not running to the institution's terms. Somebody has convinced them this is created for them, and they believe that. And number two, they think they are getting the best that Yale has to offer. And I think they are. They aren't being kidded on either point. And I am going to say something that I hope is understood, but I have to say it. Part of it is you can't franchise the name Yale. And I simply make that observation to say that there are some institutions that, for whatever reason, are not seen in their region or community as having stature and a quality or whatever that adds to the identification. I just have to make that point, that being at a campus and with faculty who they think are world-rank and distinguished is the second part of that franchise. I think the model is movable. But I think we have to understand there are some dynamics working here that are terribly important. I think any college can convince the faculty this is for you and, b) we are giving you the best. And I think those are very critical.

President Giamatti:

Robert.

Robert Payton:

It may have been in the material. I may have missed it, but I want to ask a general financial question.

President Giamatti:

Can everybody hear Bob Payton? I'm not sure they can, Bob.

Mr. Payton:

It may have been something in the material that I missed, but I'm interested in the financial, and I just want to ask a general financial question about the sources of the funds and uses of the funds because things that get replicated and transported and disseminated cost money, and the money is not always available for the replication.

Mr. Vivian:Mr. Payton:

I don't know the extent of how much money you've been spending.

Mr. Vivian:

For a program of eighty Fellows the funding from outside the University and the schools is about $200,000 a year. That is seven seminars, eighty Fellows, and the various other aspects of the program. The University and the schools together provide over sixty percent of the total cost of the program, and that percentage has grown steadily from the outset. The New Haven Public Schools, for instance, spend over forty percent of their total in-service training budget directly through a subsidy to this program. When I tell you what that forty percent is, it reveals another aspect of the problem. The forty percent of the total in-service training budget in the New Haven Public Schools is $17,500.

Mr. Payton:

So, the total cost of the program, irrespective of the sources supporting, annually is 200 and . . .

Mr. Vivian:

Irrespective of the sources?

President Giamatti:

No, the total . . .

Mr. Payton:

The total budget is two hundred and some-odd thousand?

Mr. Vivian:

Roughly $200,000. Not including indirect costs, overhead, those kinds of calculations.

Mr. Payton:

Is faculty, Yale faculty time, your time, counted in that?

Mr. Vivian:

The compensation for people leading the seminars, yes. The many other ways in which faculty contribute to the program, through lectures, talks, our University Advisory Council, no.

President Giamatti:

Jules?

Professor Prown:

I just wanted to respond to a couple of things. I'll mention one small thing about the . . . I think what may explain this is that I work both in undergraduate and graduate teaching, and some of the summer seminars are more like undergraduate seminars than they are like graduate seminars. Writing seminars, I think, are more like undergraduate seminars. The other thing you asked about their teaching in our classrooms, which is an interesting, it is something I'd like to remark on, it occurred to me this morning while Mr. Boyer was speaking. One of the nice things about being involved with this program is nothing is written in stone. There are a lot of discussions, things have evolved, things have changed. And the faculty had input into it as well as the school teachers and the administration. And there are some things that we disagree upon, and I hope, for example­my own position differs from Bart a little bit on whether the Institute should serve just the City or whether it should serve greater New Haven. A number of us on the faculty live outside of the City, are suburbanites and commute, and we get a great deal out of New Haven, and we also contribute to that work, and I would hope that this will be continuing dialogue.

President Giamatti:

This is not a voice vote.

Professor Prown:

This morning the idea of what do we do within the University to make teaching, high school teaching, more attractive to our undergraduates. It occurred to me that maybe one thing we should debate in our Advisory Board is the possibility of using the residential college system that exists at Yale, which is freer and more open, for perhaps having a couple of the better units that are developed in the seminars, tried out or used, or some variant of them used. But to create an opportunity possibly for some of these better New Haven teachers to teach Yale undergraduates in the residential college system about teaching and make them somehow look it over. I think there are possibilities. But, at any rate, I think one of the things, one of the benefits we have in this conference, is that we're going to be talking these things over.

President Giamatti:

Yes.

