The Teagle Foundation

2005

annual report

PAGE 04

PAGE 05

PAGE 07

PAGE 17

PAGE 19

PAGE 21

PAGE 22

PAGE 23

annual report 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS

our mission /our historyfrom the chairman president’s report: from dollar-based to knowledge-based philanthropyat a glance: assessment programshow we develop and implement new programs projected grantmaking / investmentinformationboard of directors new board members / staff

jjj

leadership+

knowledge+

resources=

transformingliberal education

HOW DOES THE TEAGLE FOUNDATION STRENGTHEN LIBERAL EDUCATION? OUR GOAL IS TO PROVIDELEADERSHIP BY BRINGING TOGETHER SOME OF THE BRIGHTEST MINDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION TOCOLLABORATE ON BIG QUESTIONS AND STIMULATE FRESH THINKING. THE FOUNDATION THEN PUTSITS RESOURCES BEHIND THE RESULTING PROJECTS TO GENERATE AND DISSEMINATE NEWKNOWLEDGE AND PROMOTE CHANGE.

The Teagle Foundation provides leadership for liberal education, marshalling the intellectual and financial resources necessary to ensuretoday’s students access to challenging, wide-ranging, and enriching college educations. We believe that the benefits of such learning last fora lifetime and are best achieved when colleges develop broad and intel-lectually stimulating curricula, engage their students in active learning,explore questions of deep social and personal significance, set cleargoals, and—crucially—systematically measure progress toward them.The Foundation’s commitment to such education includes its long-established scholarship program for employees of ExxonMobil and theirchildren, and more recent work with organizations helping disadvan-taged young people in New York City win admission to college and succeed once there. Finally, the Foundation is committed to widely disseminating the results of its work throughout the higher educationcommunity, understanding that the knowledge generated by ourgrantees—rather than the funding that enabled their work—is at theheart of our philanthropy.

The Teagle Foundation was established in 1944 by Walter C. Teagle(1878 – 1962), longtime president and later chairman of the boardof Standard Oil Company (New Jersey), now ExxonMobil Corpora-tion. Mr. Teagle gave the foundation a broad mandate, “to advancethe well-being and general good of mankind throughout the world,”mentioning many areas of concern and possible recipients of its support. Over the intervening decades the Foundation has pursuedmany of these avenues, always, however, including among its grantsthe aid Mr. Teagle envisioned for “institutions of higher learning and research,” and assistance to family members of employees of his corporation who were “desirous of obtaining some form of educational advantage.”

Walter Teagle graduated from Cornell University in 1899 andmaintained close ties with that university throughout his lifetime. He served as a trustee from 1924 to 1954 and made generous contri-butions to it. Reflecting Mr. Teagle’s wish, the Foundation includesamong its directors a person nominated by the president of Cornell and another nominated by the chairman of ExxonMobil. The TeagleFoundation’s assets derive from gifts and bequests from Walter C.Teagle, his wife, Rowena Lee Teagle, and their son Walter C. Teagle, Jr.

our mission

our history

the knowledgegenerated byour grantees—rather than thefunding thatenabled theirwork—is at theheart of our philanthropy.

04jjj

This is the year that the Teagle Foundation ended its moratorium andreturned to grantmaking. The process has been step-by-step and carefully focused. It is too early to assert with confidence that we areachieving our goal of helping college students experience the excite-ment of a challenging and rewarding education, but the first steps arevery promising.

The Foundation’s new work has been focused on areas where ourresources are likely to make a significant difference. In particular, aswill be clear in Bob Connor’s president’s report, the Foundation hasput great emphasis on encouraging clarity about goals and systematicassessment of outcomes. Our greatest contribution to this importantarea, we believe, will be to encourage collaborative, faculty-led effortsthat can improve teaching and enrich learning.

Our grant programs in assessment are part of a larger effort toencourage fresh thinking and new approaches to liberal education.The leadership for this effort comes from the new staff now in placeat the Foundation’s offices. Their academic credentials are impressive,and they are inclined to use words such as “dialogic” to describe astyle of grantmaking that listens to the ideas of thoughtful people and responds in ways that generate new ideas and knowledge. Thatknowledge, we believe, is the key to the reinvigoration of liberal education, but we know it must be shared so as to shape new initia-tives both in colleges and in the Foundation. The refocusing of oursupport of community service organizations in metropolitan NewYork and the ongoing effort to link them more closely with collegesand universities is a good example of this style of grantmaking.

We do not claim that the Teagle Foundation is unique in its insis-tence on “knowledge-based philanthropy,” but we intend to developand press this approach in coming years. It should be an exciting andimportant story, to which this year’s report is only a preview, althoughI am convinced you will find it a revealing one.

—John S. Chalsty

from the chairman

05

achi

evem

ent

knowledge... is the key to thereinvigoration of liberal education.

jjj

leadership

HERE’S A BIG QUESTION WE ASKED: HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT OUR COLLEGES ARE REALLY ACHIEVING?BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD, WE DEVELOPED NEW PROGRAMS THAT CHALLENGE LONG-HELD BELIEFSABOUT EDUCATION AND STIMULATE FRESH THINKING ON THE POTENTIAL OF FACULTY-LED ASSESSMENTTO AFFECT LEARNING OUTCOMES.

Something quite unexpected happened on the Blue Ridge last September. Itchallenged two widely believed clichés about higher education, helped set anew course for the Teagle Foundation by raising important questions abouthow our philanthropy can be most effective, and gave me renewed hope for the invigoration of liberal education. I’ll begin with the story of ourListening on the Blue Ridge and then explore some of its implications.

THE STORY. As soon as I started work at the Teagle Foundation, I had to ask,“How do we know what colleges are really achieving?” They set for themselveslofty goals and proudly proclaim them in catalogues, websites, and speeches. Butif you ask how they know they are achieving those goals, the answers are oftenvague or irrelevant. “We have a demanding curriculum.” “All our students areexposed to X, Y, or Z” (as if education were a form of virology). “We survey ourgraduates and they respond very positively.” And so on.

