[Editor's Note: Last spring the Board of Regents went through a process of adopting a new mission statement. It is easy but unwise for the faculty to pay scant attention to such matters. On this occasion the Faculty Senate at UM has done a professional and admirable job of communicating the view of the faculty on what an appropriate mission statement should be. In our view it is important that the faculty of MUS know about this, and thus we publish here: (a) the mission statement as adopted by the Board in January 1997; (b) the mission statement they were considering last spring; and (c) the comments of the UM Faculty Senate on both. These comments were sent to the board before they made a decision. In terms of both content and style, the mission statements are at best problematic. The response to them is a masterpiece. Professor Walton and company have taken the Regents to the woodshed and chastised them severely in well-regulated prose. This is more than an answer to a mission statement--it is a statement of the idealism of the profession and shows up the lack of that knowledge, professionalism, and idealism on the part of the people who are constitutionally empowered to direct higher education in this state. Our compliments to Professors Walton, Borgmann, and all others who had a part in composing this excellent statement which with strength and grace expresses the sentiments of all faculty. Following this article we publish the new statement as adopted by the Board on July 7.]
As it moves into the 21st century, the Montana University System will...
Provide the best quality of postsecondary programs of education, research, and service to the citizens of Montana, both students and taxpayers at the time and place they need it at a price they can afford.
Emphasize an approach that is market-oriented and customer-driven.
Pursue an unrelenting emphasis upon student success, including treating students with the dignity they deserve and providing students the services essential to their success.
Assess all programs, services, policies, and resource allocations by the degree to which they contribute to the success of students.
Focus policy discussion and resource allocation on student learning.
Aggressively pursue the use of technology to provide high-quality educational experiences to students, broadened access to programs, and more efficient management of resources.
Develop an educated citizenry prepared to meet the challenge of the 21st century, engage in lifelong learning, and lead productive lives.
Seek collaborative partnerships for the common good with other education, government, business, and community entities.
Produce graduates who will be good citizens and productive employees enjoying a high quality of life.
Develop management approaches, structures, and strategies consistent with our educational goals.
A diverse community of scholars who both create and consume knowledge, the Montana University System is joined together to serve the citizens of Montana and the public good.
To fulfill our responsibility to lead and govern the Montana University System, the Board of Regents of Higher Education will balance QUALITY, ACCESS, COST, and ACCOUNTABILITY in the best interests of both the students and citizens of Montana. We will focus on student learning and success, quality instruction, research and public service, and the efficient and effective use of taxpayers' investment.
We will sustain the rich academic tradition of the Montana University System that prepares graduates who are inquisitive, productive, and contributing citizens in the larger world community. To this end, we commit ourselves to the principles of academic freedom and inquiry that are the foundation of public education in America. We believe students are best prepared by college and university programs that emphasize critical thinking and the importance of discovery in the advancement of society, and that combine theory and practice, research, and service along with hands-on and creative activities. We will take pride in developing an educated citizenry capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century and leading productive lives.
Understanding that our clients are prepared and responsible consumers of knowledge, we will operate with a client orientation, promoting a balance among entrepreneurial behavior, academic responsibility, and learning leadership. Our campuses will serve students of all ages and from all walks of life by providing a wide range of educational experiences at the non-credit, certificate, associate, baccalaureate, master's, specialist, and doctoral levels. To demonstrate our commitment to our clients and to lifelong learning, we will provide learning opportunities when and where students need them and at a price Montana's students and taxpayers can afford.
We will expect our campuses to exercise their civic responsibilities and leadership by serving as educational, cultural, and economic development resources within the communities and the regions they serve. Through a dual emphasis on student learning and community involvement, we believe the Montana University System and our graduates can help make Montana, our nation, and the world a better place to live.
To be recognized as a single, unified system of higher education that, while acknowledging and respecting individual campus and student differences, talents, and abilities, has a reputation for delivering high-quality education to students.
To offer programs consistent with institutional missions, availability of resources, and needs of the state.
To evaluate faculty productivity, academic programs, services, and policies along with expenditures by the degree to which they contribute to student learning and success and to meeting the needs of the state.
To allocate university system resources based upon a long-term plan with measurable outcomes tied to serving the interests of students and the state.
To encourage faculty contributions to the greater body of knowledge through their research and creative activities, and to support the transmission of that knowledge through instructional, outreach, economic development and public service programs.
