Candler School of Theology at Emory University : 2006 Seminar
Narrative
IF WE BUILD IT, WILL THEY COME?
THE CURRICULUM REFORM’S FIELD OF DREAMS
CANDLER SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
BACKGROUND
The Curriculum Task Force (CTF) has been working together since Fall 2004. Their existence as a special task force was an indication that processes at the Candler School of Theology were changing. Faculty governance was a rather cumbersome affair, somewhat inevitable in a large school with a complex mix of programs. The “Candler way” emphasized procedure and policy application—the numerous standing committees made recommendations to the faculty as a whole, who then picked apart these recommendations at the monthly faculty meetings. What was finally approved by majority vote was then policy—rarely had there had been experiments or pilot projects.
But Candler faculty culture had been changing—a process accelerated by the arrival of a new University president and provost who had plunged Emory into strategic planning and a major capital campaign. All units were required to review, justify, and plan—forces that were putting some pressure on the old “Candler way.” Members of the Task Force had a strong sense that they were trying to sort out new ways and a new kind of future for Candler, a sense that had been reaffirmed by positive responses to early drafts of their work. This meeting, however, followed a more difficult experience when the faculty had met in their separate curricular Area (like many theological faculties, the Candler faculty were divided into 4 areas of curricular work), to discuss the impact of proposed changes in the core M.Div. requirements.
DATE
October 2005
SCENE
The Task Force had gathered in their usual places and Jonathan, the chair, had his laptop open and ready to record the key points. But energy was low today and no one was talking.
Jonathan finally broke the silence. “From the looks on your faces,” he said, “I am guessing that your area conversations didn’t go too well.”
Everyone shook their heads.
“This is really the first reversal we’ve had,” remarked Alton.
“Yes,” said Ted. “Everything went so smoothly last year—our work seemed like a very important shot of energy!”
“But we expected this,” Jonathan reminded them. “We knew there would be a time when people started to go beyond the excitement of new possibilities and see in what ways their work would change with a new curriculum. There was going to be a bump in the road—and we’ve hit.”
“So that said,” he continued “Who would like to report first?”
Liz replied, “Why don’t Gail and Michael go first? The biblical folks seem to agree on things much better than we Area III people do!”
“Yes, we are just so agreeable!” Michael laughed. “That’s what happens when you all study the same text! But, actually, the Area I folks were willing to think about the idea of having a one-semester general introduction to bible, followed by one semester of Old Testament and one semester of New Testament.”
“And , if we did this,” Gail added, “we would still be able to require an advanced exegesis or biblical theology courses . . . which most of the biblical faculty found very exciting.”
“But remember,” Michael added. “We did have a couple of faculty members adamantly opposed to such a change.”
“So there’s no possibility of further conversation?” asked Alton.
“Well—it depends if we want to go to the mat on this one at this point,” Gail replied. “We may be able to work back around to the changes everyone else was willing to think about. This may be one of those changes that we could imagine as a ‘phased in’ possibility—too much for now, but possible on the basis of other changes.”
“We’ve always done things at Candler by spending a lot of time exhausting ourselves until we can cross every ‘t’ and dot every ‘i’ on a Big Plan. We are afraid to go ahead with anything that doesn’t seem 100 percent, so we don’t move much,” Tom said. “‘Phasing in’ could work like a guerilla reform underground.”
“That could be a way out of a kind of change paralysis,” said Liz. “Make some seemingly small changes that really have larger implications—and let the change lead our colleagues rather than waiting.”
“We’ll have to start small in Area II,” Jonathan said. “You know that I wanted our folks in historical theology to at least think about whether it is necessary or best to teach Christian thought in chronological order or to assume that our goal is to cover every aspect of Christian history. While they did acknowledge that breadth wasn’t always key, their instincts kept going in the other direction . . . ‘we can’t give up the larger historical sweep’.”
“As though our students actually NOW grasp that sweep,” Michael remarked.
“Especially since they don’t necessarily take both CT501 [intro to early and medieval] AND CT502 [reformation and modern],” said Matt.
“I wish we could break the hold that coverage has on our colleagues’ imaginations,” Ted said. “Faculty assume that as long as they ‘cover’ everything, students will ‘know’ everything—but all sorts of education studies show that this just isn’t the case.”
