"Excellence in Teaching: A Common Goal" A National
Conference of Chief State School Officers and College and University
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
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
James A. Winn, Associate Professor of English, Yale University
Mark R. Shedd, Former Commissioner of Education, State of
Jules D. Prown, Professor of the History of Art, Yale University
Leon Botstein, President, Bard College and Simon's Rock of Bard
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
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
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.
Thank you. Do you want to say a few
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.
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.
I have a question, now . . .
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
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 . . . ?
Oh, I thought you were quarreling with the billing.
What about the Giamatti-Shedd Institute?
Must this thing be bilateral, or can it be multilateral, with one
university working with many, or several, or two or three?
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.
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 . . .
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?
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 . . .
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.
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.
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?
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 . . .
Do you find that a benefit to you?
An enormous benefit to me, an unquestionable benefit.
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
What they do is infinitely harder than
what we do and infinitely more important.
I'm not sure of that.
And worthy of a salary increment.
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.
I think that's exactly right.
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?
Two rights don't make a wrong.
Sounds like an educationist.
What we should look out for?
Why don't you speak to that?
For your first question, to be clear about what you intended, is the
question as to their enrollment directly in regular university classes?
No, my question is teaching . . .
Teaching at Yale?
Yes, in other words, having any practice teaching in the Yale context.
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.
But quickly, the unit focus, the units they write, you would suggest that
as a copiable . . .
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.
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 . . .
That's not the analogy I could have come up with.
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.
It may have been in the material. I may have missed it, but I want to ask
a general financial question.
Can everybody hear Bob Payton? I'm not sure they can, Bob.
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.
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.
So, the total cost of the program, irrespective of the sources supporting,
annually is 200 and . . .
Irrespective of the sources?
No, the total . . .
The total budget is two hundred and some-odd
Roughly $200,000. Not including indirect
costs, overhead, those kinds of calculations.
Is faculty, Yale faculty time, your time,
counted in that?
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.
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
This is not a voice vote.
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.
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
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 . . .
Well, my question was whether . . .
I lost track, I'm sorry . . .
I gather that the seminars are both disciplinary as well as pedagogically
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?
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.
Professor Michael Cooke of the English Department.
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.
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.
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.
Some of us catch up with it quicker than that.
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.
Yes, Norman, President of Xavier
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?
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.
Do you get help from the central university?
Absolutely. Absolutely. From the University's Development Office.
That's a very important point if we're all
worried about funding.
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.
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.
You face that up front, which is
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
No, I understand exactly.
There are other institutions that have
other modes of trying to introduce that same element into their
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
One of the "spill-overs" that we have not
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
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.
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.
No, it is not!
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.
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
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
There is Southern Connecticut State College.
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.
May I put together two statistics?
If you want. Vivian.
I am satisfied that we. I am satisfied. I should stop leading this with a
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
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 . . .
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.