I’m not one of those who bash American higher education. The facultymembers I know care about their students, work hard, and do their best toteach well. I have no doubt that their students are learning a lot. But howmuch and could they be learning better? The conventional answers to thosequestions are based on reputation and resources, not outcomes or value added.Buy a copy of US News and World Report’s “America’s Best Colleges.” You willnote how closely its rankings reflect financial resources and how little they tellabout what students are actually gaining during their undergraduate years.

With my foundation hat on, I wanted to know which institutions addexceptional value and if there were ways we could help them do even better. ButI have never been able to take off that other hat, worn through many years ofcollege teaching, that makes me want to know how we can do a better job ofhelping students engage academically and experience the excitement of learning.

With such questions in mind, the Foundation convened last Septemberone of its Listenings in a tranquil setting on the Blue Ridge in NorthCarolina. Our goal was to see if there was a role for the Teagle Foundation inthe growing and accelerating movement toward more systematic assessment ofoutcomes in higher education. We invited some of the leading figures in theassessment movement, as well as presidents, deans, and faculty members froma wide variety of institutions, but especially from liberal arts colleges. Thesecolleges, we believe, have a lot to teach us all, and a lot to gain if they candemonstrate the lasting skills and habits of mind their students acquire duringtheir undergraduate years. In particular, we focused on colleges that seemed tobe “doing a lot with a little.” (A study related to “over-performing” liberal artscolleges by Roger Kaufman and Geoffrey Woglom is available on our web site at http://www.teaglefoundation.org/learning/resources.aspx.) Our VicePresident for Programs, Donna Heiland, and I thought that these institutionshad the greatest incentive to think outside the box.

Still, going into the Listening, I was, frankly, skeptical. Assessment as

lear

ning

…LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES…HAVE…A LOT TO GAIN IF THEY CANDEMONSTRATE THE LASTING SKILLS AND HABITS OF MIND THEIRSTUDENTS ACQUIRE DURING THEIR UNDERGRADUATE YEARS.

07

PRESIDENT’S REPORT:FROM DOLLAR-BASED TO KNOWLEDGE-BASED PHILANTHROPY

Donna Heiland,Vice President for Programs

W. Robert Connor,President

jjj

currently practiced is often imposed from above by state governments, accred-iting bodies, or governing boards, and often seems more concerned withproductivity and efficiency than with educational goals. It is no wonder thatfaculty members sometimes dig in their heels and are widely expected to resistanything that might prove an infringement of their autonomy. There were,moreover, serious questions about the practicalities of assessment—theamount of time required, costs, and the willingness of students to participate.At a more fundamental level, the goals of education, especially liberal educa-tion, are long term and infused throughout the whole texture of a life. Couldtheir achievement be measured by an “instrument” administered for a fewhours at the beginning or end of an academic year?

“Bob, you can’t measure the human soul with numbers,” an old friend,now a college president, once scolded me. My answer to her was, of course,that one is not trying to measure the human soul when one assesses students’progress toward an institution’s goals. Rather, one is trying to understandthings that traditional examinations—with their focus on content—do notmeasure very well: namely, cognitive skills such as the ability to analyze aproblem, to see the ambiguities and biases of evidence, to appreciate the moralimplications of proposals, to formulate clear positions and defend them withlogic and evidence, and, perhaps most important, to transfer these skills fromone realm to another. These are the lifetime benefits of a good education andvery likely to be associated with a student’s engagement in the learningprocess. The knowledge gained from assessing progress toward such goals isnot something St. Peter needs to have at hand when he convenes the admis-sions committee at the Pearly Gates. It’s a way for colleges and their facultiesto ask, “How can we do a better job?”

The recognition that appropriate assessment makes it possible to teachmore effectively turned the day at the Blue Ridge. Honest teachers will notwalk away from something that will help their students learn. When the con-ference was about to adjourn and I asked the participants what, if anything,the Teagle Foundation should do in this area, there was a brief silence. Thensomeone said, “Well, it’s pretty obvious. Those of us on each campus who seethe importance of this movement need to co-operate with our colleagues onother campuses. We need to work together to do it right.” (Peter Struck’sthoughtful report on this Listening is available on our web site athttp://www.teaglefoundation.org/learning/pdf/struck.pdf.)

At that moment two clichés crumbled—that higher education wouldalways resist collaboration and that faculty would always resist assessment.The Foundation soon followed up on this opportunity. We made a series ofgrants, first to national and regional associations of colleges that were alreadyactive in this area. Some of these organizations in turn invited various collegesand universities in their constituency to work together on assessment projects.A network of Teagle-assisted assessment projects began to emerge, as can beseen on Map One. (All maps can be found at the end of the report.)

Next we invited some liberal arts colleges to take the lead in forming ad hoc collaboratives with other institutions on topics relating to assessment.

OUTCOMES AND ASSESSMENT

GRANTS TO ASSOCIATIONS

Appalachian College Association$149,650 over 18 months. Proof ofProgress: Measuring AcademicAchievement in Appalachian Colleges

Associated Colleges of the South,Associated Colleges of the Midwest,and the Great Lakes CollegeAssociation$60,000 over 12 months. LearningOutcomes and Study Abroad

Association of American Colleges and Universities$150,000 over 18 months. EngagingFaculty with the Quality of StudentAchievement

RAND Corporation / Council for Aid toEducation$300,000 over 36 months. CollegiateLearning Assessment: Informing BestEducational Practice

Council of Independent Colleges$250,000 over 36 months. Using CLA(Collegiate Learning Assessment) toMeasure Value Added at Liberal ArtsColleges

08

“YOU CAN’T MEASURE THE HUMAN SOUL WITH NUMBERS,”AN OLD FRIEND...ONCE SCOLDED ME.

