Since that pivotal moment in August, 1971 when new Head David Fowler first asked his faculty, "What kind of school do you want to create?" we have been shaping our vision of the ideal learning community. No one said, "Let's do all kinds of innovative things while retaining a college preparatory curriculum..." but that's what we did. We orchestrated a school with a wholly unique DNA: socially informal, egalitarian, academically structured, decentralized arts, dramatic experiential programs, etc. and we retained a relatively traditional curriculum that requires three years of math and science, etc.

Proctor has flourished with this increasingly refined genetic code, but debates regarding the ideal school still rage within the faculty, creating healthy tensions and ongoing evolution. What would we teach--and how would we teach--if our mission was to graduate healthy, critically thinking, ethical human beings who were prepared for life rather than focussing on college? Wouldn't colleges want such extraordinary individuals?

Some faculty dream of a school at which students take four academic majors only; (today's policies allow kids to take five, and most do.) This would enable greater concentration in areas of the individual's passion. Perhaps a student could double in science or art.

Others wonder why we don't require every student to participate in an off-campus program during his/her three or four year career here. We know that these experiences are life-changing and powerful...don't we believe everyone should benefit? But doesn't this idea run counter to the "four majors" concept? How would students complete their requirements?

One solution would be to make Proctor a five-year school! Would this change our "position" within the prep school market? Do we care?

With the decisions to these questions resting with (essentially) the faculty who created current systems, radical change may be unlikely. Perhaps the important thing (to quote David Fowler one more time) is that we're asking the right questions.