Irvine Valley College, 1979—and a small mystery

A portion of a photo found on IVC then and now (Pinterest), c. 1979
(Who are these people?)
In the background, middle: the unfinished Clock Tower.
Golly, about 34 years ago

A portion of another cool photo found on IVC then and now. Circa 1978.
(Who is this woman?)

A detail. Check out the apparent structures far in the background, just right of center.
A shed (or barn) to the left? A barn or home to the right?

Closeup of the apparent structures. What are they?
I believe that the property upon which IVC was built was previously owned by the Irvine Company.
A nice little mystery.

Can you make this out?

This image is also from "IVC then and now," circa early 80s(?).
Note the residential development at the top of the photo and the temporaries to the right of the A Quad.

A detail, concentrating on the A Quad. The approximate "point of view" of the 1978 photo (see above) is indicated with the arrow. The image doesn't seem to solve the mystery.

A contemporary satellite photo again showing the A Quad and the approximate POV of the 1978 photograph.

Yet another image from IVC then and now.
The temporaries are not yet present. Neither is the residential development. So perhaps this is early: c. 1979.
I can find no structures along the line of the "POV." Perhaps, by then, they had been razed.
Note the absence of high tension power lines.

And yet another. The Irvine campus was known as Saddleback "North" until it attained autonomy and acquired its present name in 1985.
During the period from 1979-1985, Saddleback College was called "Saddleback College South Campus."

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)

THEY BUZZ: Saddleback College's "Mission, Vision, and Values"

     This post is the second of a series that offers critiques of our district and colleges' verbiage explaining who we are and what we stand for. (See Districtular Poppycock & District and college goals and values.)
     Today: a review of Saddleback College's "Mission, Vision, and Values" page.

I. Bigger is better

     The page presents SC's mission, vision, and values, in that order.
     But before it offers those things, it offers this unlabeled statement:

     Saddleback College is the largest member of the South Orange County Community College District, and the College offers educational opportunities and support services to a diverse and growing population in southern Orange County.

     So, what is this? Well, if it were to have a label or heading, it might be "our opening remark that isn’t a mission- or vision- or values-statement but must be pretty important anyway, since we’re saying it first."
     Whatever sort of thing this statement is, it’s odd. It makes two points, the first being that SC is larger than IVC or ATEP.
     Is that supposed to be a good thing?
     Well, it’s the first point made on a page about the college’s “mission, vision, and values.” It’s paired with a point about a SC accomplishment or ambition (namely, offering opportunities, etc.). So the college seems to be saying that “bigger is better” and, natch, “we’re bigger.” Gosh.
     No doubt some will say that this verbiage merely provides information: SC is the bigger of the two colleges of a two-college district. But I think it’s fair to ask why this point is emphasized by putting it first or even including it on a page about values. If you want to describe the college, why not mention simply that it is the southern campus?

II. Inelegance R Us

Our Mission:

Saddleback College enriches its students and the south Orange County community by providing a comprehensive array of high-quality courses and programs that foster student learning and success in the attainment of academic degrees and career technical certificates, transfer to four-year institutions, improvement of basic skills, and lifelong learning.

     Like the district’s mission, the SC mission seems to be a statement of purpose and a task to be accomplished. Fair enough.
     It is inelegant. Its structure is: “SC enriches its students and the … community by providing X that foster Y.” –Well, it might be serviceable anyway. We’ll see.
     A review of the OED and MW* entries for the word “enrich” supports the commonsensical notion that the word “enrich” tends to be about making something or someone rich or richer; hence, “enrichment” isn’t really something that happens to individuals, except in the literal sense (viz., making them wealthier). Do you really “improve or enhance the quality or value of” (MW) a person? One might improve their experiences or their course of study; but one does not improve their quality/value (except, I suppose, in the case of children with regard to moral development).
     Obviously, within education, this peculiar use of “enrich” has become common. That's no justification. We should do better than to speak like illiterates.
     The SC mission is trying to say that the college assists in the development of its students. How so? By providing instruction (courses, programs). OK.
     The college’s instruction “fosters”—i.e., promotes the development of (see MW)—learning. –That’s awfully vague. “Our instruction promotes the development of learning.” –It seems unnecessarily complex, too: promotion, development, learning. Why not just say that we intend to teach well? Why not speak in plain English?
     The college’s instruction fosters (again, promotes the development of) one more thing: “success in the attainment of academic degrees and career technical certificates, transfer to four-year institutions, improvement of basic skills, and lifelong learning.”
     Isn’t “success in the attainment” of something just attaining it? (YEP.) So the college’s instruction promotes the development of attaining degrees, certificates, transfers.
     Clearly, “fostering” (promoting the development of, or just “developing”) is just the wrong word here. They’re trying to say that the college’s instruction helps students to attain degrees, certificates, and transfers.
     But, tacked onto the list is “improvement of basic skills and lifelong learning.”
     OK, so the college’s instruction promotes the development of attaining “improvement of basic skills, and lifelong learning.”
     –Lord, what a mess. As a piece of writing (or logic), it’s pretty embarrassing.
     No doubt they’re trying to say that some of the college’s instruction teaches “basic skills.” (I’m going to ignore “lifelong learning” except to say that that’s a buzzword. Why not de-buzzwordify it? Why do we have to speak like assholes?)

