MS Word - Cal Poly Pomona

Document Sample
MS Word - Cal Poly Pomona Powered By Docstoc
					            Western Association of Schools and Colleges
            Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities


Cover Sheet
      The cover sheet should specify that the document is an Interim Report and include
      the date of submission, the name and address of the institution, and the name of
      the person submitting the report.

WASC INTERIM REPORT
JUNE 30, 2009

CALIFORNIA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY, POMONA
3801 W. Temple Avenue
Pomona, CA 91768

Dr. Claudia Pinter-Lucke
Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
clpinterluck@csupomona.edu
Phone: 909-869-3328
Fax: 909-869-4395

I.       List of Topics or Concerns
         from issues identified in the Action Letter

      1. Implementation of Academic Master Plan
      2. Timeline and Expected Outcomes for Completion of Strategic Plan
      3. Implementation of General Education Assessment

II.      Institutional Context
         The purpose of this section is to describe the nature of the institution so that the
         Interim Report Committee can understand the issues discussed in the report in
         context. Very briefly describe the institution’s background; mission; history,
         including the founding date and year first accredited; geographic locations; and
         other pertinent information.

Our Campus. Cal Poly Pomona (CPP) is a large campus located in the Los Angeles
metropolitan area. In terms of total student enrollment (21,190 in Fall 2008) and physical
size (1,438 acres), CPP ranks 9th and 2nd in the 23-campus California State University
(CSU) system. The campus first opened its doors in 1938 as the Voorhis Unit of the
California State Polytechnic College. In 1949, cereal magnate W. K. Kellogg deeded his
Arabian horse ranch and 813 acres of land to the state of California. In 1956, 508
students and 44 faculty and staff relocated from the Voorhis Unit to the Kellogg campus.
In 1961, 329 women joined the student body. The Pomona campus separated from the
San Luis Obispo campus in 1966 and became the California State Polytechnic College,
Kellogg Campus. University status was granted in 1972.

A 25-member Board of Trustees provides oversight of all aspects of the CSU system.
Cal Poly Pomona shares a commitment to accessible education with the other CSU
campuses. As one of six polytechnic universities in the United States, CPP’s other


                                                                          Last revision: January 2009
           Western Association of Schools and Colleges
           Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities


hallmark is the learn-by-doing philosophy. The university implements its practice-
oriented, “hands-on” educational approach by blending theory and practice in all
disciplines.

The campus is organized around the President’s Office and five divisions, each led by a
vice president: Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, Administrative Affairs, Instructional
and Information Technology, and University Advancement. The Academic Senate
represents the faculty in the exercise of shared governance. Associated Students,
Incorporated represents the students in business regarding the student body. Within
Academic Affairs, the Provost guides the University Library and eight academic colleges,
each led by a Dean: Agriculture, Business Administration, Education and Integrative
Studies, Engineering, Environmental Design, Letters, Arts, and Social Sciences, Science,
and the Collins College of Hospitality Management. Fall 20 Decision-making at the
university is decentralized, with budgetary models and academic policies developed and
approved in the Academic Senate, the Deans Council and the President’s Cabinet and
implemented at the department level with general oversight.

Our Students. The campus currently enrolls more than 19,000 undergraduate students
and over 2,000 post-baccalaureate students in 99 different degree programs across eight
academic colleges. Post-baccalaureate students include 1500 master’s and 500 credential
students. Two-thirds of entering undergraduates are first-time freshmen who rank in the
top one-third of their high school class. The average GPA for first-time freshmen
entering between Fall 2004 and Fall 2008 ranged from 3.28 to 3.30 and the average
composite SAT score ranged from 1013 to 1018. In Fall 2008, 57% of the freshmen were
prepared for college-level English, and 76% were prepared for college-level mathematics.
The remaining one-third of entering undergraduates are upper-division transfer students
who have demonstrated their potential for success by their completion of 90 transferable
quarter units, including 45 quarter units of general education (GE).