DEVELOPMENT OF VALUE ADDEDASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS

Center for Assessment of HigherEducation at the University of Maryland,College Park $25,000 over 12 months. MeasuringUndergraduate Cognitive Outcomes from aDisciplinary Perspective

Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts atWabash College$50,000 over 12 months. Next Steps in theNational Study of Liberal Arts Education

©The New Yorker Collection 1991 Mark Twohy from cartoonbank.com.All Rights Reserved.

jjj

The response was strong and positive. At its May meeting the Board of theTeagle Foundation approved six such grants (and some smaller planning grants). As can be seen from Map Two, thirty-three colleges are now participating inthese collaboratives.

More than 150 colleges are now part of the Teagle Foundation’s assessmentnetwork (see Map Three). Details of the Foundation’s grantmaking activities inthis area are available at http://www.teaglefoundation.org/learning/outcome.aspx.The projects are very diverse but have two features in common—they allfocus on student engagement and learning, and they are all faculty-driven.

There’s still plenty of resistance to systematic assessment, but one by one,colleges and universities are joining the movement, and many liberal arts colleges are taking the lead in seeing assessment get done right. One exampleprovides a good indication of what is happening. When the Council ofIndependent Colleges received one of our early assessment grants, it anticipatedthat a dozen or so of its member colleges would participate. Thirty-threeCIC colleges have since agreed to take part in the three-year project and theCouncil’s President, Richard Ekman, has written to say that the program issucceeding “beyond [his] fondest hopes.” At a recent conference for the proj-ect, representatives of these colleges were enthusiastic, ready to deal withoperational realities, and clear about next steps going forward.

In fact, the assessment movement seems to me to resemble the computerrevolution in the 1970s. The equipment was slow, large, and expensive bytoday’s standards. Since it was far from user-friendly, its uses were largelydefined by the experts who had developed it or those who commissioned theirwork. These cumbersome machines, moreover, were almost always free-standing,only occasionally linked together in networks. It was hard for many of usnon-specialists to see the potential of this technology or how rapidly it wouldtransform our lives. Humanists sometimes feared that the adoption of suchtechnology would displace traditional practices and values, endangering thebook and befuddling the mind.

The assessment movement, to be sure, is of a very different order, but itsfuture, I believe, will resemble that of the computer revolution—the instru-ments will become swifter, cheaper, more wide-ranging, and easier to use. Aculture of assessment will grow up on campuses, dominated not by those atthe top, but by those who have the imagination to use assessment to improveteaching. And, perhaps most important, individual efforts will be linkedtogether through the sharing of assessment results and regular discussions, formal and informal, of their implications for student learning.

The Teagle Foundation’s role in all this is now quite clear. We can mosteffectively contribute by encouraging these imaginative ground-up uses andassist in linking these efforts together whenever appropriate. Success willdepend to a large extent on the quality of faculty leadership and the willing-ness to change practices when evidence from assessment points to better waysof helping students learn.

09

THERE’S STILL PLENTY OF RESISTANCE TO SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT,BUT ONE BY ONE, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ARE JOINING THEMOVEMENT, AND MANY LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES ARE TAKING THELEAD IN SEEING ASSESSMENT GET DONE RIGHT.

OUTCOMES AND ASSESSMENT

IMPLEMENTATION COLLABORATIVES($300,000 OVER 36 MONTHS)

Augustana College, Alma College, GustavusAdolphus College, Illinois WesleyanUniversity, Luther College, and WittenbergUniversity. Measuring Intellectual Developmentand Civic Engagement through Value-AddedAssessment

Bates College, Amherst College, BowdoinCollege, Colby College, Smith College, TrinityCollege, Wellesley College, and the NewEngland Association of Schools and Colleges.Assessment of Educational Practices and StudentLearning in Selective Liberal Arts Colleges

Carleton College, Grinnell College,Macalester College, and St. Olaf College.An I-35 Consortium: A Collaborative Effort inValue-Added Assessment of Student Learning

Furman University, Austin College, JuniataCollege, and Washington & Lee University.Value-Added Assessment of Student Learning in theLiberal Arts: Assessing the Impact of Engaged Learning

Hampshire College, Allegheny College, BardCollege, Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts at Wabash College, Hamilton College, Hobartand William Smith Colleges, Hope College,and Vassar College. Improving Teaching andLearning in the Liberal Arts

Kalamazoo College, Colorado College, andEarlham College (over 48 months). A Catalyst for Cognizance and Change

FIRST-STEP COLLABORATIVES($25,000 OVER 12 MONTHS)

Beloit College, Knox College, Lake ForestCollege, Monmouth College, and Ripon College

Bethel University, Asbury College, GordonCollege, Greenville College, HoughtonCollege, Mount Vernon Nazarene College,and Northwestern College

College of Wooster, Denison University,Kenyon College, Oberlin College, and OhioWesleyan University

Moravian College, Drew University, LafayetteCollege, Muhlenberg College, RoanokeCollege, and Susquehanna University

Wofford College, Agnes Scott College,Converse College, and University of NorthCarolina, Asheville

jjj

GOALS, GREAT NARRATIVES, AND AMERICAN PRAGMATISM. Ultimately,of course, we will have to assess assessment. But even at this early stage it isevident, I believe, that something important is being gained. The reason forthis is clear: assessment of outcomes will not work without clarity about goals.And on this matter education, not least liberal education, has often beenfuzzy or easily distracted. Neil Postman was right, I believe, in stressing theimportance of master narratives both for students and for faculty. As StevenBowles of the Bellows Foundation has reminded me, Postman wrote eloquently in The End of Education (New York: Vintage Books, 1996, pp. 5–7)about the importance of such narratives in education:

…not any kind of story, but one that tells of origins and envisions afuture, a story that constructs ideals, prescribes rules of conduct, providesa source of authority, and, above all, gives a sense of continuity and pur-pose...one that has sufficient credibility, complexity, and symbolic powerto enable one to organize one’s life around it…a comprehensive narrativeabout what the world is like, how things got to be the way they are, andwhat lies ahead.... Our genius lies in our capacity to make meaningthrough the creation of narratives that give point to our labors, exalt ourhistory, elucidate the present, and give direction to our future.