To be staunch, articulate, and committed advocates of adequate and stable higher education funding, and to be recognized as excellent stewards of public resources by seeking creating funding alternatives, managing resources through internal reallocation to emphasize student demand and program quality, and developing collaborative partnerships with other education, government business, community and student entities.
To respond to citizens' concerns about allocation and investment of educational resources through a system of public accountability reporting that includes regular assessment of statewide educational needs and economic limitations and measurement of quality indicators and expenditures.
Develop a coordinated systemwide master plan to respond to the long-term enrollment and educational needs of Montana students. This plan should address:
enrollment planning in relation to Montana's workforce needs, expansion of two-year educational opportunities, and the state's economic development initiatives;
enhancing coordination and cooperation with K-12 to encourage more high school graduates to pursue higher education opportunities in Montana;
continuing and expanding statewide coordination of course and program requirements, credit transferability, and delivery of programs--particularly those that cross traditional campus or geographical boundaries;
facilities utilization, including integrating plans for managing deferred maintenance into regular budgets;
planning for technology and funded depreciation of technology assets;
faculty and staff professional development considering a system or campus set-aside allocation from annual budget(s);
library and information resources;
provision of adequate funding;
coordinating opportunities for research, outreach, and economic development
Identify opportunities to redesign and use new technologies to improve processes, achieve cost savings, and redirect staff time to improve productivity, requiring long-term planning for technology and funded depreciation of technology assets.
Develop further mechanisms for access using technology-mediated instruction to provide qualitatively equivalent and assessed educational opportunities to off-campus and non-traditional students.
Promote admissions standards and outcomes measures throughout the Montana University System, on each campus and for specific programs, that evaluate and measure student proficiencies.
Seek balanced and affordable combinations of distance-learning with campus community-based active learning, and aggressively pursue the use of technology to provide high-quality educational experiences to students, broaden access to programs, promote lifelong learning, and more efficiently manage resources.
Emphasize excellence in communication skills, the use of technology, problem-solving, critical thinking, and collaborative learning in all programs, and encourage enhanced learning with assessed outcomes, including active, 'hands-on' opportunities.
| DATE: | May 4, 1999 |
| TO: | Mr. Ed Jasmin, Board of Regents |
| FROM: | R.E. Walton, Chair, UM-Missoula Faculty Senate |
| RE: | MUS Mission Statement, March 24, 1999 |
The University of Montana-Missoula Faculty Senate formed an ad hoc committee of distinguished faculty members to prepare comments on the draft of the MUS mission statement distributed at the January Regents meeting. The committee had only begun its work when it turned its attention to the draft distributed at the March BOR meeting. It transmitted its report to the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate (ECOS) on April 19th. Relying in important part on that report, ECOS now offers its review of the MUS Mission Statement submitted for public criticism last month.
We note from the outset that this version of the Mission Statement greatly exceeds its predecessor in quality and substance, and that there are some very good points included in this document. It has, however, numerous faults. We will devote the greatest part of our attention to the document's weaknesses, as is customary in academic critiques. Readers should not be misled by this imbalance, or by our "professorial" style. We are, after all, professors; we are accustomed to taking writing seriously as a matter of professional responsibility.
ECOS asked the ad hoc committee to address six questions in its report. These are summarized below.
Is this really a mission statement; i.e., does it fit the form sufficiently?
Does it confuse the mission of the MUS with that of the Regents?
Does the document make good sense, point by point?
Are there contradictions?
Are there significant omissions?
Do the Regents overstep, or threaten to overstep, the proper bounds of their authority in any points of the mission they propose?
The committee answered some of these questions directly, but chose to describe alternatives to the policy in other cases. Our comments will be built around these questions.
Their answer to the first question is particularly clear and to the point. They found themselves unable to be sure what concepts of mission, vision, goals, and actions the Board had in mind in composing this document and the relations among these things consequently to be obscure. They therefore suggest the following articulation of these ideas:
A Mission Statement defines the enduring structures and tasks of an institution and the institution's reason for being.
A Vision Statement follows from a Mission Statement and articulates the particular size, shape, and quality an institution hopes to attain.
A Statement of Goals specifies the several components that make up a Vision Statement.
A Statement of Actions lists the particular steps that need to be taken to reach the goals.
ECOS accepts this as an important contribution to the discussion and recommends that the Board adopt it as a set of working definitions.