“That’s what happens every time we talk about whether we should continue to require the introductory ethics course,” Liz remarked. “The response I get in Area III is that ES501 is essential to theological education….but without any justification. Why is it essential? Especially to our “area” of Christianity and Culture? As you have said from the beginning, Jonathan, we might not change anything but we HAVE to know what we think our curriculum accomplishes.”
“Heck, in Area IV, we divide into seven sub-areas to make sure every art of ministry is represented,” Tom said. “When I brought up the idea of a common introductory course in church and ministry, the first thing people wanted to know was who would teach it and what would they give up in their own sub-area to teach this! They were worried about whether students would get enough ‘depth’ in that sub-area. ”
“This is another example of what Ted was pointing to,” Alton remarked. “Our faculty assume all sorts of things are happening without ever assessing whether or not it’s actually the case. They think that if they design the curriculum with certain aims, it will necessarily accomplish these aims.”
“If we build it, they will come,” Michael said. “It’s a field of dreams all right!”
Everyone laughed.
“At the same time,” said Tom, “faculty often look at the curriculum only from the lens of their ‘guild’—their only concern is that students ‘get’ something of their field because otherwise they won’t be adequately ‘prepared.’”
“But do they know how what they teach actually helps prepare students for ministry?” asked Michael.
“And even if they are able to move beyond the guild focus, there is still the problem of Area focus,” Gail continued. “As it stands now, the Area committees design the curriculum and the Curriculum committee simply approves the changes or brings them to the entire Faculty for discussion—and when you have 50 people discussing an issue, the conversation can get very unfocused. It’s a real problem that no committee is explicitly charged with understanding the curriculum as a whole.”
“And,” Ted reminded them, “the students do experience the curriculum as a whole. We leave it to them to make sense of it all—to do what we don’t do as a faculty!”
There was a moment of thoughtful silence.
“Well,” Jonathan finally said, “How do we want to proceed? Can we design a curriculum change in stages? How much communal curricular change do you think the faculty is ready for?”
“And can we see this as a several-stage process?” Alton asked. “We know that institutional change is very, very slow—so is there a way of imagining a set of steps?”
IF WE BUILD IT, WILL THEY COME?
THE CURRICULUM REFORM’S FIELD OF DREAMS
CANDLER SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
BACKGROUND
The Curriculum Task Force (CTF) has been working together since Fall 2004. Their existence as a special task force was an indication that processes at the Candler School of Theology were changing. Faculty governance was a rather cumbersome affair, somewhat inevitable in a large school with a complex mix of programs. The “Candler way” emphasized procedure and policy application—the numerous standing committees made recommendations to the faculty as a whole, who then picked apart these recommendations at the monthly faculty meetings. What was finally approved by majority vote was then policy—rarely had there had been experiments or pilot projects.
But Candler faculty culture had been changing—a process accelerated by the arrival of a new University president and provost who had plunged Emory into strategic planning and a major capital campaign. All units were required to review, justify, and plan—forces that were putting some pressure on the old “Candler way.” Members of the Task Force had a strong sense that they were trying to sort out new ways and a new kind of future for Candler, a sense that had been reaffirmed by positive responses to early drafts of their work. This meeting, however, followed a more difficult experience when the faculty had met in their separate curricular Area (like many theological faculties, the Candler faculty were divided into 4 areas of curricular work), to discuss the impact of proposed changes in the core M.Div. requirements.
DATE
October 2005
SCENE
The Task Force had gathered in their usual places and Jonathan, the chair, had his laptop open and ready to record the key points. But energy was low today and no one was talking.
Jonathan finally broke the silence. “From the looks on your faces,” he said, “I am guessing that your area conversations didn’t go too well.”
Everyone shook their heads.
“This is really the first reversal we’ve had,” remarked Alton.
“Yes,” said Ted. “Everything went so smoothly last year—our work seemed like a very important shot of energy!”
“But we expected this,” Jonathan reminded them. “We knew there would be a time when people started to go beyond the excitement of new possibilities and see in what ways their work would change with a new curriculum. There was going to be a bump in the road—and we’ve hit.”
“So that said,” he continued “Who would like to report first?”