Barbara W. Newell:

Could you give us some examples of the kinds of forum topics that occur during the summer program typically? And the orientation toward, I gather, is both toward the disciplinary as well as toward the pedagogy of that area.

Mr. Vivian:

Let me answer the second, and then for the examples, let me turn to a couple of University faculty members who are here who led seminars to provide the details of some of the work that has been done in those seminars. The second aspect of your question was . . .

Chancellor Newell:

Well, my question was whether . . .

Mr. Vivian:

I lost track, I'm sorry . . .

Chancellor Newell:

I gather that the seminars are both disciplinary as well as pedagogically oriented.

Mr. Vivian:

Definitely. And there is a somewhat artificial, but I think real Distinction that helps­between the University faculty and school teachers in the philosophy of the program that helps­put them on a par, set them on an equal footing in the seminar. Which is to say that the University faculty members' specialty is in the subjects that they teach at the University level, and that the school teachers understand best the pedagogy, the needs of teaching. I say that that distinction is artificial, but I think it is part of the way in which the authority of the public school teacher in the seminar is created. Michael would you or Tom wish to provide the details?

President Giamatti:

Michael, why don't you first and then some others speak to the . . .

Michael G. Cooke:

It might be simplest if I just read a couple of sentences from the special Report for the conference.

President Giamatti:

Professor Michael Cooke of the English Department.

Mr. Cooke:

In 1982 we taught Society and Literature in Latin America, Autobiography, The Constitution in American History and American Life, Society and the Detective Novel, An Unstable World: The West in Decline?, The Changing American Family, Human Fetal Development. I would like to just comment briefly on my experiences as a teacher in the Institute. I think James Winn mentioned that sometimes people's preparation is startlingly weak. My own feeling on that is that the expectations that people have of high school teaching are not always the severest. When people come into the Institute we take them utterly seriously, not literally, but seriously. I mean we do propose things to do. We say . . . I did a course on Black and White Fiction in the Twentieth Century. It went back into William Blake. And we were doing William Blake and Ntozake Shange because they wanted to do Ntozake Shange, and I said, "well, if you do that, then perhaps we should look at Blake just to see what revolution is." There is really a change on both sides of the fence. We come in with strong ideas about the things that we feel the profession makes possible. They come in with very strong ideas about what they need, and we negotiate. And everybody is involved in that negotiation. So I think that the fundamental feature of this enterprise is that everybody is taking everybody else quite seriously. And that the product is surprising to both sides.

President Giamatti:

Michael, you didn't say anything­maybe you said it all just then­but you didn't say anything when Jules and James were talking about the sense of what the University people gain in terms of the appreciation of what other people go through, and I know that you and I have talked about that.

Mr. Cooke:

Yes. It is a very curious thing. I was talking to Dr. Shedd this morning about my own writing and the fact that when I write it I understand it, but, five years later I don't understand it.

President Giamatti:

Some of us catch up with it quicker than that.

Mr. Cooke:

The other people who, as I, pretend to understand it, are colleagues, usually close friends. You go into a room with somebody whose intelligence is clearly considerable, whose habits are different from yours, that is to say, their habits are not as severe as yours. At the same time their engagement, their direct life, day in and day out, is much more crucial because they are bringing up the body of people who are going to go out into society and carry the society. We carry a splendid specialized area, which I think is very important, even beautiful. But still it can be very specialized. When I said to them, we should do William Blake, they say, "my kids won't care." Then I have a very different problem from what it is to get an article into the MLA. So that my understanding of Blake is altered by the demands that they make on me. As a result, the following year when I go into my undergraduate classes, my students' eyes don't glaze so readily. After all I'm teaching the kids who were high school students the year before. And that may be another important feature of this whole enterprise for us, is that we are working on the assumption that there is an unbreakable line from the high school in spite of the passports that have to be developed for admission into college and so on. There is really an unbreakable line, that the student is the same student and the material is the same material. And it is not acceptable for the student to come in and say "what do you mean? I'm a freshman now; I read King Lear last year." That is not an acceptable statement for us. This continuity means that the material is continually enlarging itself, that the individual engaged with the material is continually being enlarged, and we share in an enlargement by virtue of the presence of the secondary school teachers, and we hope that they share an enlargement by virtue of being involved with us.