III. We buzz

Let’s turn to SC’s “vision”:

Our Vision:
     Saddleback College will be the first choice of students who seek a dynamic, innovative, and student-centered postsecondary education.

     Previously, we found that the district’s so-called “vision” was actually a statement of purpose. It did not identify a yet-to-be-achieved goal (i.e., an aspiration). Essentially, it identified what the district achieves (namely, that it [i.e., its faculty] teaches well and that students succeed).
     The SC vision seems to be more clearly aspirational. It identifies what it understands as an excellent education, and then it asserts that SC “will be the first choice” of those who seek that kind of education. OK.
     It seems to me that this vision statement essentially expresses the ambition to be the best college around. I would say that it isn’t quite implying that it isn’t already that college. “This is who we want to be, and, hell, maybe it’s what we already are.” That seems to be the idea.
     This bring me to the SC vision’s conception of excellent education.
     Well, education at SC is (or hopes to be)

(the most) dynamic
(the most) innovative
(the most) student-centered

     The Blarney Police have just arrived and they’ve issued several citations.
     What’s dynamic education? —Education that moves and changes, I guess. The OED’s first meaning of the adjective “dynamic” is “of or pertaining to force producing motion: often opposed to static” (1827-81; the OED doesn't seem to give more recent instances of use of this adjective).
     Why suppose that movement and change in education is a good thing? That’s a wacky prejudice, unless it's explained. Is the explanation obvious? I don't see how.
     The OED does offer a third meaning that might explain what the authors have in mind: “Active, potent, energetic, effective, forceful.”
     In this sense of “dynamic,” dynamic education is potent and effective (and forceful).
     Yes, but, again, what if education is happening at the college that manages to be potent and effective without being forceful? It’s a kinder and gentler instruction, I guess. We’re down on that, are we?
     What bullshit.
     And what’s innovative education? That would be new and original education.
     But what if, in a particular instance, the best “education” is traditional? No good, eh? We’re going to do away with it, are we?
     Again, what total bullshit.
     This brings me to student-centered education. What’s that? “student-centered” is a current buzzword. Re buzzwords, the best that can be said about them is that they contain a grain of truth, although those truths tend to be obvious (“let’s keep track of how the students are doing”). The worst thing that can be said, I suppose, is that they over-simplify matters whilst exploiting our childish tendencies to want to be fashionable and trendy (“You go, pupils!”, “What a groovy suggestion!”).
     OK, I suppose there’s nothing wrong with a college wanting to be the best one around. But, as we’ve seen, SC’s vision’s conception of good education is manifestly bullshitty.
     In general, I would say that SC’s vision is essentially the same as one of those lurid “new and improved!” stickers slapped onto a cereal box. It’s bullshit for bullshitters.

IV. To be or to ought to be

     The SC "mission, vision, and values" page goes on to list “our values.” Prepare to be buzzworded. Here they are:

Our Values:

Saddleback College embraces: 

Commitment
We commit to fulfilling our mission to serve the south Orange County community. [We embrace commitment? But commitment is a kind of embrace, no? Plus: you don't value "commitment." Rather, you value commitment to the mission. If you valued commitment per se you'd have to put Stalin and Hitler in your hall of fame.]

Excellence
We dedicate ourselves to excellence in academics, student support, and community service. [OK, you embrace excellence. Might want to spell that out a bit. Pretty vague.]

Collegiality
We foster a climate of integrity, honesty, and respect. [You do? According to the Accreds, you don't. Valuing X and achieving/exemplifying X are two different things.]

Success
We place our highest priority on student learning and delivering comprehensive support for student success. [You want students to succeed in learning, right? So you value student learning. If you valued "success" you'd have to put Ted Bundy in your hall of fame.]

Partnership
We strive to develop strong and lasting partnerships among students, faculty, staff, and the community. [Buzzword gone wild. Organized crime and incest are partnerships, too.]

Innovation
We anticipate and welcome change by encouraging innovation and creativity. [Insight! I'm gonna  start a new form of teaching based on the idea that justifications are unnecessary and oppressive. Happy?]