Liz replied, “Why don’t Gail and Michael go first? The biblical folks seem to agree on things much better than we Area III people do!”
“Yes, we are just so agreeable!” Michael laughed. “That’s what happens when you all study the same text! But, actually, the Area I folks were willing to think about the idea of having a one-semester general introduction to bible, followed by one semester of Old Testament and one semester of New Testament.”
“And , if we did this,” Gail added, “we would still be able to require an advanced exegesis or biblical theology courses . . . which most of the biblical faculty found very exciting.”
“But remember,” Michael added. “We did have a couple of faculty members adamantly opposed to such a change.”
“So there’s no possibility of further conversation?” asked Alton.
“Well—it depends if we want to go to the mat on this one at this point,” Gail replied. “We may be able to work back around to the changes everyone else was willing to think about. This may be one of those changes that we could imagine as a ‘phased in’ possibility—too much for now, but possible on the basis of other changes.”
“We’ve always done things at Candler by spending a lot of time exhausting ourselves until we can cross every ‘t’ and dot every ‘i’ on a Big Plan. We are afraid to go ahead with anything that doesn’t seem 100 percent, so we don’t move much,” Tom said. “‘Phasing in’ could work like a guerilla reform underground.”
“That could be a way out of a kind of change paralysis,” said Liz. “Make some seemingly small changes that really have larger implications—and let the change lead our colleagues rather than waiting.”
“We’ll have to start small in Area II,” Jonathan said. “You know that I wanted our folks in historical theology to at least think about whether it is necessary or best to teach Christian thought in chronological order or to assume that our goal is to cover every aspect of Christian history. While they did acknowledge that breadth wasn’t always key, their instincts kept going in the other direction . . . ‘we can’t give up the larger historical sweep’.”
“As though our students actually NOW grasp that sweep,” Michael remarked.
“Especially since they don’t necessarily take both CT501 [intro to early and medieval] AND CT502 [reformation and modern],” said Matt.
“I wish we could break the hold that coverage has on our colleagues’ imaginations,” Ted said. “Faculty assume that as long as they ‘cover’ everything, students will ‘know’ everything—but all sorts of education studies show that this just isn’t the case.”
“That’s what happens every time we talk about whether we should continue to require the introductory ethics course,” Liz remarked. “The response I get in Area III is that ES501 is essential to theological education….but without any justification. Why is it essential? Especially to our “area” of Christianity and Culture? As you have said from the beginning, Jonathan, we might not change anything but we HAVE to know what we think our curriculum accomplishes.”
“Heck, in Area IV, we divide into seven sub-areas to make sure every art of ministry is represented,” Tom said. “When I brought up the idea of a common introductory course in church and ministry, the first thing people wanted to know was who would teach it and what would they give up in their own sub-area to teach this! They were worried about whether students would get enough ‘depth’ in that sub-area. ”
“This is another example of what Ted was pointing to,” Alton remarked. “Our faculty assume all sorts of things are happening without ever assessing whether or not it’s actually the case. They think that if they design the curriculum with certain aims, it will necessarily accomplish these aims.”
“If we build it, they will come,” Michael said. “It’s a field of dreams all right!”
Everyone laughed.
“At the same time,” said Tom, “faculty often look at the curriculum only from the lens of their ‘guild’—their only concern is that students ‘get’ something of their field because otherwise they won’t be adequately ‘prepared.’”
“But do they know how what they teach actually helps prepare students for ministry?” asked Michael.
“And even if they are able to move beyond the guild focus, there is still the problem of Area focus,” Gail continued. “As it stands now, the Area committees design the curriculum and the Curriculum committee simply approves the changes or brings them to the entire Faculty for discussion—and when you have 50 people discussing an issue, the conversation can get very unfocused. It’s a real problem that no committee is explicitly charged with understanding the curriculum as a whole.”
“And,” Ted reminded them, “the students do experience the curriculum as a whole. We leave it to them to make sense of it all—to do what we don’t do as a faculty!”
There was a moment of thoughtful silence.
“Well,” Jonathan finally said, “How do we want to proceed? Can we design a curriculum change in stages? How much communal curricular change do you think the faculty is ready for?”
“And can we see this as a several-stage process?” Alton asked. “We know that institutional change is very, very slow—so is there a way of imagining a set of steps?”