IVC’s vision, mission, and goals: nonsense on stilts

     This post is the third in a series that critique district and college statements explaining what we're about, what we stand for. (See also Districtular Poppycock, They Buzz: Saddleback College's "Mission, Vision, and Values" & District and college goals and values.)

Vision, Mission and Goals, Irvine Valley College

VISION STATEMENT
Irvine Valley College provides students avenues for success through premier educational standards, exceptional services, and dynamic partnerships.

     In fashioning its "vision statement," IVC has opted for an assertion of purpose and accomplishment. The college, it says, provides ways ("avenues") for students to “succeed.” OK.
     It provides these ways, it says, through 

Premier educational standards
Exceptional services
Dynamic partnerships

     If you value sentences that flow and that make sense, you’d never say that a college provided a way to succeed “through” its high standards. When you say “through X” you mean “by means of X.” The college’s (i.e., its instructors’) having high standards is not a means to achieve something. That gets the logic of standards all wrong. It's conceptual gobbledygook.
     Why not avoid the trouble by simply saying that, at IVC, we have high standards? That doesn’t really need to be explained. (Plus it’s true, more or less, and relatively speaking.)
     And isn’t “premier” an adjective for PR hacks and advertisers? Yes it is. We're academics, not Mad Men.
     What about “exceptional services”? The adjective “exceptional” is a problem. Obviously, Elaine Benes is an exceptional dancer. She’s also a shitty dancer.
     And does it make sense to say the college provides avenues of success “through” good services? No doubt good services help, but only if there’s good teaching first. Using this “through” language confuses things.
     Notice that these three things “through” which avenues are provided are apples and oranges. High educational standards (i.e., demanding a lot from students) and good services (i.e., getting checks to students on time, showing ‘em how to get loans, etc.) are radically different things.
     And partnerships? Could you specify those please? Again, incest and organized crime are partnerships. And they can be plenty dynamic, too. So we’re not into (dynamic) partnerships per se, are we?
     And “dynamic” is a stupid buzzword. If things are endlessly writhing and heaving—well, that’s good, evidently. Stuff that just remains what it is (like the immutable Lord, I guess)—throw that shit straight into the trash.
     These three elements comprise a random cluster that just doesn’t add up to anything. Citing them is like meeting a girl and noting that her hearing is good, her cousin plays bass, and that she really knows how to keep her shoes shiny. What’s your point, man? WTF?!
     Why not zero in on high standards? You can even drag “services” into that, if you want.
     Don’t know about partnerships. Plus I’m opposed to incest.

Bugsy, cat (resting)

MISSION STATEMENT
Irvine Valley College is committed to student success. The College is devoted to student learning through exemplary teaching, integrated support services, effective stewardship, and continued accessibility in a diverse community.

     The college is committed to student success. OK. Got that.
     The second sentence seems to want to go back to the beginning and start over again: The college is devoted to student learning…. Being devoted and being committed are pretty much the same thing, right? And, basically, at a college, you want students to learn. That’s the whole point. So student learning and student success are awfully closely related. Or is this second sentence saying something new? If so, then has the mission statement abandoned that earlier guff about commitment and success? What gives?
     Why are you fucking with us?
     Strictly speaking, the Mission Statement seems to be saying that we’re devoted through X, Y, and Z. Wrong. What it actually means to say that we’re devoted to student learning. Then (pause) there’s a further point: we achieve “student learning” through X, Y, and Z.
     Who writes this stuff?
     There’s that stupid “through” construction again. "Through" can be a kind of weasel word, really. It’s sloppy and vague. It’s for lazy people who don’t want to think: I crossed the nation through enthusiasm. I collect radios through my Chrysler. He died through death. –I mean, once you’ve started a sentence with “I did X through….”, you can say pretty much anything and get away with it.
     The IVC Vision Statement is saying (or is trying to say) that students will learn, and this will be achieved via

exemplary teaching
integrated support services
effective stewardship
continued accessibility in a diverse community

     The “exemplary teaching” I get. We’ll achieve “student learning” through good teaching. (“Good” is better than “exemplary,” which is kinda bullshitty.) Yep.
     I don’t understand how “integrated support services” are a means to achieve student learning. They’re not. Once you’ve got good teaching, having good services will help, no doubt. But “services” per se are no kind of means to learning. (No doubt there are exceptions, such as tutoring.)
     “Integrated” is another buzzword, the kind of word chosen by people who think that there are special & trendy words that obviate thinking. Just splash “integrated” on something and its automatically improved.
     A steward, of course, manages or looks after something on someone’s behalf. In the case of a college, the group on whose behalf all things are done are students—and perhaps ipso facto the community. The problem I have here is that there is virtually nothing that can’t be viewed as requiring good stewardship. And so “effective stewardship” verges on meaning “taking care of stuff (effectively).” Pretty vague, man.
     “Access” is among the buzzwords de jour. But at least most of us know what it refers to.
     —“in a diverse community.” This phrase was likely added entirely for its rich buzzitude, a wholly meretricious thing. Or maybe the authors are hinting that “access” can be maximized only upon taking into account the diversity of the community. I say: dude, this is your Mission Statement. Don’t hint. Just frigging say it.
     In summary, the Mission Statement needs to decide whether it’s about student success or student learning. The empty “stewardship” blather should be cut. There are some good points here, but they should be made sans the “through” construction, an invitation to confusion, murkiness, and abject assholery.