The current document does run together the mission of the Montana University System and that of the Board of Regents. For example, the "Vision" section of the document begins with what is intended to be a summary description of the Montana University System. What immediately follows in the second paragraph is a statement of commitment on the part of the Board. Following that, the points are ambiguous in their reference, the plural pronouns perhaps referring to the Board or to the University System regarded as a collective entity. The first item of the "Goals" section must refer to the System, whereas point six must refer to the Board; others may be read either way. Thus, the Board must disentangle ideas of its own mission from those of the University System it is, by law, to govern. Clearly there is a close relationship between the two: a statement of mission for the Board must be subservient to a statement for the System, for once the mission of the system is established that of the Board may become clear. The single exception to this relationship, and perhaps the source of the confusion, is that the Board itself establishes the mission of the System as a matter of the Board's legal authority.
We have reservations about the language of the statement in several instances. The opening sentence gives us pause: "A diverse community of scholars who both create and consume knowledge...." The scholars who may be described as creating knowledge are for the most part the faculty members of the System and the advanced graduate students. "Knowledge" must here be intended in the sense of "human knowledge," i.e., true and accurate information available in books, scholarly journals, scientific papers, etc. We do not understand the reference to "consumers" of knowledge. Learning is not a case of consumption, as is abundantly clear from the fact that the stock of human knowledge is not diminished by any part of it being learned. This whole notion that students are to be regarded as consumers we believe to be mistaken and inimical to the real purposes of higher education (1). Our subcommittee spoke well on this matter. We quote from their report.
The MUS is to serve students as efficiently and effectively as possible and, to do so, must ever and again examine and endeavor to improve its policies and procedures. At the same time it is crucial to stress the difference between consumption and education. A student cannot be the sovereign in higher education that the consumer is in the marketplace. It requires the training and experience of the faculty to determine what needs to be learned to become expert in a particular field. Much of the material and many of the skills, moreover, are so demanding that the constant guidance and encouragement of instructors is needed if students are to become knowledgeable and competent. The more substantial the knowledge students have mastered, the easier it is for them to acquire more knowledge and to become lifelong learners.
Thus, the Statement's second mention of the student as consumer of knowledge must be strongly repudiated. The Board writes, "Understanding that our clients are prepared and responsible consumers of knowledge, we will operate with a client orientation...."
Several times the Board speaks of "balancing" some characteristics, goals, or obligations. At least twice when it does so, more than two things are to be "balanced," with no indication as to how they are to be grouped to make the metaphor of balancing work. Consequently, these statements are vague. In one case the statement would require a trade-off which--if seriously intended--could only be described as outrageous. The sentence quoted in the paragraph immediately above continues, "...promoting a balance among entrepreneurial behavior, academic responsibility, and learning leadership." Setting aside the problem of clarity, it is certainly true that the statement means that academic responsibility will be increased or diminished as the other two items in the "balance" are changed. We must presume that the authors did not say what they really meant here, for no officer of the System can tolerate anything less than complete academic responsibility.
Mission statements, by their nature, tend toward hyperbole, expressing as they do what are in part aspirations rather than concrete commitments. This tendency should be kept in check, however, lest those in charge of achieving the mission described be required to do the impossible or the undesirable. Thus, we would recommend, for example, that the Board trim back its language where it says, "...we will provide learning opportunities when and where students need them and at a price Montana's students and taxpayers can afford."
In this regard, the current document's provisions regarding the use of technology in the University System are considerably more sophisticated than the point in the existing Mission Statement they would replace. The document now in force commits the System to an "aggressive pursuit" of the use of educational technology. We believe this educationally, technologically, and economically unwise. Again, our subcommittee has spoken well. We quote their report verbatim.
Information technology has already been woven into the fabric of the MUS. It is a financially burdensome strand in higher education. The MUS, nevertheless, has an obligation to keep abreast of developments and to train students according to the state of the art. In addition to the application that information technology has had in the traditional setting of higher education, there are claims that this technology will transform, extend, and replace higher education as we know it. The MUS should certainly be concerned to use information technology as effectively as possible to make education and training available to people who traditionally have been barred from access. Distance learning, however, is extremely expensive to institute and as yet uncertain in its outcomes. A relatively poor and thinly populated state like Montana cannot responsibly take an aggressive role in promoting distance learning. The MUS has to be careful and selective in supporting subjects and degree programs. The most important task is one of vigilance and circumspection--surveying the options that are developing across the United States, gathering the best possible evidence on the effectiveness of distance learning, and supporting well-focused and carefully monitored ventures within the MUS.