In Fall 2008, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander and Caucasian students’ proportion of the
total student population was in the double-digit percentages (29%, 27%, 25%) while
African-American, American Indian/Alaskan Native and international students were
represented in single-digit percentages (4%, 1%, 6%). Currently, CPP is experiencing an
increase in the percentage of Latino students. Males and females comprise 56% and 44%
of the student population respectively, an unusual distribution that may reflect CPP’s
polytechnic curriculum. Ninety-four percent of the students are California residents, and
85% are from the five southern California counties (Los Angeles, San Bernardino,
Riverside, Orange, San Diego).

Our Faculty. As of Fall 2008, there were 572 full-time faculty; 77% of the tenured and
tenure-track (T/TT) faculty have a doctorate or other terminal degree. Of the 456 part-
time faculty, 28% have a doctorate or other terminal degree. The majority of full-time
faculty is male (60%) and white, non-Hispanic (60%). Similarly, part-time faculty are
male (62%) and white, non-Hispanic (67%). The Pomona Chapter of the California
Faculty Association represents both full- and part-time faculty.




                                                                         Last revision: January 2009
           Western Association of Schools and Colleges
           Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities


Cal Poly Pomona provides various forms of support for scholarly and creative activities,
including grant proposal development assistance and support opportunities such as the
Provost’s Teacher-Scholar Program and the Research, Scholarship, and the Creative
Activity (RSCA) Program. In 1987, faculty received little support for scholarly and
creative activities; the university received approximately $3 million in external grants and
contracts. However, external funding has grown significantly. Between 2002-03 and
2005-06, faculty and staff submitted 677 external funding proposals, an average of 135
proposals per year. In 2007-08, 149 proposals totaling over $43 million were submitted.
At least 86 (64%) of these were awarded totaling nearly $19 million.

Our Staff. Cal Poly Pomona staff members provide essential support for university
operations in a wide range of job classifications and duties. In Fall 2008, full-time staff
members were predominantly female (64%); 56% of staff members identify themselves
as non-white (compared to 39% for faculty and 75% for students). The staff is
represented by several collective bargaining units.

III.   Statement on Report Preparation
       Briefly describe in narrative form the process of report preparation, providing the
       names and titles of those involved. Because of the focused nature of an Interim
       Report, the widespread and comprehensive involvement of various institutional
       constituencies is not normally required. Faculty, administrative staff, and others
       should be involved as appropriate to the topics being addressed in the
       preparation of the report. Campus constituencies, such as faculty leadership and,
       where appropriate, the governing board, should review the report before it is
       submitted to WASC, and such reviews should be indicated in this statement.

The WASC Steering Committee prepared the interim report with significant contributions
from the Senate Ad Hoc Academic Planning Committee. The membership of these
groups is detailed in the attachment, and includes faculty, staff, and administrators.
(Appendix III.1)

An outline of the report was presented to the Council of Department Chairs, the
Associate Deans, the Deans Council, the President’s Cabinet, the Academic Senate, and
the Associated Students, Inc. Using feedback from these meetings, a rough draft of the
report was written and posted on the campus WASC website on May 29, 2009. This
posting was announced to the campus, and members of the campus constituency were
invited to post comments on about the draft.

IV.    Response to Issues Identified by Commission
       This main section of the Report should specifically address each issue identified
       by the Commission in its action letter as topics for the Interim Report. The visiting
       team report may provide additional context and background for the institution’s
       understanding of issues. Identify each key issue, providing a full description of the
       issue, the actions taken by the institution that address this issue, and an analysis
       of the effectiveness of these actions to date. Have the actions taken been
       successful in resolving the problem? What is the evidence supporting progress?


                                                                         Last revision: January 2009
           Western Association of Schools and Colleges
           Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities


       What further problems or issues remain? How will these issues be addressed, by
       whom, and under what timetable? How will the institution know when the issue
       has been fully addressed? Please include a timeline that outlines planned steps
       with milestones and expected outcomes for each issue.