Academic Freedom
We endorse academic freedom and the open exchange of ideas. [So there'll be no talk of enforcing civility codes, right? Sure hope so.]

Sustainability
We promote environmental sustainability and use our resources responsibly to reduce our ecological impact. [You do this or you intend and ought to do this? Just what are you saying?]

Inclusiveness
We cultivate equity and diversity by embracing all cultures, ideas, and perspectives. [Really? Racist and sexist and irrational ideas and perspectives, too? How do you "embrace" things that contradict each other? Just what are you trying to say, anyway?]

Global Awareness
We recognize the importance of global awareness and prepare our students to live and work in an increasingly interconnected world. [Utter, mindless buzzworditude.]

     *OED=Oxford English Dictionary. MW=Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

Gasbags

• Check out Red Emma’s latest in the most recent issue of Coast Magazine:
As She Likes It — Marcella Gilchrist, site manager of Tucker Wildlife Sanctuary in Modjeska Canyon, is exactly where she wants to be.

See also Emma's Only Always a Day Away: Annie and the Drama of Progressive Revisionist Propaganda...in OC? (OC Weekly)

• Suit by Former County EEO Officer Alleges Harassment (Voice of OC)
     Paula Kitchen, Orange County government's former equal employment opportunity official, alleges in a lawsuit filed last week that the county's 17,000 employees work in a toxic environment of sexual harassment and discrimination, fueled by a decades-long practice of pushing political aides into the county’s bureaucracy....

• Cal State Fullerton Becomes 100% Smoke-Free Campus - Kind Of (NavelGazing)

Districtular poppycock: our “vision” and our “mission” and our tolerance of twaddle

     (First in a series: see District and college goals and values.)

     Gosh, what’s the SOCCCD all about?
     The district has an answer, an official one. It is contained in the district’s “vision” and “mission,” which are prominently displayed in such lurid documents as “Fast Facts.”
     Much effort went into crafting these things. Committees were formed, votes were taken, etc.
     They’re stupid. Our so-called “vision” isn’t a vision at all. Rather, it’s a purpose, which is OK, but you’d think college types would take care to choose the right word. (Perhaps we're required to use this word by the dunderheads that be.) Meanwhile, our “mission” is a “mission,” I guess, but it’s pretty much the same as the purpose—er, the vision.
     And what they’re saying is so fucking obvious and trite that, well, they’re just about worthless.

* * *

Our Vision: To be a leader in exemplary teaching and learning, student success and community partnerships.

     I'll start with an observation. First, this “vision” seems to be (largely) about what is true of the district now, not what the district hopes to achieve in the future. To suppose that it identifies hoped-for ideals is to suppose that its authors think that exemplary teaching and learning are not (yet) going on at the colleges. The authors think no such thing (and neither do I).
     On the other hand, it’s clear that our trustees, or at least some of our trustees, hope to promote “community partnerships.” That's a buzzword and it's full of undeserved positivity. That they're promoting such things implies that we can do better than we are now doing in that regard. And so this “vision” seems confusedly to mix a statement of what we have achieved (and what we intend to continue to achieve) with a statement of aspiration. Apples and oranges, if you ask me.

The word “vision”:
     OK. Let’s focus now on the word “vision” and how it is understood among speakers of the English language (so, you jargonauts can leave now). I reviewed the OED’s discussion of this word, and here’s what I found out.
     Presumably, the district’s vision isn’t literally the seeing of phenomena via eyeballs. “Vision,” obviously, can be metaphorical: seeing something but not by sight.
     What is seen by those with "a vision"? –Something “prophetic or mystical,” says the OED. Sometimes, a “highly imaginative scheme” is contemplated, i.e., something fantastic. Or something supernatural is “seen.”
     And so a “vision” is of something crazy or fantastic—or it is an occult glimpse into the future. When one has a vision, one is “seeing” what is not real. One does not have a vision of what is actual, factual, like the socks on one's bedroom floor.
     Of course, we sometimes speak of someone’s “having vision” rather than “having a vision.” Great political leaders (Churchill, L Ron Hubbard) are sometimes said to have vision. The OED defines this as an “ability to conceive what might be attempted or achieved….”
     Again, “vision” is of that which is not real or not yet real.
     But “our” (i.e., the district’s) vision is of good teaching & learning. Presumably, that’s what we’ve got now and hope to continue to have. So “vision” is just the wrong word for this blather.
     Ah, but then there’s that “community partnerships” part. Maybe that part of the “vision” is something we aspire to (i.e., we hope to have more of that sort of thing).
     Observe that, as far as the scholars at the OED are concerned, a vision is not essentially or particularly aspirational. Nothing I find in the OED discussion encourages the notion that a “vision” is inevitably or ordinarily of an ideal aspired to. Visions tend to be about the fantastic—the crazy or astounding or the metaphysical, not the merely good and desirable.
     I briefly consulted the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (online), which is American. It essentially agrees with the OED. According to MW, when one has a vision, one is seeing in “a dream, trance, or ecstasy….” Something “supernatural” appears and “conveys a revelation.” A revelation, of course, is of something surprising or fantastic. One does not have a revelation of an ordinary contemporary fact such as, say, illiterate educators.
     MW does include this meaning: “a thought, concept, or object formed by the imagination.” But this doesn’t describe our “vision.” Colleges comprise teaching and learning by definition; imagination has nothing to do with it.
     It seems to me that this thing that we are calling “our vision” isn’t a vision at all. It is what we hope to be (or to have achieved) and to continue to be (or to achieve). Perhaps it is our “purpose” (aim, function, chosen task).
     Here are two relevant meaning for “purpose” given by the OED:

