Strategic Planning


The Ad Hoc Strategic Priorities Committee established the following working groups after holding two community meetings on campus in June 2013 and gathering additional written input from the campus community and trustees.

Faculty, staff, students, and trustees were invited to volunteer to serve on specific groups in August, and the groups were formalized in September 2013.

Working groups consisted of approximately ten members: two co-chairs (one member of the faculty and one staff member, or a trustee); four members of the faculty; two staff members; one trustee; and two students. Composition varied somewhat and was customized based on the group. Working groups developed plans for receiving input from major constituencies and coordinated within other relevant working groups.

Cross-Cutting Issues

In addition to its specific charge, each working group was asked to consider six cross-cutting issues. Through these issues, the groups considered how their charge affects, among other things, the diversity of the college, or the college’s identity. Questions about the definitions of diversity and identity, for example, were part of the discussions and consultations.

Working Groups and Members

Each working group considered a set of questions while taking into account the six cross-cutting issues defined by the Ad Hoc Committee.

(cc) = working group cochair
(spm) = member of the Ad-Hoc Strategic Priorities Committee
(m) = working group member

A. Foundational Curriculum

What learning and skills (such as writing, rhetoric, collaboration, quantitative reasoning, critical thinking, creativity or problem-solving) should students gain in foundational or first-year courses (including Hum 110, introductory science classes and first-year foreign language classes) in order to flourish in their subsequent years at Reed and their lives after Reed? What academic requirements, institutional structures, and pedagogical approaches will further these goals? How do we understand the first-year curriculum within our broader model of liberal arts education?

Faculty Staff Students Trustees
A. Glasfeld (cc)
M. Ashburn-Miller (m)
P. Gronke (m)
A. Hrycak (m)
L. Liebman (m)
J. Mellies (m)
N. Nicholson (cc & spm)
M. Brown ‘06 (m)
J. Maxfield (m)
Archit Guha ’14, ICPS (m)
Julia Selker ’15, Physics (m)
S. Cassidy ’65 (m)

B. Intermediate and Advanced Curriculum

What learning and skills do we want students to gain in later courses, whether in preparation for their theses or, more broadly, as part of an advanced liberal arts education or in preparation for life after Reed? What kind of graduates do we want to produce? What does it mean for them to thrive beyond Reed? What academic requirements, institutional structures and pedagogical approaches will further those goals? Are the students well served by the current divisional structure, for example? Or, what is the best arrangement for majors? Should we consider more majors organized by area or theme, create minors or enable frequent double majors? What new fields or programs of study should we consider to augment our curriculum? How might we best use our consortial arrangements to share curricular resources?

Faculty Staff Students Trustees
C. Makley (cc)
P. Currie (cc)
A. Garcia-Bryce (m)
K. Cohen (m)
K. GhaneaBassiri (m)
J. Shampay (spm)
D. Hutto (m)
J. Ewing ’97 (m)
Kasra Shokat ’14, Political Science, (m)
Elizabeth Pekarskaya ’15, Bio/Psych (m)
M. Yaross ‘73 (m)

C. The Arts at Reed

What are our goals with respect to the fine and performing arts? Given that we are at a watershed moment in the Arts at Reed in terms of facilities and faculty and academic support staff, what changes, if any, should we make to encourage greater participation in the performing arts? What should be our goals with regard to curricular requirements, relations to other departments, institutional structures, relations with the Portland Arts community, or student recruitment? Beyond student productions, should Reed aspire to a more active role as a presenter of performing arts programming? What is the place of the performing arts within the context of Reed’s “life of the mind” academic culture, and vice versa?

Faculty Staff Students Trustees

M. Knutson (cc)
M. Burford (spm)
K. Bredeson (m)
L. Monnin (m)
P. Rock (m)
C. Mann '81 (m) 

S. Snyder ’91 (m)
D. VanLeuven (m)
Andrew Watson ’14, Econ (m)
Jessica Camhi ’14, Art (m)
A. Steiner ‘74 (cc)
S. Mintz (m)

D. Education Outside the Classroom

Should Reed do more to encourage students to be involved in activities off campus? What are the goals of such programs, and what are their results? How do they relate to the academic program? Specific questions include the following: should Reed require or support more involvement in community service? Should Reed do more to facilitate study abroad? What more should Reed do to help students prepare for careers after graduation? What changes, if any, should Reed make to its relations to Portland and the world?

