ERIC EJ743272: Learning Goals in Mission Statements: Implications for Educational Leadership

2006·0.36 MB·English

by  ERIC

JACK MEACHAM AND JERRY G. GAFF
Learning Goals
Mission
in
Statements
C
I
P
Implications for Educational Leadership
O
T

D
“PRESIDENTSANDDEANSmust . . . with the cooperation of the professors them-
E
R selves . . . revive the responsibility of the faculty as a wholefor the curriculum as
U a whole,” asserted a national report from the Association of American Colleges,
T
labeling this a matter of Integrity in the College Curriculum(1985, 9). Building on
A
E this insight, the report recommended a minimum required curriculum and ways
F to enhance teaching and learning. These ideas were valuable contributionsto
educational thought and innovation of the time. Now,
two decades later, the survey findings that we will
describe suggest that this formulation is insufficient.
The faculty work within organizations, and every organizational policy and
practice, many outside the purview of faculty, has at least potential impact, ei-
ther positive or negative, on the curriculum and the learning of students. If the
curriculum is to have integrity, institutional priorities, policies, and resource al-
locations must all support the most important purposes of undergraduate educa-
tion. Indeed, integrity in the curriculum requires integrity of the institution.This, in
turn, means that educational programs should reflect the institutional mission
and enjoy the full and informed support not just of the faculty but also of the
board of trustees and the president, the primary stewards of the mission.
Peter Drucker (2005, 3) identifies integrity as the first principle of effective
management, saying that “the spirit of an organization is created from the top
…. The proof of the sincerity and seriousness of a management is uncompromis-
ing emphasis on integrity of character.” The president (and the administration
for which she or he is responsible) and board of trustees must act consistently
and repeatedly to assure institutional integrity. They must be certain that their
organization does what it says and says what it does.
The fundamental way the president and the board establish integrity is by ap-
provinga mission statement and then acting in ways that advance the mission.
The mission statement is an institution’s formal, public declaration of its purposes
and its vision of excellence. Ideally it containsenough specificity for determin-
ing whether alternative educational and institutional practices could advance
the mission. Although the mission statement usually is a composite ofideas and
recommendations from many constituencies, it is “owned” primarily by the presi-
dent and the board. The president typically designs and guides the process to secure
advice from all constituencies and integrates disparate ideas into a coherent
JACK MEACHAMisSUNYDistinguished Teaching Professor at the University at Buffalo–
The State University of New York, and JERRY G. GAFFis a senior scholar at AAC&U.
6 LIBERAL EDUCATION WINTER 2006
Carleton College
C DePauw
I University
P
O
T

D
E
R
U
T
A
E
F
whole. The board reviews, revises, and en- It is reasonable, therefore, to ask: What do
dorses the mission statement. mission statements say about the vision and
The campus’s mission statement, which in expectations that our colleges and universities
practice can be a single sentence or a lengthy hold for undergraduate education? What do they
document, is not the same as a mission of an say about the goals that are held for student
institution, a living sense among individuals learning in contemporary, globalized society?
in diverse roles of what that institution is and To answer those questions, we surveyed the
why it is important. But without a statement mission statements for institutions listed in
that reflects widespread agreement and the the Princeton Review’s The Best 331 Colleges.
shared understanding of central priorities We sought the Internet site that presented the
among the president, board of trustees, and mission statement or, if no mission statement
other constituencies, it is difficult to under- was available, a statement of purpose, vision,
stand how a lived mission can emerge in prac- goals, philosophy, or aims for undergraduate
tice. The mission statement is the necessary students. Appropriate statements could be
condition for many different individuals to identified for 312 of these institutions. A
pull together through a myriad of activities to coding scheme with thirty-nine student learn-
achieve central shared purposes. ing goals was constructed from several sources,
One would expect an educational institu- including Schneider and Shoenberg (1998),
tion to have a mission statement that expresses Cronin (1999), andIntegrity in the College
a sense of its educational vision, particularly Curriculum(1985).