But we live in a time when many great narratives that once held sway—whether based on Marxism, Christianity, the European Enlightenment, thetriumph of science, or a Shangri-La in some remote culture—are distrusted,discredited, abandoned, or privatized. It’s not that all great narratives have disappeared. In fact, as Josh Ober has pointed out to me, the problem may bethat they have so proliferated that none can command a working consensus.The ensuing vacuum tends then to be filled by professional discourses andspecializations, and by efforts to prepare students to succeed in a rapidlychanging and often very frightening economy. Without a supportive greatnarrative, it is particularly difficult to deal with the Big Questions traditional-ly at the heart of a liberal education (Who am I? Where do I come from? Whatare my obligations to others? What does it mean to be a citizen in a democracy?What makes work, or a life, satisfying? How much money is enough?). Students,I believe, come to college with these and similar questions in mind and, oneway or another, during the college years, they draw conclusions about them.But all too often, I fear, they do this without realizing that wiser heads thantheirs have struggled with such questions in the past, providing vocabulary,metaphors, and disciplined ways of thinking about them.

No wonder, then, that many people despair about the future of liberal education. Such pessimism, however, seems to me unwarranted. We are notfacing the end of education, the ruination of the university, or the demise ofthe liberal arts—at least not yet. Nor does this age preclude great narratives;in fact, it is perfectly feasible, and more important than ever, to develop sucha narrative for one’s self and help one’s students find one that works for them.Most of us who work in higher education (including those concerned with itsphilanthropic support) have, I suspect, our own master narratives, but werarely share them with one another or talk about them with our students. It surprises me how rarely this takes place even in the most vigorous of ourintellectual communities. (My own “master narrative” begins with Socrates

clar

ity

1 0

we live in a timewhen many greatnarratives...aredistrusted,... [but]we are not facingthe end of educa-tion...or thedemise of the liberal arts....

©The New Yorker Collection 2005 Mick Stevens from cartoonbank.com.All Rights Reserved.

jjj

and the Greek professional teachers of rhetoric in the fifth century before our era, as anyone who browses through the President’s page athttp://www.teaglefoundation.org/president/welcome.aspx will soon see.)

Let me make a further confession: I have a secret agenda in encouragingmore systematic assessment. In my view, even if assessment proves inconclu-sive or inadequate, it is likely to stimulate a frank, pragmatic, and badlyneeded discussion of the goals of liberal education.

FRESH THINKING. The most prominent program of the Teagle Foundation—support for collaborative, faculty-driven assessment—converged with anotherpart of our work—support for fresh thinking about liberal education. By“fresh thinking” we do not mean abstract theories, inert knowledge, sermons,jeremiads, or polemics. We have had our fill of all. What we mean, rather, arefactually based studies of specific topics that can teach us how to practice liberal education more effectively. With this goal in mind, the Foundationhas now funded two Teagle Forums and eight Teagle Working Groups, eachexamining in-depth a topic of broad ramifications for student learning in theliberal arts. Each will produce a White Paper, to be disseminated on our website, among other ways. The topics are varied. One working group is leadingan inquiry into the place of technology fluency in a liberal education—inessence, determining what technological knowledge and skills students shouldbe familiar with in order to effectively understand and engage the worldaround them. Another working group is studying the concept of the teacher-scholar and its role in a general liberal arts education. Yet another is taking afresh look at the teaching of ethnicity.

Some may complain that there is no overarching theme among these proj-ects, no attempt to devise a new master narrative for liberal education. Thereis, however, a common goal—the invigoration of liberal learning. When webrought the leaders of these groups together for a loosely structured discussion,we found amid all the diversity a remarkable, even exhilarating agreement—that liberal education was as important now as at any time in the past andcould flourish if those of us who care about it went about it right. There waslittle of the doom and gloom that has so often dominated discussions of liberaleducation. And there was no debate about grand theory or ideology, just adetermination to start with the facts and go on to find things that reallywork. Some of the projects have already proved able not only to surmountdisciplinary divides, but to turn them into educational advantage. BarnardCollege, for example, has taken the lead in developing an integrative approachto learning, designing a course called “River Summer.” Faculty from thirty-sixcolleges met in small groups on board the Seawolf, a research ship, as it madeits way steadily down the Hudson. They shared their understanding of theriver’s history, ecology, economic and social significance, and of the luminousart that justly carries the name of the Hudson River School. We can expectthat courses based on the experience of this Working Group will eventually be

WE FOUND...A REMARKABLE, EVEN EXHILARATING AGREEMENT—THAT LIBERAL EDUCATION…COULD FLOURISH IF THOSE OF US WHOCARE ABOUT IT WENT ABOUT IT RIGHT. THERE WAS LITTLE...DOOMAND GLOOM....

1 1

THE TEAGLE FORUMS AND WORKINGGROUPS IN LIBERAL EDUCATION

Each is a collaborative undertakingbetween the lead institution listed belowand a consortium of colleges, universities,and other institutions. They range in sizewith the largest involving 28 institutions.

TEAGLE FORUMSThe New York Public Library$4,540 over 9 months. Forum on Poetry(planning grant)

Northwestern University $30,000 over 12 months. Classical Antiquityand American Popular Culture

TEAGLE WORKING GROUPSAmerican Council of Learned Societies$92,100 over 18 months. Scholar-Teachersand Student Learning

Barnard College $75,951 over 12 months. Integrative Learningin Liberal Education: A Case Study

Brown University$98,245 over 12 months. The Values of theOpen Curriculum: An Alternative Traditionin Liberal Education

Cornell University$99,978 over 18 months. Eliminating Racialand Ethnic Disparities in College Completionand Achievement: A Teagle Working Group onWhat Works and Why

Social Science Research Council$99,990 over 18 months. AssessingInterdisciplinary Products of Work and Habitsof Mind in Liberal Arts Education

Washington & Lee University$80,000 over 18 months. Technology Fluencyand its Place in Liberal Education

Washington University in St. Louis$80,000 over 18 months. Re-Thinking thePedagogy of Ethnicity

Yale University$98,830 over 18 months. StrengtheningLiberal Education through Special Collections

jjj

offered at most of the participating schools and that the underlying principlesand methods of the project will encourage similar integrative approaches inother settings, in this country and abroad. (For more information seehttp://environmentalconsortium.org/members/feature/feature.htm.)