President Giamatti:

Yes, Norman, President of Xavier University. Sir.

Norman C. Francis:

I think we have gotten all the positives, and I want a last crack at administrative response from Jim, Bart. Aside from money, aside from the fact, as Ernie has said it, you have a natural, in Yale and the like. What are some of the major problems you have administering a program like this? There is no question, I think, about the positives, but some of us are sitting here and think it is a fine case study. What are the major problems that you have faced that you may not have said thus far?

Mr. Vivian:

The first one that comes to mind, I have said before and it is funding, so let's pass over that. I think it is a problem, funding; it would be obvious to all of you that that's the case.

Question:

Do you get help from the central university?

Mr. Vivian:

Absolutely. Absolutely. From the University's Development Office.

Question:

That's a very important point if we're all worried about funding.

Mr. Vivian:

Very definitely. Let me mention one thing at least. It is, the Institute is a forum in a way for all of the frustrations that teachers feel about teaching. The Institute doesn't address all of their problems. Can't possibly. Isn't meant to. So that I think somehow balancing their oftentimes radical ideas about what needs to happen to teaching in America, on the one hand, with a sense that at least we can chip away at a piece of it and­keeping a kind of dedication and spirit to do something practical and manageable, something that the University can do­without constantly entertaining all of the other things they would like to do that this place really isn't capable of addressing. Maintaining a clear focus on what is possible and a kind of realism about the program.

President Giamatti:

Part of what gnaws at all of us, Norman, is­and it came up from Jules Prown and it comes up from Vivian. One of Vivian's major problems is me, we might as well say that, I mean. There is a sense that you have got to make your choices, and you have got to understand, and you have got to live with the fact that you know you are not doing a lot of things of two kinds, things that are crucial to do which you can't do. You can't manage the school system, God forbid, you can't get inside it that way. And secondly, a set of things that you would like to do that you chose not to do whether it is with other school systems or elsewhere simply because the need to do something­and I don't mean something just for the sheer joy of activity­but I mean something substantive, ongoing, clearly defined, honest, clean, drives you then to make choices that may mean what you do, you do pretty well, but then you can't follow it up in every case. You can certainly keep in touch with teachers, and they are around here more than just in the summer. But I think a lot of the problems that we could identify for ourselves would fall into categories of things which, regardless of how well we do them, we know we don't do. And have not set out to do, and probably won't do, and therefore we'll always be partial. We will always be limited. We will always bring more energy to it than in fact the container we built for ourselves can necessarily hold. And that is just a fact.

President Francis:

You face that up front, which is important.

President Giamatti:

I think you have to face it up front and then not be apologetic and then keep it, if I may say so, at the same time in an experimental mode. We ask people like Ernie Boyer, Bob Kellogg, Ted Sizer to come here annually to review us. Why? Nobody has asked us to do it necessarily, we want to know in some respects what can within our focus and our needs with an extraordinary faculty who are committed­what can we continue to do within the shape that we have defined for ourselves. We want to learn; so, there is an experimental quality to it. It isn't just rigidly focused on that. But there are problems, and I can think of a lot of things which people from Boyer and, particularly Sizer, both of them have identified as things that they would have liked to have seen us do. And I guess my answer to that is a so would I, but either Yale is no good at that or has no business doing it; or if we did, we would somehow dilute what I think in the first instance for the first part of its life is what we have to do. Yes.

William J. Sullivan:

Just one insight that is coming to me in listening, particularly to your faculty members here. I had read the material that you had sent out with a great deal of interest. And picking up on Mr. Boyer's comment about one of the reasons this works is because it is Yale. I guess I am also thinking now that one of the reasons that your faculty is responding in the way in which they are is that you also have the splendid isolation of Yale, you know traditionally from this City. And I say that simply to say there are other institutions, such as my own and some others represented here. where right now forty-nine percent of our students are over twenty-five years old. So that they are bringing into our daily classrooms some of the experience. Our faculty is not dealing with that same kind of very narrow band of intellectually elite and socially elite that are associated with these institutions. Now, that isn't in the slightest way to detract from what you are doing. But I think, I realized in listening to this what I had not realized from the literature, that one of the reasons it is so important to Yale is that it is an exposure for the Yale faculty to someone other than the typical eighteen to twenty-two year old or your typically brilliant, professionally focused graduate student whom you have here. My own institution is a small one. It is a varied institution. There are more people teaching in the public schools in the City of Seattle who earned a degree from my institution than from any other university within the University of Washington. So there is a kind of daily, ongoing wrestling, with those people and their problems. Again, please let me emphasize, I don't say that to take away in any sense from what you are doing.