what it expects its students to learn and how
that learning can be used to benefit the social Mission statements provide scant
order. That educational vision should be direction for undergraduate education
deeply rooted in the institution’s identity and These “best” American colleges and universi-
practices, rather than being discarded when a ties provide little information about goals for
president, dean, or inspired faculty leader undergraduate education in their mission
moves on. Of course, the mission statement is statements. To our surprise, we discovered that
merely one of many possible documents de- eleven of these colleges and universities do
scribing and supporting an institution’s vision not even mention undergraduate education in
of educational excellence for its students. Yet their mission statements. Furthermore, there is
the mission statement is the most enduring, a great range in the number of student learning
respected, and public of these documents and, goals that could be identified: 117 institutions
importantly, the one that will be turned to for provide from zero to three student learninggoals
guidance both when resources are plentiful in their mission statements; 105institutions
and new initiatives can be envisioned as well from four to six; sixty-one institutionsfrom
as when resources become scarce and difficult seven to nine; and twenty-nine institutions
choices must be made. ten or more. The average number is five.
8 LIBERAL EDUCATION WINTER 2006
There is little consensus
among this national
sample regarding what
should be the primary
There is little consensus acknowledge and respect
goals of undergraduate C
among this national sample re- difference; engaged, re- I
garding what should be the pri- education sponsible citizenship in a P
O
mary goals of undergraduate democratic society; and T
education. Aside from liberal education (or international and global understanding.
D
liberal arts or liberal learning), found in the But many of the undergraduate educational E
mission statements of 157 institutions (about goals identified in the national consensus are R
U
half of the 312), none of the goals was found missing from the mission statements of the 312
T
in as many as half of the mission statements. colleges and universities that were surveyed. A
Contributingto the community appears in 121 Not only that, many significant student learn- E
F
of the missionstatements, and leadership skills ing goals that are widely discussed and valued
in 101 of the mission statements. Only twelve among faculty, students, parents, employers,
educationalgoals were contained in the mis- and the general public appear in the mission
sion statementsof 15 percent (forty-seven) or statements of fewer than 15 percent of these
more of these 312 institutions. In addition to “best” American colleges and universities.
the three alreadymentioned, they include so- For example, we are impressed by the na-
cial responsibility (eighty-nine institutions); tional consensus that communication skills—
personal perspectives, values, and moral char- including college-level writing and effective
acter (seventy-seven); ability for critical oral communication—are essential both as
analysis and logical thinking (seventy-five); foundation skills for college and university
appreciating diversity (sixty-seven); imagina- learning and as lifelong skills for citizenship
tion and creativity (sixty-seven); capacity for and the professions. Yet writing and public-
continuing, lifelong learning (sixty-two); speaking abilities are rarely included as ex-
building communitiesthatacknowledge and plicit student learning goals, each appearing
respect difference (fifty-nine); engaged, respon- in the mission statements of only thirty-eight
sible citizenship in a democraticsociety (fifty- (12 percent) of these 312 campuses.
three); and international and global The national consensus is that a strong
understanding (fifty). undergraduate education includes breadth of
knowledge. However, fewer than 15 percent
National consensus on of these mission statements include, as goals
student learning goals for student learning, knowledge and under-
The results of this survey of mission state- standing of science (thirty-two); knowledge
ments can be fruitfully compared with the and appreciation of the fine and performing
conclusions of a national report, Taking Re- arts (twenty-four); knowledge and under-
sponsibility for the Quality of the Baccalaureate standing of historical and social phenomena
Degree(2004). Drawing from the standards of (fifteen); mathematical reasoning (nine);
regional and specialized accreditation agen- or environmental understanding and
cies, best practices articulated by educational sensitivity(eight).
associations, qualities sought by employers,
and contributions from faculty and adminis- Consensus Goals for Student Learning
trators at various colleges and universities,
this report describes a “widespread and grow-
• Strong analytic, communication, quantita-
ing” consensus throughout American higher
tive, and information skills
education regarding the desired learning out-
• Deep understanding and hands-on experi-
comes of a twenty-first-century undergraduate
ence with the disciplines that explore the
education (see sidebar). To what extent do
natural, social, and cultural realms
campus presidents and boards of trustees share
• Intercultural knowledge and collaborative
in this national consensus?
problem-solving skills
Six of the twelve student learning goals
• Civic, social, and personal responsibility
found most often in campus mission state-
• Integrative thinking and the ability to transfer
ments are similar to those identified as central
knowledge from one setting to another
to the national consensus: social responsibility;
appreciating diversity; capacity for continuing,
lifelong learning; building communities that
WINTER 2006 LIBERAL EDUCATION 9
Ethics and values are central to the na- consensus—communication skills, breadth of
C
I tional consensus on student learning goals. knowledge, ethics and social justice, integra-
P
On the positive side, expectations for the de- tive learning, critical thinking, and working
O
T velopment of personal perspectives, values, together with others—appear in fewer than
and moral character are found in seventy-seven 15 percent of the mission statements of these
D
E of the mission statements. Yet the national “best” colleges and universities. Our aim is
R consensus is broader, moving beyond the per- not to suggest that there ought to be unifor-
U
sonal and individual to include concerns for mity among institutional mission statements.