I do not want to make premature or exaggerated claims about what theTeagle Working Groups are achieving. But several of them are already demon-strating how much can be achieved by a down to earth (or in River Summer’scase, down to water) approach to helping students get the most out of their college experiences. No great narrative, but a lot of American pragmatism!

COLLEGE-COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS. American pragmatism is also helpingto shape our work with community service organizations in New York thathelp disadvantaged young people—in this society primarily, though notexclusively, people of color—go to college and succeed once there. Our prag-matism in this case is double-edged: we have an interest in seeing these talentedyoung people realize their potential as fully as possible and also in seeing thatcolleges become richer communities through having such students as mem-bers of their student bodies. As William G. Bowen and Derek Bok have saidso forcefully in The Shape of the River (Princeton: Princeton University Press,1998), the diversity can educationally benefit everyone on campus.

Last year the directors of the Foundation concluded that we should focusthe grants that we had long been making to community service organizations in the five boroughs of New York into a new program closely linked to our historic interest in seeing that a quality college education is widely accessible.Instead of scattering our support to a wide range of organizations, we announcedour willingness to fund a smaller number of larger grants that would help students in low income areas get into college and succeed once there.

We were surprised by the response. We received over 100 applications,many of them eloquent about the extent and intensity of the need, devastat-ing in the picture they drew of public education in disadvantaged areas of thecity, and compelling in their presentation of programs that clearly deservedsupport. These proposals were surprising in another respect as well; it wasremarkable how weak the connections were between these community serviceorganizations and the internationally famed institutions of a city that is proudto be the cultural and intellectual capital of our country. To be sure, the public universities in New York, CUNY and SUNY, are working hard tostrengthen public education in the high schools. Some private institutions havealso developed outreach programs into the schools. But we were surprised byhow little we found that connected private centers of learning and culture tothese valiant community service programs, sometimes operations only a briefsubway ride away. Let me be blunt: this is a disgrace and a mistake. We knowthat one of the best predictors of whether students will succeed in college iswhether they have taken challenging courses during their high school years.Such courses are well developed in magnet schools and those in affluent

WE HAVE AN INTEREST IN SEEING THESE TALENTED YOUNG PEOPLEREALIZE THEIR POTENTIAL AS FULLY AS POSSIBLE AND ALSO INSEEING THAT COLLEGES BECOME RICHER COMMUNITIES THROUGHHAVING SUCH STUDENTS AS MEMBERS OF THEIR STUDENT BODIES.

1 2

The Boys’ Club of New York

East Harlem Tutorial Program

Groundwork

Harlem Educational Activities Fund

Leadership Enterprise for a Diverse America

Prep for Prep

Sponsors for Educational Opportunity

oppo

rtun

ity

COMMUNITY SERVICE GRANTS

GENERAL OPERATING SUPPORT($10,000 OVER 12 MONTHS)

Citizens Advice Bureau

Community for Education Foundation /Overcoming Obstacles

East Side House Settlement

Jacob A. Riis Neighborhood SettlementHouse

Project Reach Youth

Union Settlement House

COLLEGE-COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS

GRANTS FOR COLLEGE PREPARATION ($40,000 OVER 12 MONTHS)

jjj

districts of New York. But where poverty is highest, the opportunity to tastethe excitement of learning is lowest. Nor, as best we can tell, are the highschools in these areas themselves likely to change sufficiently in the next fewyears to provide that experience. That burden, as so much else, falls on devotedbut badly under-funded organizations.

Selecting grant recipients from these applications was especially difficult.After we made our grants, we convened their leaders for an informal discus-sion, during the course of which we asked about the link between their work and private colleges and universities in the area. Our impression wasconfirmed—there were few such links. The organization leaders at the meet-ing, moreover, were emphatic—they would welcome such connections andtheir students would benefit from well-designed and challenging programs.

The Teagle Foundation has now invited private colleges and universities inthe metropolitan area to team up with a group of community service organiza-tions we fund and to work as colleagues in designing and implementing projectsand programs that will encourage these students to aim high, go to college, andsucceed once there. While similar things have been tried elsewhere, this is still,to a large extent, terra incognita. So much the better. For this generation of college faculty and their undergraduate students who will join in these projects,I have a hyperbolic hope that the experience will be the equivalent of the greatvoyages of exploration available to earlier generations—travel into terrain stillpoorly explored, but if all goes well, capable of yielding amazing richness.

Foundations like to talk about “risk taking.” Here is a case where the risksare real—the difficulties young people face in these settings are often over-whelming and the odds against succeeding in college are daunting. At thesame time, colleges and universities are still trying to shape the diverse com-munities that they know they need. The College-Community Connectionsprogram we are launching may fall flat on its face. But I am convinced we willlearn something important from the effort. And as I talk to the people behindthis work I find reasons for optimism. As of this writing, partnerships arebeing negotiated, courses designed, and hopes raised. If this small experimentis successful, it may point to yet another way of contributing to the vitality ofliberal education.

