John M. Rogan
Education
WMC [University of Montana-Western]
Current proposals to merge the units of the Montana University System into two, or even one, university have elicited feelings of hostility, anxiety, and hope, although it is the former that appear to have dominated. Most of the fears expressed seem to be based on imagined scenarios, which is not to say that these fears would not be realized. However, evidence for what might occur should merger plans go through can be anticipated from the merger that has already occurred--that between The University of Montana and Western Montana College in 1987. Positive aspects of the merger could serve as a model while mistakes that have been made need not be repeated.
A question frequently asked of me in recent years goes something like, "How is the merger going?" This seemingly simple question, usually asked in passing, has never been one that I have answered satisfactorily. The truth of the matter is that there has been no single type of merger. In some areas, the merge is complete, while in others it does not exist. Although I have lived through the merger process (having been at Western since 1985) and have appointments at both institutions, I can really only speak to the merger as it affects academic programs, and to some extent how it affects the students in these programs. Questions of the merger on the administrative side and on service areas (library, legal counsel, etc.) are beyond the scope of this paper.
Academically, the merger between Western Montana College and the University of Montana took two forms. At the undergraduate level, the merger was hardly noticed. Most existing undergraduate programs were left intact and course numbers remained the same. Some programs such as Business and American Studies were eliminated, not necessarily because of the merger, but rather as part of the merger package. Even without merger, they might have been eliminated. Nevertheless, all campuses should be aware that merger plans might well call for the elimination of programs. Western retained control over its remaining programs in terms of structure, admission, and staffing. Financially, Western paid for the delivery of these programs out of its own budget, and received FTE for the courses taught on its campus. To all intents and purposes, things remained much the same as they had before the merger, with a few minor irritants to students-to-be touched upon later.
At the graduate level, a very different model was implemented. Western's graduate program was phased out over a two-year period, and in its place the University of Montana was to be responsible for offering one of its graduate programs, a M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction, on the Western campus utilizing Western faculty. The University was to retain control of this program in all areas such as staffing, admission, advising, and program structure. Clearly the program belonged to the University, although it was taught, as one University official recently put it, by "hired guns." Financially, the University received all FTE generated, and in return provided part of the salary of one Western faculty member, whose task it was to oversee the program on the Western campus. During the academic year, Western provides some faculty members to teach graduate courses (for which it is reimbursed under a fair formula). During the summer, all graduate courses taught at Western are funded through the University's summer program.
At the undergraduate level, where in fact no real merger took place, the programs have continued to flourish as evidenced by accreditation reports and student enrollment. The one irritant to students has been some of the upper level courses. The University of Montana lists many of its 400 level courses as UG, meaning that they can be counted for credit in a graduate program. It has become the custom at Western to offer selected University 400 level courses by double listing them when they coincide with courses taught at Western. This arrangement gives senior students the option of beginning to accumulate some graduate credit, usually while pursuing an additional minor. The rub is that they are then forced to register twice, once at Western and once at the University--and pay two sets of fees.
At the graduate level, it is generally recognized by all involved that the merger model adopted simply has not worked. Enrollments have plummeted to the point where the program can no longer be justified. (The demand is still there as evidenced by the large number of local teachers who have opted into expensive, out-of-state masters programs.) Some of the reasons for the failure of the model will be suggested below.
The structure of the masters program offered at Western is such that it cannot be delivered on campus in its entirety. For example, six credits of cognates (courses with a non-educational rubric) are required. However, the cognate courses at Western cannot be counted, since Western does not have a graduate program in those cognate areas. The only option for most students in the program, who are mostly teachers, would be to go to Missoula during the summer to take their cognate courses. However, by and large, such courses are not offered during the summer. The program structure also requires education courses outside of curriculum and instruction focus, in such areas as administration or counseling. However, requests to teach such courses on the Western campus are denied on the grounds that the program offered here is in curriculum. Whatever the pros and cons of implementing the same program structure on both campuses, students have expressed frustration, and in turn are voting with their feet.
Another major source of student dissatisfaction with the merger has been in the area of admission. Admission decisions are made entirely on the Missoula campus. Students, who have taken graduate courses in Missoula prior to their admission to the program, and who have done well, are likely to have an advocate on the faculty. Students in Dillon have no such advantage. The students' perception is that vital decisions are being made in distant locales, that such decisions are final, and that they are powerless in the face of a distant bureaucracy. The perception that admission, based primarily on the GRE cutoff score, does not conform with current standards of assessment, adds to the frustration. The multiplier effect has been devastating. When a highly respected member of a school community, who has demonstrated excellent performance in graduate courses, is denied admission, the search for alternative programs by others in that community takes on the dimensions of a total boycott of The University of Montana.
Advising has also been a sore point. Students are assigned an advisor who is usually on the University faculty. They can of course request a change of advisor to someone on the Western campus, and most do. However, in problematic cases, such as a conditional admission into the program, it has been the feeling that an advisor in Missoula has more access to the decision-making structure and that the student is best served by retaining an advisor in Missoula. However, this policy has not always played out as expected as there have been times when a student has invested in a six-hour drive to meet with an advisor who knew nothing about a graduate program as offered in Dillon, and not much more about the one in Missoula either.