Faculty Staff Students Trustees
E. Drumm (cc)
D. Garrett (m)
R. Kaplan (m)
P. Savery (m)
S. Wagner-McCoy (m)

B. Smith (m)
M. Dickinson (m)
K. Gonyer (m)

Mark Angeles ’15, Chem (m)
Taylor Stinchcomb ’14, ES-Bio (m)
M. Noto ‘75 (cc & spm)
J. Bergholz ’83 (m)

E. Summer and January Term

What role do the summer and winter breaks play in a Reed education? To what extent should we concern ourselves with providing opportunities for students in these periods, and what sort of opportunities should they be? What opportunities do we offer already and how do they relate to the academic program? Should we continue to have a long winter break, and if so, do we need to offer more possibilities to the students during January? Should we offer more opportunities during fall and spring break, whether externships, workshops, or field trips?

Faculty Staff Student Trustee
I. Swanson ’87 (cc)
K. Cerveny (m)
H. Rhew (m)
S. Sabnis (spm)
B. Martin (m)
R. Albertson (m)
Elisa Cibils ’15, History (m)
Dean Schmeltz ’14, Linguistics (m)
P. Stockman ’77 (cc)

F. Community Governance and Academic Administrative Structure

Do our current faculty governance and community governance processes work well? What are the proper roles of faculty, staff, students and trustees in community governance? Do we have the administrative capacity to administer our programs responsibly and effectively? Is the present committee structure viable in terms of the demands it makes on faculty, staff, and student time, the equitable distribution of work, the kinds of expertise with state and federal legislation that some committees require, and the speed with which committees can respond? Does our current departmental and divisional structure serve our pedagogical goals? If not, what changes should we consider? What is the relationship between the Honor Principle and community legislation?

Faculty Staff Student Trustee
K. Karoly (cc)
P. Hovda (m)
R. Knapp (m)
T. Metz (m)
N. McLaughlin MALS ’10 (cc)
G. Granger (m)
Ari Galper ’14, Sociology (spm)
Evvy Archibald Shulman ’16, Sociology (m)
A. Levin (m)
M. Mercy '87 (m)

G. Research, Teaching and the Liberal Arts College

How do we understand the idea of the teacher-scholar? What kinds of support for faculty are necessary to help them to fulfill this role in their teaching and research? How do we cultivate continued and rigorous engagement on the part of faculty with their disciplines, and how do we ensure that this engagement feeds into the education of our students? What, indeed, is the role of research in the liberal arts? How and why is research meaningful to the educational mission of the College, both for faculty and students? Why is the teacher-scholar model, and the student-scholar model, a good one, and what forms does this model in fact take at Reed? Where and how do they intersect in different disciplines?

Faculty Staff Student Trustee
W. Englert (cc)
M. Bedau ‘76 (m)
D. Dalton (m)
J. Fry (m)
N. Netusil (spm)
D. Schiff (m)
K. Perkins (m)
T. Marmarelli (m)
Shruti Korada ’14, Econ (m)
Ben Morris ’15, Psych (m)
D. Engelman ’62 (cc)

H. Faculty and Staff Quality of Life

What are our goals for faculty and staff quality of life? What are our goals for the professional development of faculty and staff?  What are our goals for compensation and benefits? How does the college best encourage excellent work by faculty and staff to sustain the college’s programs?

Faculty Staff Student Trustee
D. Hare (cc)
B. Lazier (m)
K. Oleson (spm)
M. Scharle (m)
Z. Perry (m)
M. Valintis (m)
M. Sullivan (m)
D. Hall (m)
Theodore Landsman ’16, Physics (m)
Paul Messick ’15, Political Science (m)
L. Matthews ’67 (cc)

I. Whom Do We Want to Educate?

What kinds of students do we think most benefit from a Reed education, and are they choosing to apply and come to Reed? What is our desired student body composition? What kind of financial aid is required to meet our goals? Do we want more applications, and if so, from what kind of students? (Intellectuals, performers, scientists, leaders, world-changers, international students, students who have room for growth or need a second chance?) Are we receiving enough applications from these students? How will demographic and market changes impact our admissions and financial aid strategies?