WHAT WE ARE LEARNING ABOUT COLLABORATION. Some of the most impor-tant discoveries we have made at the Teagle Foundation have concerned collaboration. As we build on the Collaborative Ventures program developedunder my predecessor, Richard Kimball, we are increasingly aware of theimportance of increasing collaboration in the highly competitive world ofAmerican higher education. We have also been encouraged by signs that theclimate is changing in this direction. Collaboration, however, also has someimportant implications for how the Teagle Foundation shapes its future work.Let me step back from these generalizations and then try to spell out in moredetail what we have learned.

expe

rienc

e

1 3

THE EXPERIENCE WILL BE THE EQUIVALENT OF THE GREAT VOYAGESOF EXPLORATION AVAILABLE TO EARLIER GENERATIONS—TRAVELINTO TERRAIN STILL POORLY EXPLORED, BUT IF ALL GOES WELL,CAPABLE OF YIELDING AMAZING RICHNESS.

©The New Yorker Collection 2005 Bruce Eric Kaplan from cartoonbank.com.All Rights Reserved.

jjj

The first round of grants for Teagle Working Groups was directed primarilyto major research centers. A good example is the grant to Yale University. Yale and eight other Connecticut institutions are developing best practices foractive student learning and finding fresh approaches to teaching the liberal artsthrough special collections. Using Connecticut as their laboratory, members ofthis Working Group are identifying local materials and resources that theirstudents can utilize to investigate, then craft, a history of the region. Theprogress of this grant has delighted us since it has demonstrated that majorresearch universities can collaborate with smaller undergraduate institutions to their mutual advantage.

Another more recent Teagle program explores new forms of collaborationwithin an individual college or a small cluster of colleges. We have invitedapplications from a group of liberal arts colleges with the belief that mobilizingthe talent on an individual campus or a small cluster of like-minded institu-tions can produce results of wide significance, both for the institutionsinvolved and for liberal education much more broadly. (Grants for these proj-ects will be made in November 2005 and announced promptly on our website at http://www.teaglefoundation.org.)

BEYOND SYNERGIES. In these and other projects which the Foundation hasrecently funded, we find that there is great benefit in bringing grant recipientstogether. At first it seemed to us that such meetings, especially at an early stageof a project, would help us on the Foundation’s staff better understand theissues our grant recipients were facing in project design and implementation.We also hoped, however, that the grant recipients themselves would learn fromone another and that synergies would emerge. All this proved true, not once,but in several meetings during the past year. Clearly, these gatherings weremaking our dollars go further and have greater effect. Something we had notanticipated also took place during these meetings. These dialogic relation-ships—between the Foundation and our grantees, and in turn, among ourgrantees themselves—moved the conversation, as one participant put it, to the“meta-issues”; that is, all of us began to think in fresh ways about the widerissues in higher education of which the individual projects were part.

At another level these meetings provided an opportunity to begin thinkingtogether about how the anticipated results of the projects might prove mostuseful to colleagues in other institutions and settings as they too, I hope, startto build new networks based on the sharing of intellectual resources. WhitePapers will come of out of the projects we fund, describing how they workedand their conditions for success. They will then be distributed, primarily viathe web, and possibly through print media as well. Too often, however, suchreports are skimmed, filed, and forgotten. How can the knowledge generatedby our various projects prove genuinely useful?

major researchuniversities can collaborate with smallerundergraduateinstitutions totheir mutualadvantage.

prog

ress

1 4

THESE DIALOGIC RELATIONSHIPS—BETWEEN THE FOUNDATIONAND OUR GRANTEES, AND IN TURN, AMONG OUR GRANTEESTHEMSELVES—MOVED THE CONVERSATION, AS ONE PARTICIPANTPUT IT, TO THE “META-ISSUES”; THAT IS, ALL OF US BEGAN TOTHINK IN FRESH WAYS ABOUT THE WIDER ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION OF WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS WERE PART.

jjj

KNOWLEDGE-BASED PHILANTHROPY. The very phrasing of the questionentailed its answer. The benefits of our philanthropy would not come from thedollars themselves, welcome as they no doubt were, but from the knowledgethey generated. The endurance of liberal education depends on a steadilyrenewed foundation of knowledge. Some of that knowledge comes from ongo-ing research and creative scholarship, but no less important is knowing how touse the results of such research to invigorate student learning.

The idea of knowledge-based philanthropy, of course, is not a totally newone. Years ago, Abraham Flexner, as Steven Wheatley reminds us in his book,The Politics of Philanthropy (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988, p.121), emphasized that “progress depends, in the first instance, on neithermoney nor machinery, but on ideas,—or more accurately on men (sic) withideas.” We at Teagle, I found myself saying, are in the knowledge business.Our grantmaking is not intended to achieve the results we want; it is a meansto the end of expanding the knowledge base needed for the invigoration ofliberal education.

I was greeted with a smile when I spoke in these terms to a friend who hadworked for some years at McKinsey and Company before becoming one ofthe senior leaders of a national social service organization. The smile, it turnedout, came because some thoughtful people in business and non-governmentalorganizations have, in recent years, been thinking through what “being in theknowledge business” really means.

COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE. My friend then put in my hand an article in theHarvard Business Review (E. Weng and W. Snyder, “Communities of Practice,”January-February 2000, pp. 139-145). The article shows the benefits businessesare achieving by encouraging the formation of informal groups of employeeswho share an interest in some aspect of the firm’s work. The employees may bewidely scattered; the meetings may be face to face, electronic, or both, but suchgroups have proved to be a source of innovations and improvements. As Iread the article, I realized that the HBR was describing something similar towhat we had begun to do when we convened our Listenings and other gather-ings. It also, however, pointed a way to carry a project to a new level. Partici-pants in these meetings often told us that they were repeatedly frustrated andisolated in their efforts. At our Listening on Assessment, they began to formongoing networks and planned ways to keep in touch once we left the BlueRidge. When we accepted their idea of funding faculty-led collaboratives invalue added assessment, the response was very positive, in large part, I believe,because we were building on the enthusiasm of these and other faculty leaders.In retrospect, I see we were fostering the creation of “communities of practice.”Can we now strengthen such communities, build them in new areas with thelong-range goal of creating ones that reach from specific projects to thegrander challenge of liberal education itself?