T
A professional and societal issues. Fewer than Rather, it is to suggest that institutional lead-
E 15 percent of the mission statements encour- ers are missing an opportunity to convey to
F
age students to acquire knowledge and students especially, but also to other con-
appreciation of the ethical dimensions of stituencies, what they stand for by adopting
humankind (twenty-eight); engage with chal- more educationally robust mission statements.
lenging ethical, moral, and human dilemmas Indeed, it seems essential that the mission
(twenty-three); or understand social justice statement of any educational institution in-
issues (ten). clude a description of the education that is
envisioned for its students. The length of the
Curricula not organized to mission statement—whether a single sen-
advance highly valued purposes tence or several paragraphs—is not critical;
Three student learning goals appear frequently what is important is that the mission state-
in campus mission statements but do not ment should be as long as necessary to articu-
stand out in the national consensus on goals late the most basic purposes of the institution.
for student learning as described in Taking Re-
sponsibility for the Quality of the Baccalaureate Educational leadership and
Degree.These are contributing to the commu- shared governance
nity (121 of 312 mission statements), leadership Why is there such a divergence between the
skills (101), and imagination and creativity national consensus on goals for undergraduate
(sixty-seven). Certainly the political, eco- education and the mission statements of these
nomic, and environmental challenges that “best” colleges and universities? We fear that
our students will face in their lifetimes will re- at least part of the reason may be a lack of ed-
quire attention to community needs, deter- ucational leadership among presidents, the se-
mined and effective leadership, and sustained nior administrators reporting to them, and
application of imagination and creativity. members of boards of trustees.
Yet few curricula have been implemented In recent decades, some presidents have
to facilitate the attainment by students of the been selected more for their management
propensity for contributing to the community skills, fundraising abilities, and public rela-
and the skills of leadership and imagination tions expertise than for their educational
that many presidents and trustees foresee that views. Similarly, boards have become more fo-
our students will need. Yes, many campuses cused on providing oversight, raising money,
are developing opportunities for service learn- making connections with external groups, and
ing and more educational engagement in the dealing with community issues. Both are highly
community; others have developed leadership focused on institutional priorities, perhaps to
courses and student-life programs emphasizing the neglect of the educational heart of the en-
the development of leadership skills. But terprise, which in practice is delegated to the
these tend to be on the margins of campus life academic administration and the faculty.
and available to only a few students. And cre- This practice, of course, reflects the wide-
ativity and imagination are seldom drivers of spread adherence to principles of shared
educational programs. One wonders why these governance, as set forth in the landmark doc-
learning goals, thought by presidents and ument jointly drafted in 1966 and adopted in
trustees to be so important that they appear in 1967 by the American Association of Univer-
mission statements, are often neglected in sity Professors (representing the faculty) and
actual programs of study. endorsed by the American Council of Educa-
In summary, many of the student learning tion (representing presidents) and the Associ-
goals for which there is a strong national ation of Governing Boards (representing
10 LIBERAL EDUCATION WINTER 2006
In many instances, shared
governance has served as a
thin cover for faculty to
avoid thinking about and
trustees). The president course of student develop-
discussing together what an C
and board have primary au- ment. In many instances, I
thority over the mission, education at their institution shared governance has P
O
strategic directions of the adds up to for students served as a thin cover for T
institution, and finance, faculty to avoid thinking
D
but they are to consult with the faculty about about and discussing together what an educa- E
major issues in these areas. Because the fac- tion at their institution adds up to for students. R
U
ulty possesses disciplinary expertise, they have It was to correct this dispersion of academic
T
primary authority over teaching, learning, the authority and to promote wholeness and inte- A
curriculum, and related academic matters. gration of learning that the Association of E
F
Only rarely and for clearly articulated reasons American Collegesissued its call, in 1985, for
should the administration or board overrule the faculty as a whole to be responsible for the
the faculty on academic matters. By and large, curriculum as a whole.