Faculty Staff Student Trustee
A. Delehanty (cc)
K. Clausing (m)
M. McClellan (m)
M. Minardi (m)
P. Silverstein (spm)
K. Todd (m)
L. Limper (m)
Annam Swanson ’14, Psych (m)
Kris Droste ’16, ICPS (m)
Emma Mclean-Riggs ’14, Sociology (m)
J. Sheehy ’82 (cc)
M. Bergman ’84 (m)

J. Student Success

Are we satisfied with current student life and quality of life? Are we doing what we need to do to help students thrive personally and intellectually? Do we need to do more to build a greater sense of community on campus, and if so what should we do? What place should sports and outdoor programs play in a Reed education? What would we do to increase retention? Do we want to set a retention goal? Do want to increase the number of students living on campus, and if so, how would this be accomplished?

Faculty Staff Student Trustee
M. James (cc)
T. Cross (m)
M. Faletra (m)
T. Hackenberg (m)
G. Ondrizek (m, Fall 2013 only)
M. Brody (cc)
A. Krenkel (m)
L. Copenagle (m)
Ari Galper ’14, Sociology (spm)
Bryan Kim ’14, Math-Econ (m)
Danielle Juncal ’15, English (spm)
A. Martinez ’73 (m)
L. Howard ’70 (m)

K. Long-term Financial Health of the Institution

Is our financial model (revenue assumptions, committed expenditures) sustainable? How can ensure that we have sufficient flexibility to deal with changing circumstances? What are the worst-case financial scenarios for Reed in the next twenty years? What infrastructure (in terms of financial structure, physical plant, land or information technology) do we need to achieve our goals? What is the optimal size for Reed College in the next thirty years?  Should we set institutional goals for reducing our environmental footprint? This committee’s work will be influenced significantly by the conclusions and recommendations of the other working groups, and will lay the foundation for execution planning in the last phase of the planning process.

Faculty Staff Student Trustee
J. Parker (cc)
L. Illing (m)
J. Mieszkowski (m)
E. Millender (m)
P. Steinberger (m)
J. Kroger (spm)
J. Kurtz (m)
E. McFarlane (m)
T. Angell (m)
John Iselin ’14, Econ (m)
Rennie Meyers ’15, ES-Hist (m)
D. Henner (cc)
K. Alt ’81 (m)
G. James ‘77 (m)
J. Buchan (m)

Cross-Cutting Issues

  1. Reed’s mission. Why should students choose to come to Reed and why should parents want to help them attend? Do any changes being considered challenge, enhance, or alter any aspects perceived as central to Reed’s particular mission or culture? What is and what should be central to Reed’s mission and/or institutional culture? What makes it unique, and in what ways can Reed be distinctive in the next twenty years?  
  2. Student outcomes. How do any changes being considered improve on how Reed prepares students for successful and fulfilling lives after graduation, whatever their future career goals? How do students benefit from the changes? What kinds of graduates do we want Reed to produce?
  3. Diversity and inclusion. Do any changes being considered have an impact, positive or negative, on the accessibility or attractiveness of a Reed education to a more diverse student body, or a more diverse community more generally? How can the changes be used to forward the community’s goals regarding diversity and inclusion?
  4. The changing educational environment. How do any changes considered respond to changes or potential changes in the applicant pool, changing expectations on the part of students and parents and potential employers, the rise of online education, or other external developments that are putting pressure on our educational model?
  5. Technology. How can changes in technology capacity or in the use of technology further any of the changes being considered? What are the technological requirements, if any, for any of the changes considered? What impact, if any, will technological changes have on the issues being considered?
  6. Environment and sustainability. How do the changes being considered impact our environmental footprint?