President Giamatti:

No, I understand exactly.

President Sullivan:

There are other institutions that have other modes of trying to introduce that same element into their university.

President Giamatti:

That is why I'm not sure at all the model is movable. I don't know. I think the spirit can be moved. I'm not sure that the way it happens here has anything to do with the way it should happen in Cleveland or Seattle or Tampa or anyplace else. What I am convinced of, I guess, is that I can't believe that it can't happen in a way appropriate to the local circumstances everywhere. That is my fundamental conviction.

Mr. Shedd:

I would like to tag onto a comment on your point, Bart. I think by sticking with what you have cut out to do that you do, in a lot of important ways, influence other situations and circumstances. It has enormous symbolic value that a Yale in Connecticut, even though there are other distinguished institutions here, engaged in this sort of thing right within their own community. And certainly there is enough to do here. But it does, the symbolic value is that I think it adds luster and legitimacy to a number of other activities that are going on. It certainly motivates and encourages and stimulates others to do some similar kinds of things within their own respective community, and I think there are signs that that has happened and it is happening now. But there are other ways, that you, Bart, and members of your faculty have contributed in many ways to the strengthening of teaching and curriculum on a statewide basis. Tomorrow afternoon following this conference you have graciously and generously invited some one-hundred educators at the elementary and secondary level and at the higher education level to hear Ernie again, to hear Bart again, and to hear some case studies of some things that are going on in various institutions throughout Connecticut. So there is a spill-over effect, but I really think that by sticking with what you are doing and doing it well, you can provide a model and an experience that can be done by others in other locations within the State, both by public as well as private institutions. So I would argue that you stick with it, but continue to remember, in ways that you presently do, that you have something to contribute to the practice elsewhere. As you are having an impact nationally right now.

President McCarthy:

I agree. I think the model is excellent. A bias I've always had is that as a dean or college president, if you invest in your faculty, get your faculty excited, somehow that has some good results, too. I would just like to see this kind of codified or verified in some way because that is exactly what this type of positive project is trying to get us to do, to get colleges responsible for investing, not only in our own faculty, but in the faculty of the public schools. It would be nice along the line to have some evidence. I know we have the evidence from the teachers themselves. But it would be nice to have some evidence in order to advocate the vision you have here, the vision for the program.

Mr. Vivian:

Ernest Boyer also, in his introduction to the Carnegie Report, points to the importance of evaluation of this kind of program. I wonder if I might turn the question around­and I answered earlier what we have done thus far. What kind of evidence that you have not heard would you find convincing? In other words, what is the evidence you seek that you feel would encourage others to undertake similar activities?

President McCarthy:

The type of evidence I would like is what I mentioned earlier, is that is there any significant difference in pupil gain of one faculty member or teacher from another faculty member teaching a particular discipline as was brought up earlier? Is there any evidence of continued type of reading or abilities of simulation to carry on with the activity? And is there any evidence of students' feeling better about themselves? About how effective, emotional, because a faculty member feels better about himself or herself? That type of evidence could be very helpful to us who, I agree with Father, who have different situations. But I think the vision that you have is excellent. I think it's valid, that we just need to prove it.

Mr. Cooke:

Maybe just one little story. It is not statistical, but I think it bears on the question we address here. In Hillhouse High School, the principal remarked to Jim Vivian and myself that he had noticed in the classrooms of people who have taken part in the Institute that discipline problems were many fewer, if far from disappearing. I think that is a reflection. I think it is a reflection of the teachers' heightened involvement on the students' heightened response. Now it may not come out statistically five years from now, but we conditioned it.