this division of authority has worked well. Indeed, educational excellence is most often
But over time, administrators and board found not when responsibilities are sharplydi-
members have learned that many faculty vided but when faculty members and acade-
guard their prerogatives jealously, and so they mic administrators, perhaps with the support
have been hesitant to exercise leadership for of an academic policy committee of the board,
the educational program. Their resulting lack come together to work on common agendas.
of sophistication about substantive educa- It is unfortunate that the original ideas behind
tional issues, or lack of confidence in dealing shared governance did not include a listing of
with them, may be reflected in the limited in- areas where faculty and administrators have
clusion of student learning goals in mission common cause and call for cooperative educa-
statements. tional leadership among bothfaculty and ad-
Another problem is that while faculty may ministrators. The success of any academic
be responsible for the educational program, program requires both faculty leadership and
most faculty tend to work primarily in their administrative support.
own disciplines, departments, and narrow spe- One important area for administrators,
cialties, and thus have only a partial view of trustees, and faculty to work together is in
the institution’s academic programs and the identifying important goals for student learning.
DePauw University
WINTER 2006 LIBERAL EDUCATION 11
Faculty, for all the knowledge they possess, that are conducive to honest, constructive, and
C
I cannot claim exclusive authority over which creative dialogue, not only on our campuses
P
knowledge, skills, and attitudes form an edu- but also regionally and nationally.
O
T cated person and which will be most important Of course, once agreement is reached about
to the lives of students in coming decades. In the most valued student learning goals and
D
E fact, trustees probably have better perspectives evidence is gathered to indicate how well stu-
R than do faculty because they come from various dents are achieving them, it is the faculty who
U
careers and different parts of the community, need to design (or redesign) the curriculum
T
A whereas many faculty have little experience and implement it. But even these tasks require
E beyond the academy. Trustees know what the active support of the trustees and adminis-
F
qualities they seek in hiring workers, the kinds tration if resources such as faculty hiring,
of impact educated people can make in a buildings, and equipment are to be made
community, and the qualities that are valued available for educational programs.
outside the academy. There is empirical evidence that the steps
In addition to guiding the purposes of under- we recommend pay off in terms of effective
graduate education and expressing their vision education for students. George Kuh and his
and aspiration in mission statements, presidents colleagues (2005) have studied “student en-
and trustees can be helpful in asking hard gagement,” shown by much previous research to
questions about the campus’s educational pro- be a critical variable in educational achieve-
grams. Among the questions that might be ment, among students at hundreds of colleges
raised are these: Are the educational goals ex- and universities. In their project on Document-
pressed in the mission statement reflected in ingEffective Educational Practice, they iden-
the curriculum? How do general education tified six conditions that are common among
and departmental requirements for students those institutions that most effectively engage
compare with the agreed-upon student learn- students in learning: a “living” mission and a
ing goals? What is the evidence from objective “lived” educational philosophy; an unshake-
assessment—not merely in anecdotes—that able focus on student learning; environments
important learning goals are actually achieved adapted for educational enrichment; clearly
by students? Asking these questions might once marked pathways to student success; an im-
have been seen as “interference” in the acade- provement-oriented campus culture; and
mic affairs of the faculty. But today, they are shared responsibility for educational quality
precisely the kinds of questions that accredit- and student success. All of these conditions
ing agencies are requiring institutions to ask start with a clear mission statement that
of themselves; they reflect prudent concerns declares what is important in undergraduate
of a president and a board with a legitimate education and what students are expected
interest in being accredited. In answering to learn.
these questions, the faculty and administra- Our recommendations for both increased
tion need to work together to assure that there educational leadership and greater collabora-
is an assessment process that provides useful tion among trustees, presidents, and faculty are
information for making judgments about what not Pollyannish. We recognize that some boards
and how well students are learning. and administrations have acted unilaterally
Legitimate questions such as these can lead to mandate changes in academic programs
to self-reflection, conversations across the without seeking faculty advice or cooperation.