1 5

THE BENEFITS OF OUR PHILANTHROPY WOULD NOT COME FROMTHE DOLLARS THEMSELVES, WELCOME AS THEY NO DOUBT WERE,BUT FROM THE KNOWLEDGE THEY GENERATED. THE ENDURANCE OF LIBERAL EDUCATION DEPENDS ON A STEADILY RENEWED FOUNDATION OF KNOWLEDGE.

succ

ess

©The New Yorker Collection 2005 Robert Mankoff from cartoonbank.com.All Rights Reserved.

jjj

BEYOND DISSEMINATION. The principal reason I attach such importance tocommunities of practice is simple—most of us learn best from people, notfrom written reports. This means that the best way of spreading a fresh ideaor a successful practice is through people—the over-worked but enthusiasticpeople who developed this new knowledge in the first place. We will notabandon traditional means of dissemination (in fact we place increasingemphasis upon them) but we know we need to move beyond these means toencourage person to person exchange. Knowledge-based philanthropy thenmeans, that over the next few years, the Foundation will commit a largerportion of its time, money, and effort to encouraging the creation of com-munities of practice and bringing the leaders of those communities intocontact with those who wish to learn from their experience.

In this effort we will benefit from earlier experience—the Foundation’sand others’—but the waters are not always well-charted. We will have tofind routes that are right for our organization and for those we are support-ing. Yet while we still have much to learn, some of what we have recentlyfound should help us advance toward our goal of strengthening liberal education. At the very least, it should be an exciting journey.

—W. Robert Connor

1 6

MOST OF US LEARN BEST FROM PEOPLE, NOT FROM WRITTENREPORTS. THIS MEANS THAT THE BEST WAY OF SPREADING AFRESH IDEA OR A SUCCESSFUL PRACTICE IS THROUGH PEOPLE—THE OVER-WORKED BUT ENTHUSIASTIC PEOPLE WHO DEVELOPEDTHIS NEW KNOWLEDGE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

visi

onar

y

over the next few years,the foundation will commit a larger portion of its time, money, andeffort to encouraging thecreation of communitiesof practice….

jjj

Locations where there are two or more Teagle grants in value-added assessment.

more than 150 collegesare now partof the teagle foundation’sassessment network.

MAP ONE: Colleges Participating in Projects Run by National andRegional Associations (94)

MAP TWO: Value Added Assessment Collaboratives—Implementation (May 2005) (33)

MAP THREE:

All Teagle Grants in Value-Added Assessment (includesFirst-Step Collaboratives andDevelopment of AssessmentInstruments Grants) (160)

1 7

asse

ssm

ent

Augustana CollaborativeBates CollaborativeCarleton CollaborativeFurman CollaborativeHampshire CollaborativeKalamazoo Collaborative

Appalachian College AssociationAssociated Colleges of the SouthAssociated Colleges of the Midwest,Great Lakes College AssociationCouncil for the Aid of Education, Council of Independent Colleges

AT A GLANCE:ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS

jjj

WE BELIEVE THAT THE KNOWLEDGE GENERATED BY OUR GRANTEES HAS FAR GREATER POTENTIAL TOINSPIRE CHANGE THAN THE DOLLAR VALUE OF OUR GRANTS. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE MOVED FROM ADOLLAR-BASED TO A KNOWLEDGE-BASED MODEL OF PHILANTHROPY.

knowledge

We establish new program areas through an extended discussion process. In the earliest stages of thinking about a program possibility, we do researchon the general area that interests us: we read relevant literatures, consultinformally with colleagues working in the area, and talk with our Board ofDirectors. When we have a sense of what is at stake, but before we haveidentified a specific focus for our work, we generally convene a Listening tohelp us decide how or whether to move forward. These guided but informaldiscussions generally bring together scholar-teachers, academic administra-tors, and others to think through the issue with us from a variety of perspectives. Toward the end of our discussion, we ask those participatingin the Listening what a foundation initiative in the area at hand mightlook like, if one were to be forthcoming, and then—with that feedback,plus the knowledge gained through the other methods described—wecraft a Request for Proposals (RFP).

The next step is to decide where we should send the RFP, and here weare guided by a number of principles. Our primary focus is liberal artseducation. Many of our initiatives foster or even demand institutionalcollaboration, and we reach out mainly—but not exclusively—to privateliberal arts colleges.

Institutions of particular interest to us are those that:a. explicitly put engaged student learning in the liberal arts at the center

of their mission; b. allocate their resources to sustain this mission; c. have stable enrollments and finances; d. achieve good graduation rates, typically 65% or more after six years; e. systematically assess student progress.

Once proposals arrive in our office, staff members review them and developa précis of materials for presentation to the Board of Directors. The Founda-tion’s Board of Directors authorizes all grants.

proc

ess

a style of grantmaking that listens to the ideas of thoughtful people....

1 9

HOW WE DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT NEW PROGRAMS

jjj

BY MARSHALLING BOTH INTELLECTUAL AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES, THE TEAGLE FOUNDATION ISINVIGORATING LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION AND ENSURING THAT TODAY’S STUDENTS WILL CONTINUETO HAVE ACCESS TO CHALLENGING, WIDE-RANGING, AND ENRICHING COLLEGE EDUCATIONS.

resources

finan

cial

s

the foundation’snew work has been focused on areas where our resources are likely to make a significant difference.

2 1

Asset Allocation:

The grantmaking budget for 2005-2006 is a little over$6 million, in the following proportions:

THE FOUNDATION’S INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE IS TO ENHANCE THEYIELD OF THE PORTFOLIO AND THEREBY MAXIMIZE ITS ABILITY TOFULFILL ITS MISSION.

The market value of the portfolio was approximately $150 million on June 30,2005. The portfolio is invested primarily in equity and equity-like securities.The portfolio includes a diversified mixture of large-, mid-, and small-cap managers and a balance between value and growth investment styles.Alternative equity strategies include venture capital, private equity and multi-strategy hedge funds. Audited financial statements are available on request.