President Giamatti:

Yes, Leon?

President Botstein:

Yes, some other things, to go on about evaluation, that seem to me interesting are two questions. One­you mentioned in the curriculum model, and all the Institute's work on that, I think it is a good one, the one you do­is to really gather some evidence the teachers have been through it, to see what their curricular units in the courses, the other two marking periods, three marking periods, are like. In other words really take your hypothesis and follow it through. The second, is some model, obviously you would like, theoretically like, not to have to bring everybody in the entire school system through the Institute. Is there "spill-over" effect bad word, but anyway on the people that have not been in the Institute, that is to say you have forty percent. Is a forty percent involvement sufficient to spread? It would be interesting to compare the teaching of somebody who has never been to Yale-New Haven Institute. Of course, Marty from Harvard Law, he never wants to go, and therefore he would resist it. Now the question is, is the environment in the schools substantially changed? The expectations in the schools for somebody who has never set foot on the Yale Campus changed sufficiently that you could measure some kind of-because one would hope that the kind of cooperative program does not have as a necessary criterion that every single teacher walk through such a program, that there be some kind of cumulative effect through such kinds of partnerships.

Mr. Vivian:

One of the "spill-overs" that we have not commented on is the fact that we publish, compile in a volume, and then publish through the Institute's auspices, the curriculum units that teachers write in each seminar. I think that is very much to the point that was being­that I think, in fact, Leon, you were making this morning­bout the teachers being published as authors. For many teachers in the program it is their first publication as authors. Those volumes are then distributed to every teacher in New Haven who might conceivably use that material in their own classes and who request it, so that one of the spill-overs is that teachers who have not been through the program are using the materials prepared by teachers who have. And they, just like people who have been in the Institute, compare those materials prepared by teachers very favorably with commercially available materials, materials they have prepared on their own or in other programs, with materials otherwise available to them.

Professor Winn:

Let me just add that the most, our best success story in that area. In the first summer in the seminar on Language and Writing of which I was the leader, given the unfortunate change of job of our President who was then unable to take on that task. There was a New Haven high school teacher named Paul Limone, extremely able man, whose summer curriculum unit was a method developed by him with considerable research and a great deal of compassion, for teaching slow-learning eighth graders to write a paragraph. He had a quite unique pedagogical approach to this, and he wrote it up in fifteen pages of very sharp, attractive prose. This unit has now been used by forty different eighth-grade teachers in New Haven, many of whom have never attended the Institute, as your question indicated. Its success rate has been very impressive. And it's our best success story of that kind.

President Giamatti:

Ernie.

Mr. Boyer:

Two thoughts. Forty percent is more than a toe-hold in an institution, and I had a distinct impression­and maybe they were trying to kid me­but that there is, it is now beyond what, forgive me again, I guess some would call it "critical mass." It is the influence of this campus that keeps driving me to it.

President Giamatti:

No, it is not!

Mr. Boyer:

But the point that I am getting to, those who hadn't been in the program I felt, as I talked to faculty, clearly felt they needed to rather explain why they hadn't. Now, and I think in the main that is good. That is, the test was are you growing, are you doing things? And it is not so much I think that, well I have to get in on the Institute, but rather am I professionally . . . ? Yes, I think so. So I guess I would say that is a whopping chunk of a faculty in an entire urban school district. And the word is out, and why haven't you, or well I'm doing it this way and not that. So the power of stretching yourself is a very important one, and it is much better than saying well I'm not doing anything this summer and letting it go at that.

But the issue, I can't resist the question of evaluation. This, I don't mean to in any way diminish that, but you know maybe we will never quite know whether experimental class "A" has done better over three years compared to controlled class "B." Maybe that is not the question to pose to this. I would rather introduce perhaps another evaluation question. Have ten good teachers in New Haven stayed on in the classrooms? That to me may be more manageable and in some ways more authentic. Now defining the good ones and figuring out who may, I don't know whether that is do-able. I'm just saying there would be a variety of grids of evaluation I would throw on this. And I'm not sure it is one that will reduce itself to trying to have control and experimental classroom and looking at "test scores." The courses, the curriculum may not lend themselves, but the question of what's happening to the teacher, how they feel about themselves, whether they have stayed in New Haven. Perhaps that is a legitimate set of assessments to bring to bear to this.