1. That which a person sets out to do or attain; an object in view; a determined intention or aim. [Examples are given from c. 1300 to 2002.]
2. The reason for which something is done or made, or for which it exists; the result or effect intended or sought; the end to which an object or action is directed; aim. [Examples given from c. 1350 to 1988.]

     We’re a college district. We ought to use the right word in a declaration putatively so important. We ought not to blather or burble.

Our “mission”:
     Let’s turn now to the district’s “mission.”

Our Mission: To provide a dynamic and innovative learning environment dedicated to student success and economic growth of the region.

     I don’t get it. Isn’t this just another purpose or goal, closely related to the one above? The words “dynamic” and “innovative” are flummery. The “mission” is referring, of course, to a “good” learning environment, whether it is “dynamic” (constantly changing) and “innovative” (new) or not. ("Dynamic" and "innovative" are just thrown in for buzzitude. It's the way of morons and advertisers.) A good learning environment would be one that would yield desirable (i.e., “exemplary”) teaching and learning.
     What about this dedication to “student success” codswallop? You’ll recall that, according to our “mission” (i.e., purpose), we are to be a “leader…in student success.” Part of our mission is to provide a “learning environment dedicated to student success.”
     The upshot: our “mission” is to provide a learning environment that secures our vision. I guess.
     What convoluted bullshit. What tommyrotten tripe!

The meaning of “mission”:
     Let’s turn again to the OED. The relevant meanings of “mission” are these:

• A task, an undertaking.
• A task which a person is designed or destined to do; a duty or function imposed on or assumed by a person; a person's vocation or work in life, a strongly felt aim or ambition in life….

     Here are the relevant meanings from MW:

• a specific task with which a person or a group is charged.
• a preestablished and often self-imposed objective or purpose [My emphasis.]

     OK, so, in the English language, a “mission” (in the relevant sense) is a task or a purpose.
     According to the district, our task (i.e., our “mission”) is to provide the kind of learning environment that yields student success (and “economic growth in the region”).
     Meanwhile, our mission—which is really our purpose—is to teach well, to have students “succeed,” and to partner with the community. (N.B.: only assholes use "partner" as a verb.)
     So what does all this boil down to?

     We want to teach well. We want our students to succeed.
     Yeah, and that would be good for the local economy.

     Did we really need all those committees to come up with this insipid balderdash?
     Next time, let's just ask my niece (she's ten) to scrape something up. She works cheap.

Contra corruption

Saddle Crest Development in Trabuco Canyon Overturned! (NavelGazing)

     Hell YES! Just last Friday, Orange County Superior Court Judge Steven L. Perk ruled in favor of 2,000 petitioners and activists to reject the Saddle Crest housing development in Trabuco Canyon. The development would have bulldozed over 150 old oak trees and figuratively raped the beautiful and unadulterated landscape just northwest of Cook's Corner.
     In place of the rolling hillside would have been a new, 65-unit McMansion neighborhood, because we really don't have enough of those already. Presumably, the project wouldn't have come this far had Orange County Supervisors followed the Foothill-Trabuco Specific plan that the county adopted in 1991. The plan was designed to protect the canyon lands from the mass grading of hillsides and from destroying the historic oaks, but Supervisor Bill Campbell (who oversees the area) and others took it more as advice than a rule. Last October the Supervisors made a unanimous decision to approve Saddle Crest, citing that the environmental impacts would be minimal, if not insignificant.
     Supervisors also amended the Orange County General Plan during the same time. The plan placed restrictions on developments that would impact traffic flow, but they said that the new neighborhood would have little bearing on the movement of the two-lane highway.
     Oddly enough, Rutter Santiago LP, the company hoping to build Saddle Crest, was a campaign contributor to all five of the Orange County Supervisors, and the rules against development were changed solely for this project….