INVESTMENT INFORMATION

PROJECTED GRANTMAKING

Outcomes and Assessment 25%

Teagle Working Groups 14%

ExxonMobil Scholarships 10%

College-Community Connections 9%

Matching and Honorific Awards 4%

Opportunity Reserve 14%

New Initiatives / Other Higher Education 24%

Domestic Equities 42%

ExxonMobil Stock 14%

International Equities 10%

Alternative Equity Strategies 21%

Fixed Income 7%

Real Estate 5%

Other Assets 1%

©The New Yorker Collection 2005 Leo Cullum from cartoonbank.com.All Rights Reserved.

jjj

Peter Crisp served on the Foundation’s Board of Directors from 1990 through2004, helping to guide the Foundation in the development of cost-effective grant-making programs. As Chair of the Investment Committee, he brought his consid-erable experience and expertise to the shaping of the Foundation’s investment policies, and he was instrumental in the Foundation’s establishment of a successfulventure capital investment program.

Peter Crisp’s service to the Teagle Foundation is one element in a career of greatachievement and great generosity. He earned a B.A. from Yale, an M.B.A. fromHarvard, and spent three years in the U.S. Air Force before pursuing a businesscareer that culminated in his tenure as Vice Chairman of Rockefeller FinancialServices, Inc. and Chairman of Venrock, Inc. He was also a founding partner ofVenrock Associates, a leading venture capital organization, where he served as manag-ing partner, as well as general partner. In addition, he has served as a board memberof numerous corporations, educational institutions, environmental organizations,and medical facilities, including Apple Computer, Inc., the U.S. Trust Corporation,the Yale Development Board at Yale University, Memorial Sloan-Kettering CancerCenter, and the North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System.

In recognition of Peter Crisp’s fourteen years’ service to the Teagle Foundation,the Foundation’s Board of Directors approved a grant of $140,000 to the NorthShore-Long Island Jewish Health System Foundation for the Peter and Emily CrispEmergency Center at the Glen Cove Hospital campus.

peter crisp served on thefoundation’sboard of directorsfrom 1990 through2004, helping to guide the foundation inthe developmentof cost-effectivegrantmaking programs.

2 2

BOARD RETIREMENT: PETER CRISP

BOARD OF DIRECTORSJohn S. ChalstyChairmanMuirfield Capital Management LLC

Kenneth P. CohenVice President, Public AffairsExxonMobil Corporation

W. Robert ConnorPresidentThe Teagle Foundation

Sol GittlemanAlice and Nathan Gantcher UniversityProfessorTufts University

William Chester JordanDayton-Stockton Professor of HistoryPrinceton University

Jayne Keith(elected May 2005)PresidentJayne W. Teagle, Inc.

Roland MacholdTreasurerState of New Jersey, retired

Mary Patterson McPhersonVice PresidentThe Andrew W. Mellon Foundation

Richard L. MorrillChancellorUniversity of Richmond

Philip B. Pool, Jr.(elected May 2005)Managing DirectorWillis Stein & Partners

Barbara Paul Robinson(elected May 2005)PartnerDebevoise & Plimpton LLP

Anne M. TatlockChairman and CEOFiduciary Trust International

Walter C. Teagle IIIDirectorGroton Partners

Stephen H. WeissManaging DirectorNeuberger Berman

Pauline YuPresidentAmerican Council of Learned Societies

dedi

catio

n

jjj

Jayne Keith is President of Jayne W. Teagle, Inc., a property investmentand interior design firm. She received her B.A. with honors in Englishand an Elementary Education Certificate from Wheaton College, and a graduate degree in Interior Design from The New York School ofInterior Design. She is the former president of the Women’s Board ofthe Boys’ Club of New York, where she remains a Trustee and Memberof the Presidents’ Council and Executive Committee, and she is aTrustee of Physicians for Peace and the founder of the Women’s andChildren’s Health Initiative. She is a former member of theInternational Board of UNESCO.

Philip B. Pool, Jr. is a Managing Director of Willis Stein & Partners, a middle market leveraged buyout firm. He held the same title in theInvestment Banking Group of Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation(CSFB), following CSFB’s acquisition of Donaldson, Lufkin & JenretteSecurities Corporation, whose Private Fund Group he had co-foundedand headed. His earlier career included years as an investment bankerwith Merrill Lynch & Company, with Kidder, Peabody & CompanyIncorporated, and—before graduate school—as a commercial lendingofficer with The Bank of New York. Mr. Pool earned his M.B.A. fromthe Columbia University Graduate School of Business, and his B.S.from the McIntire School of Commerce of the University of Virginia.He serves on the Board of Managers of the Alumni Association of theUniversity of Virginia, the Board of Directors of the Jefferson ScholarsFoundation, and the Board of Trustees of the Police Relief Associationof Nassau County, Inc.

Barbara Paul Robinson is head of the Trusts & Estates Department atthe international law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, where in1976 she was the first woman to become a partner. She is currently aTrustee of Bryn Mawr College, serves as an officer or member of manyother boards and other organizations, and was President of TheAssociation of the Bar of the City of New York, the first woman to servein that capacity in its 125-year history. She received her A.B. magnacum laude with honors from Bryn Mawr College in 1962 and her J.D.from Yale Law School in 1965, where she was a member of the Orderof the Coif and an editor of the Yale Law Journal.

2 3

NEW BOARD MEMBERS

STAFFPRESIDENT’S OFFICE

W. Robert ConnorPresident

Chris GraebnerAssistant to the President

VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE

Donna HeilandVice President for Programs

Megan BrayOffice Assistant

Cheryl D. ChingProgram Assistant

TREASURER’S OFFICE

Eli WeinbergTreasurer

Diana KandasamyController and Assistant Treasurer

com

mitm

ent

Designed by Swandivedigital

jjj