campus, additional cycles of assessment of stu- In recent years, we have seen the emergence
dent learning outcomes, and strengthening of of “activist trustees” in some state systems
teaching and learning for students. On most who politicize academic matters by trying to
campuses forums do not exist for bringing impose their personal agendas on institutions,
presidents and trustees together with faculty usually with destructive results. And some
for substantive conversations about the pur- presidents steadfastly refuse to bring faculty
poses of undergraduate education, explicit members into dialogue with the board of
goals for student learning, or examination of trustees. These examples are not what we are
and reflection on results of assessments of stu- proposing. In fact, they are anathema to the
dent learning outcomes. If such conversations greater collaboration amongpresidents,
are to occur, new forums will have to be created trustees, and faculty members thatwe urge.
12 LIBERAL EDUCATION WINTER 2006
Emerging educational leadership the coming decades can be difficult for an
C
AAC&Uhas launched a group of initiatives academic community. Yet stronger leadership I
P
that involve college and university presidents might well lead to more educationally robust
O
as well as faculty members in educational mission statements that are explicit about ex- T
leadership roles. In the Campaign for the Ad- pectations for the most important goals and
D
vancement of Liberal Learning (CALL), presi- outcomes of student learning. It could lead to E
dents were invited to sign a statement about greater collaboration among presidents, R
U
the importance of high-quality contemporary trustees, and faculty for the benefit of students
T
liberal education. Over 525 presidents ac- and to more genuine sharing in governance. A
cepted, including many representing institu- And educational leadership can contribute E
F
tions listed in The Best 331 Colleges. The not just to integrity in the curriculum but also
statement they signed includes the following: to integrity in the institution. ■
“As educational leaders and presidents of col-
leges and universities, large and small, public To respond to this article, e-mail [email protected],
and private, two-year and four-year, we call on with the authors’ names on the subject line.
our colleagues around the country to ensure
that every college student experiences the full
benefits of a twenty-first-century liberal edu- REFERENCES
cation.” The Presidents’ CALLconcludes with Association of American Colleges. 1985.Integrity in
their commitment to take steps to ensure that the college curriculum. Washington, DC: Association
of American Colleges.
their own educational programs address the
Association of American Colleges and Universities.
aims of liberal education, including intellectual
2004.Taking responsibility for the quality of the bac-
and ethical development, knowledge of science, calaureate degree.Washington, DC: Association of
culture, and society, and preparation for all the American Colleges and Universities.
dimensions of a full life. (To learn more about American Association of University Professors. 1967.
Statement on government of colleges and universities.
the Campaign for the Advancement of Liberal
Washington, DC: American Association of Uni-
Learning, visit www.aacu.org/CALL.) versity Professors.
AnotherAAC&Uinitiative is Liberal Edu- Cronin, W. 1999. “Only connect”: The goals of a
cation and America’s Promise (LEAP), a liberal education. Liberal Education85 (1): 6–13.
public advocacy and campus action initiative Drucker, P. F., with J. A. Maciariello. 2005. The daily
Drucker: 366 days of insight and motivation for getting
designed to promote access to excellence for
the right things done.New York: HarperBusiness.
individuals interested in a college education.
Kuh, G. D., J. Kinzie, J. H. Schuh, E. J. Whitt, and
This initiative is sparking lively public debate Associates. 2005. Student success in college: Creating
about the kinds of knowledge, skills, and values conditions that matter.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
needed to prepare today’s students—from ele- The Princeton Review. 2001. The best 331 colleges
(2002 edition). New York: Princeton Review
mentary school through college—for an era of
Publishing.
greater expectations in every sphere of life.
Schneider, C. G., and R. Shoenberg. 1998. Contem-
Presidents commit to work with their campus porary understandings of liberal education. Liberal
faculty to stimulate improvements in teaching, Education84 (2): 32–37.
learning, and the curriculum and to assess and
document learning outcomes. Although this
initiative is in its early stages, already presidents
of all kinds of colleges and universities are
expressing interest in participating. (Addi-
tional information regarding Liberal Educa-
tion and America’s Promise is available at
www.aacu.org/advocacy.)
Developing stronger educational leadership,
always a work in progress, among presidents,
senior administrators, trustees, and faculty can
be expected to produce more educationally
effective colleges and universities. Of course,
the task of defining the education that will be
most effective for students and our society in
WINTER 2006 LIBERAL EDUCATION 13