President McCarthy:

Ernie, I couldn't agree with you more. I was about to say that I think the program is so successful just from the feedback. One does not have to even go further. The faculty are enjoying it. The teachers are enjoying it. Yale feels good about it. It is what we are funding, and everything else. I'm just, the reason I brought the other thing is, is there something for the rest of us who do not have resources nor the prestige of Yale?

President Giamatti:

I should also say that we don't teach everything in the summer. We don't work with New Haven teachers in business education, physical education, career education. We are never going to have one-hundred percent. We, I think, work with the teachers in the humanities and the sciences and the arts programs. That is just a fact one should know. I mean, we have not designed ourselves to try and take on everything that is taught in New Haven.

Comment:

There is Southern Connecticut State College.

President Giamatti:

Well, there are plenty of fine institutions to do it, so that again. That is part of my sense that we ought to do what we do well and not try and do things that we don't do, just for the sheer joy of being able to say that we tried to do it. That would be a waste of effort.

Mr. Vivian:

May I put together two statistics?

President Giamatti:

If you want. Vivian.

Mr. Vivian:

I am satisfied that we. I am satisfied. I should stop leading this with a question.

President Giamatti:

Yes. Vivian.

Mr. Vivian:

We have recruited, I'm satisfied, a representative group of New Haven teachers­on all sorts of measures: race, sex, age, length of teaching in New Haven, length of time in teaching profession, the kinds of institutions where they went to school, level of their own education, number of years in graduate school, and so forth. The teachers in the Institute are indistinguishable statistically from the population of school teachers generally. Okay. Which is to say it must include some of the good teachers in New Haven. Half of the teachers we surveyed reported that the experience of the Institute was significant in their decision to continue teaching in New Haven. So, if the sample includes some of the good teachers, I think we helped to retain some good teachers in New Haven. One of the early concerns, in fact, was that we would do the opposite.

President Giamatti:

Robert.

Robert:

I would be interested in whether there is any sort of a direct intent, whether there is any residual impact upon Yale undergraduates. It seems to me to justify the use of Yale resource, it helps if it makes a difference for Yale undergraduates. One answer is it really has helped professors handle classes, to be able to teach undergraduates, is a possibility. But a second thing seems to me a great service to American society if some Yale undergraduates went into high schools and junior high schools instead of becoming lawyers. And I was wondering if any of that . . .

President Giamatti:

Not all of them become lawyers. Just about seventy-five percent. The teacher preparation program here, which is a program whereby an undergraduate can obviously major in a subject at Yale and graduate, and graduate as an accredited teacher in the State of Connecticut, is a program that has its roots much farther back than this program. It has its roots in the MAT program a number of years ago. That is under the superb leadership of Edith MacMullen and a group of faculty, many of whom work with Jim Vivian, but not all of whom. And there is, I think, some but probably not a great deal, but some interaction between these programs in terms of that impact. But we do a number of things around here not all of which we've described today because we wanted to describe this. I mean there are visiting faculty programs for faculty in four- year institutions and some two-year institutions in the state of Connecticut, who come here and use this place in not dissimilar ways, the library and other forms, throughout the year. And that is a very important program. And again, Yale faculty are central to that. That is the one program that I did start myself as a faculty member in '75. That has had some affiliations through Yale faculty with the people who work in this. But we haven't tried to put all these together in one place on the assumption that they had different missions, and the institution knows what it is doing, we allege, and that we can manage all these things as long as we understand that we can only do so much. And then we do it as well as we can. That is an answer that says that, yes, there is some impact in terms of undergraduates, but not as much as other programs here, and the other program particularly is very good, but that doesn't attract great, great, great numbers of Yale undergraduates into it because after all they make their choices. I think we should take a break now and reconvene. Thank you all very much.

Transcripts | Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute

© 1997 by the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute

© 2013 by the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute
Terms of Use Contact YNHTI