Information technology has already informed and both enhanced and bedeviled higher education. It is not likely to transform education from the ground up, nor will it replace campus-situated education. Few education theorists dispute the view that learning in a face to face community is still the setting most conducive to learning. This setting will certainly remain available to the rich. The State of Montana has worked hard to establish a far-flung University System to make that setting as widely available to its citizens as possible. This is a tradition that ought to be maintained.
We note for the record that our subcommittee was chaired by Regents' Professor of Philosophy Albert Borgmann, whose scholarship on the nature and effects of technology--particularly information technology--has been widely read and is well-regarded in the academic community.
There are a number of points not found in this document which one might argue should be included. First among these, we believe, is a commitment of the System to adhere to the best traditions of American higher education and to its contractual commitments to its professional employees. There must be, then, a corresponding commitment included in a mission statement for the Board of Regents to inform itself of these traditions and contractual obligations and to keep them constantly in mind in their deliberations.
We hasten to add that we do find one such point addressed in this Mission Statement. The second sentence of the third paragraph of the "Vision" section reads, "To this end, we commit ourselves to the principles of academic freedom and inquiry that are the foundation of public education in America." We applaud this statement. But we must note that the paragraph then goes on in the very next sentence to stipulate the general aims of the System's academic courses. This evidences a lack of understanding of the nature of academic freedom. The primary purpose of according duly appointed faculty scholars and scholarly administrators the right of academic freedom is to provide for the effective exercise of those persons' professional judgment in the discharge of their responsibilities. Thus, what the Board gives with one hand it immediately takes away, in part, with the other.
This brings us to an important point that must be fully addressed in the mission statement for the Board which we believe must accompany any such statement for the System. Under the 1972 Constitution of the State of Montana, the Board of Regents "...shall have full power, responsibility, and authority to supervise, coordinate, manage, and control the Montana University System..." (2). That provision was included in response to the scandalous tendency of the Legislature and the Governor to interfere in higher education, much to the detriment of the System. The University of Montana at Missoula, for example, was frequently censured by the AAUP for violations of academic freedom at the hands, ultimately, of the Legislature or the Governor. As recently as the late 1960s we were notorious for such violations in the American higher education community. An institution does not attract first-rate scholars and students, or substantial external funding, when saddled with such a reputation.
In recent years the Board of Regents has appeared to behave as if that provision of the Constitution meant that it was to be the educational administrator of the System, performing the governance functions of the faculties, presidents, vice-presidents and deans at the highest level. This cannot be the case if we are to have a healthy and flourishing Montana University System. It is a well-established principle in American higher education that lay boards leave to an institution's professional scholarly employees judgments about the content and character of academic programs, research, creative endeavors, and many aspects of these institutions' service functions. Boards are, of course, most often the institutions' ultimate legal authority; that indeed is the case for the Regents of the MUS. But legal authority and the range of its appropriate exercise are not in this case coterminous. The Board must respect the judgment of its professional employees and not stray beyond the bounds of its members' knowledge, experience, and expertise.
In matters of the substance of academic programs, of the content and character of courses of study and the curriculum, generally, and in the requirements for degrees and determinations that the requirements have been met and an award is due, it is the faculty's judgment which must prevail. Moreover, the faculty must have a primary role in the evaluation of scholarly professional employees, particularly faculty members. Whatever the Board ultimately settles upon in the way of mission statements for the System or itself, it must be pledged to that principle. It must then recognize that some of its actions in recent years have done violence to that principle and stand ready to correct them.
This appropriate forbearance implies that the Board's plan to offer incentive pay to its chief administrative officers bears close scrutiny. Incentive payments are a means by which an organization's management secures compliance with its directives. Incentive pay plans are, in short, devices for extending management's power over employees. Thus, they are well-suited to certain kinds of organizations and ill-suited to others. In general, incentive pay plans are not to be used for professional employees, particularly where the managers are not themselves members of the employees' profession. (One shudders to think, for example, of a hospital board's adopting an incentive pay plan for the hospital's medical staff.) The faculty of the University of Montana-Missoula believes that the Board is looking in the wrong direction; it should now be contemplating the appropriate limits of its power, not seeking measures for extending it.
In preparing our comments on the Board's proposed mission statement we have been acutely aware of a problem which may appropriately be regarded as a mirror image of the fundamental problem which Board members must confront in facing their immense responsibilities, the problem to which we have alluded in the paragraphs immediately above. We have composed our comments in the form of an attenuated scholar's critique, a rather mild example of the kind of criticism we regularly provide other scholars, and which we, as scholars, actively seek, having learned early in our training that it is through such criticism that our understanding grows and the quality of our work improves. Yet the authors of the mission statement are not professional scholars. One might then reasonably object that they ought not be subjected to the sharp criticism that scholars offer one another. But the Board is charged with governing the work of scholars and has attempted to do so quite actively for the past several years. Some common plane of discourse must then be found, one which we scholars and the members of the Board may both occupy. We have attempted to find that common region in these comments.