* * *

     At this point, I have a question: in what sense is the IVC "Mission" statement not a "Vision" statement? And vice versa? They both seem to set out the college's purpose, it's task, what it hopes to achieve. In both cases, there's a focus on "student success."
     Is this some kind of word game? If so, why not call the "mission" the "potato" and the "vision" the "hairball"?
     As you'll see momentarily, my bewilderment increases as I espy IVC's "goals," which, arguably, focus again on purposes/goals—and on student success.
     Why is this stuff so fricking convoluted and baffling? And so badly written?

* * *

Teddy Boy, cat. Note the ear tips.

     IVC’s Vision, Mission and Goals page ends with a list of “collegewide goals” followed by “collegewide objectives.”
     “But wait!” you exclaim. Aren’t goals and objectives pretty much the same thing?
     Of course they are. As you know, however, society has long been plagued by bands of wily assholes devoted to various kinds of mischief. In the U.S., one such crew, comprising a subset of poorly educated educators, invents new meanings and distinctions and insists on imposing their incompetent gibberish on the world. Their infamy is magnified by their inexplicable success in establishing themselves as "the experts."
     With that in mind, let’s take a look at what IVC calls its “goals” and “objectives” — and what Bentham might call “nonsense on stilts” (especially in the case of the "objectives"):

COLLEGEWIDE GOALS
1. Teaching and Learning: Facilitate student success by developing programs that prepare students for academic transfer, degree and career technical certificate completion.
2. Intensive Student Support: Provide exemplary instructional and student support services and infrastructure focused on
student success.
3. Leadership and Accountability: Promote institutional effectiveness and student success based on a college culture of
transparent and responsive leadership, collegial dialogue, and accountability.
4. Finance and Resource Development: Enhance external resources in support of a quality educational environment.

     Is it just me or do others, too, find the above blatherage to be pompous and ridiculous?
     Try this:

     We will do all that we can to help students to succeed in their studies and to advance in their chosen careers. To that end, we’ll focus on teaching well and providing effective support. At IVC, college governance shall be collegial, and, to the extent possible, open and democratic. Funding will be pursued ethically and effectively.

     Isn’t that what “goals” 1-4 are saying? (OK, I added the “ethical” part.)
     Plain English, man. It’s better. Lot’s better. It's more articulate. It's less fucking stupid.
     Could we go back to plain English please?

     And here, finally, are IVC's objectives:

COLLEGEWIDE OBJECTIVES
1. Increase student completion at IVC.
2. Increase student retention and persistence rates.
3. Develop a prescribed framework that will enhance effective use of student support services.
4. Increase Career and Technical Education (CTE) completion and post-IVC employment.
5. Develop and annually assess student learning outcomes (SLOs) for all courses, programs and services; institutional
 learning outcomes (ISLOs); administrative unit outcomes (AUOs); and student services learning outcomes (SSLOs).
6. Increase the proportion of students who move up a level in ESL, and increase the proportion of students who pass 
 transfer writing courses after completing ESL courses.
7. Develop solutions for the college’s unrestricted general fund budget that align college’s ongoing expenditures with 
 ongoing revenues. In addition, achieve a prudent operational reserve and ratio of salaries and benefits to total budget.

     What a nightmare. Obviously, here, “completion,” “retention,” and “persistence” are technical terms (i.e., they do not have their ordinary English meanings; you need a decoder ring).
     Not only that, but some of these technical terms are undergoing re-definition as we speak.
     As you know, a couple of years ago, a big, dumb committee was formed to study the glaring problems of the California community college system. That committee issued a report, which conceptualized problems in terms of “completion,” “persistence,” and the like. So that’s how we got saddled with some of this dubious language. Right or wrong, we’re gonna be blathering about “persistence rates” for years to come. That might mess things up; it may well turn out to be counter-productive. But the Borg cannot be stopped.
     The SLO blather comes from the accreditors—they, in turn, got their language and mindset from the education experts, aka pseudo-scientific pinheads whose body of research is among the great embarrassments of academia. SLOs (etc.) seem to be a melding of their deluded gibberish with right-wing “accountability” claptrap. So there you go: start with some rubbish; add some dreck; mix it together. You've got your SLOs.
     I won’t engage in my usual harangue about all that. (See also Whence SLOs?)
     The point to make here is that these “objectives” are supposed to be the specific means by which we achieve our “goals.” But since the objectives are formed to fit the idiotic conceptual architectonic of the aforementioned pinheads, the whole enterprise—i.e., the attempt to guide the district and colleges with core principles and ideals—is ruined or at least thwarted.
     Gosh thanks. You couldn’t have been more destructive if you tried.

     The whole concept of MSLOs [measurable student learning outcomes] as the latest fad in education is somewhat akin to the now discredited fad of the `90's, Total Quality Management.... Essentially, the ACCJC [accreditors] adopted MSLOs as the overarching basis for accrediting community colleges based on their faith in the theoretical treatises of a movement.... After repeated requests for research showing that such use of MSLOs is effective, none has been forthcoming from the ACCJC. Prior to large scale imposition of such a requirement at all institutions, research should be provided to establish that continuous monitoring of MSLOs has resulted in measurable improvements in student success at a given institution. No such research is forthcoming because there is none…. 

—The Accountability Game…., Leon F. Marzillier (Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, October, 2002)