Student services have suffered under the current model. For services as simple as straightening out a problem of fee payment or getting a transcript, graduate students can no longer speak to a familiar and friendly face over the counter, but communicate with a voice some 180 miles distant. This factor alone has cost the program some students.
The University of Montana's graduate program at Western is comparable to a landlord-renter relationship. The renter is not likely to invest much in a house that is not his own. If something is broken, the renter will have to get the landlord to fix it, or learn to live with it. If the landlord has many irons in the fire, it is likely to remain broken. Even if the renter is prepared to invest in the needed improvements, the landlord is likely to meet such proposals with suspicion rather than enthusiasm. The landlord will want to make sure that any improvements are not at odds with her conception of the property, and will not lead to hidden costs down the road. The safe response for the landlord is to say no.
The purpose of raising these issues is not to point fingers at colleagues in Missoula. By and large, they have done their best in trying to make a model with inherent flaws work. There is general agreement on both campuses that the merger model for the graduate program has not worked, and a genuine desire exists, in the spirit of partnership, to devise a model that does. With the possibility of future mergers on a much larger scale looming on the horizon, the search for that model takes on a sense of urgency. The paradox of the situation is that what has worked does not look much like a merger, and where the merger has been taken seriously, problems have abounded. In the next section, I will try to suggest parts of a merger model that might work, based on the Western experience.
Two premises for the basis of a model that might work will be sketched in this section. The one is that a merger will only make sense if there are some very obvious benefits, or at least if the pluses outnumber the minuses. The second is that management from a distance is rarely successful, and that best management practice tends to favor local decision making and responsibility.
For the sake of this discussion, it will be assumed that all campuses will be merged into one unit rather than two. The model that emerges probably favors the former, but could fit a two unit system as well. The crucial question is why merge at all, and who reaps the benefits? It will be argued here that there are some possible benefits, both immediate and long term. For as long as I have been in Montana, there have been moves to merge or close units. The saving of money appears to be one reason to surface. However, it is my contention that anyone who believes that merging will result in saving is bound to be disappointed. Attempts to sell the merger on the basis of cost effectiveness are bound to raise expectations which will not be realized. Certainly, the Western/University of Montana merger cannot show any significant savings.
What a merger might be able to deliver is better service to the students of Montana. Transferability of credit is an issue often raised by the public when the current system is under scrutiny. One feature of a merger model that might work would be to have all courses on all six campuses listed in a common, system-wide catalog. These courses would belong to the system and not to each campus. The different campuses would build their various programs by selecting courses from the common catalog. Permission to offer programs would be granted by the regents, but factors such as the curriculum (program structure), admission, and financial responsibility would rest with the local campuses. No single campus would teach all the courses in the common catalog. Indeed, the smaller campuses would only teach a small fraction. From the students' perspective, a course taken is a course recognized, no matter at which university it was taught. Students could register with the single unit, enabling them to take courses from any campus without having to re-register each time they transfer. They would even have the choice of taking courses from different campuses during the same semester. However, as is now the case, registration does not equate with admission into a particular program. Individual campuses would still have the right to design their own programs, and to set admission standards into these programs. From faculty members' perspectives, we would need to learn to trust and respect one another, and where concerns about quality do exist, learn to communicate with and support one another. The current practice of refusing to recognize each other's courses would no longer be an option since we would all be part of one system.
What is described above might be regarded as a short term benefit. With a single unit system, some long term benefits, as hinted at by Plank (1993), might accrue. Two will be suggested here. Expertise which exists on a single campus could be made available to the system as a whole. There are experts on each one of our six campuses who possess some unique area of knowledge in their field. By and large, this expertise is confined to one campus. Once we begin to look at ourselves as one system, and use the technology that is becoming available, the expertise that we already have could be better utilized. In fact, we might well find that there are programs that the unit as a whole could offer, which currently no single campus has the resources to do. For example, each campus has one or two faculty members in science education. However, the only way to offer any kind of graduate program in science education would be to draw on the combined expertise of the faculty at all six campuses. Hence a merger might open up possibilities which do not currently exist, and programs needed by the State could be developed.
Finally, continuing to consider long-term benefits, the current merger between Western and the University has produced a collaborative venture which has been extremely valuable. In the spirit of the merger, education faculty from both institutions met on a regular basis to explore scholarly activities that could be undertaken jointly by both institutions. The result of these deliberations was a document which spelled out the theoretical underpinnings of Western's teacher education program, as well as a longitudinal research design to monitor the long-term effects of the program. As we begin to think of ourselves as one unit, collaborative efforts might flourish. In the field of education, NSF funded projects such as SIMMS and STEP have already done much to foster collaboration amongst the six campuses, to the benefit of all. A merger might stimulate the kind of system-wide collaboration that would attract research money and strengthen the system to the benefit of students and the State as a whole.
A merger forced on unwilling partners will not work. Neither will one which erodes local decision making. If a merger is to work, then the point of departure should be to elucidate the benefits that might be expected, and to design a model that will enhance those benefits. Such thinking is noticeably absent in the current merger debate, which appears to focus on who loses the most.
Reference
Plank, W. (1993). Reformation and Reform: Martin Luther and Marc Racicot. The Montana Professor, 3(3), 19-20.