The Regents and we scholars are, after all, engaged in a joint enterprise, one of great importance to the State. Again, we find the report of our fine ad hoc committee especially apt. We give them the last word.
The MUS plays a crucial role in securing for the State the workforce that is skilled and trained to support and advance the State's economy. In addition, however, the MUS makes an equally crucial contribution to the intellectual and cultural life of the State.
Montana must have an interest in resident expertise in the science, humanities, and arts. It needs scientists in agriculture, forestry, geology, biology, and many other fields who know the State intimately and have its welfare at heart. It needs professors in history, literature, and the humanities generally who will be scholars and custodians of Montana's cultural heritage and will teach students the difficult art of clarifying nebulous terms and solving intricate problems. It needs creative artists and performers--teachers as well as students--who enrich the lives and inspire the souls of our citizens. Without the MUS's contributions to the life of the spirit, Montana would not be the good place it is.
We strongly recommend that the Board read an excellent article on this subject which appeared in The Montana Professor, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Fall 1997): George Cheney, Jill J. McMillan, Roy Schwartzman, "Should We Buy the 'Student-As-Consumer' Metaphor?" pp. 8-11.
Constitution of Montana, Article X, Section 9 (2).
Editor's Footnote: On July 7 the board adopted the 1999 statement with some changes. The new statement shows some signs of the faculty criticism having had some effect though certainly the entire message did not sink in. The complete new statement follows.
The purpose of the Montana University System is to deliver high quality post-secondary educational opportunities to the citizens of Montana while balancing access, cost and accountability.
The Montana University System serves the citizens of Montana and the public good through a diverse community of scholars and learners. Representing a rich academic tradition, this community prepares graduates who are inquisitive, productive, and contributing citizens not only in the State but also in the larger world community. To this end and in fulfillment of its mission, the Montana University System will
Philosophically
Exercise proper stewardship of the public trust and remain sensitive to its civic responsibility.
Accord priority to student learning and success, quality in instruction, research and public service programs, and efficient and effective use of taxpayers' investment in public higher education. Embrace the principle of academic freedom exercised in the context of academic responsibility toward students and the larger community.
Acknowledge the importance of discovery to the advancement of society and promote a learning environment that fosters critical thinking and inquiry both within and across disciplines.
Expect campuses to meet their civic duty and exercise leadership by serving as educational, cultural, and economic development resources within their communities, regions and the State.
Educationally
Develop an informed, educated and culturally aware citizenry that is prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century, engage in life-long learning, and lead productive lives in an increasingly diverse and global society.
Serve students of all ages and from all walks of life and all Montana cultures by providing a wide range of educational experiences at the non-credit, certificate, associate, baccalaureate, master's, specialist and doctoral levels both on the MUS campuses and through distributed learning strategies.
Emphasize student success, treat all students with the respect they deserve, and provide them with the services they need to be successful.
Foster a climate where students take responsibility for their own learning and engage in both active and collaborative learning experiences.
Promote programs of study that combine theory and practice, research and service, along with hands-on and creative activities.
Encourage all members of the university community to explore and develop international and interdisciplinary perspectives in their programs and activities and to understand the power and influence of globalization.
Use outcomes assessment to validate student achievement and acquisition of essential skills, e.g., excellent communication skills, facility in use of technology, ability to solve problems, capacity to work in teams.
Involve students in the full range of college and university activities (research, instruction, administration, public service, etc.) to enhance their learning experiences.
Operationally
Enact policies that promote greater efficiency and effectiveness in university system programs, activities, and operations.
Remain steadfastly committed to the public good while relying upon a wide range of both public and private funding and support.
Provide academic opportunities to the citizens of Montana when and where they need them and at a price they can afford.
Pursue an approach that is market oriented and customer driven, while maintaining a service orientation toward both students and citizens in its management and operations.
Expand the use of information technology to advance student learning, increase access to educational services, and improve the management of resources.
Engage in collaborative relationships with business, industry, community, government and other educational entities to promote the common good and to advance learning.
Corrected as of July 7, 1999
JAS
Ed. Note: The initials are those of Joyce Scott, the Deputy Commissioner.