Development of Academic Strategic Plan

Cal Poly Pomona has survived severe budget crises related to fluctuations in the
California economy. We have weathered the lean years of the 1990’s and the early
2000’s with our common values and core programs intact and are poised for additional
growth and excellence. While planning at the university has a long and checkered history,
the planning process has consistently succeeded in bringing the campus together through
dialog, participation, and common perspectives on the future of the university in
explorations of its dual identity as a large public comprehensive university and a
polytechnic university in a changing society and world. The campus’s decentralized
decision-making model has made it possible, in the absence of a University Strategic
Plan, to find consensus and move forward on important issues such as improving faculty
development and review, identifying replicable best practices within programs, and
developing and reviewing general education. The key to this has been the intentional use
of committees and task forces with broad representation from key stakeholders across the
university, empowering affected constituencies and putting decisions in the hands of
those closest to the problems. Decisions reached in this way have been found to receive
more acceptance, support, and participation from the campus community.

The Prioritization and Recovery Initiative of the last few years was designed to enable the
entire campus to consider its programs, review their effectiveness and use of resources,
and examine their alignment with the university mission. The initiative was ambitious;
the push for expediency conflicted with the goal of a transparent process, finally resulting
in the discontinuation of the initiative in Fall 2007. Although Prioritization and Recovery
did not conclude with the anticipated result, a set of recommendations to expand some
programs and close others, it did send a compelling message to the university community
about the importance of data and the need for clear indicators of success when making
choices about the distribution of resources.

The experience also demonstrated to President Ortiz that a revisit of the university’s
vision and values was necessary to further the strategic planning process. In January of
2008, the President initiated the University Vision and Identity Initiative, a broad
consultation process to identify the values commonly shared by students, staff, faculty,
and alumni. During the next six months, he conducted two surveys and held 21 focus
groups with each of these four campus constituencies. These activities were analyzed
and the results posted on the web and in a Blackboard site at which interested individuals
could enter comments. The President’s efforts culminated in an all campus meeting in
Spring 2008 where his presentation of a revised vision and core values was greeted with
enthusiastic acceptance. It was agreed that these would form the basis for a new strategic
planning process.




                                                                         Last revision: January 2009
           Western Association of Schools and Colleges
           Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities


On the principle that academics, as the core of the mission of the university, should drive
planning, the decision was made to develop an academic strategic plan as the means to
continue progress in the university strategic planning process. A crucial aspect in this
phase of planning activity was a commitment to the Academic Senate to honor its
traditional role concerning academic matters. The Senate appointed an Ad Hoc
Academic Planning Committee with members from all the colleges, co-chaired by the
provost and a Senate faculty member, and charged it with developing an Academic
Affairs strategic plan that would form the basis for a university-level plan. Reflecting its
commitment to shared governance, the ad hoc committee chose to fashion its proposed
plan largely out of the academic planning efforts of the colleges. The colleges based
much of their work on the planning work in the departments in conjunction with the
university core values identified by the President the previous spring. The ad hoc
committee urged the widest possible consultation within colleges and departments about
the developing division plan. This process engaged the faculty in considering where they
were and what they saw in their future. The task of the ad-hoc committee then was to
identify common themes and concerns among the college plans and to build a division
plan from these elements. This approach ensured that the plan would reflect the
aspirations and vision of the faculty and the colleges. Concurrent with the ad-hoc
committee’s work, the other four divisions initiated development of their own strategic
plans with the intent to align with the Academic Strategic Plan. The divisions used a
common template that will allow for the identification of similar opportunities and
concerns within and across each division.

The development of the Academic Strategic Plan and its ultimate approval by the
Academic Senate proved to be a model exercise of shared governance. The Ad Hoc
Academic Planning Committee, operating on with consensual decision-making and lively
debates, managed its work without the need to ever take a vote. An early draft was
developed and critiqued in several open forums for faculty members and student leaders.
The committee refined the plan in light of the comments received from the open forums
and the increasing specificity of the college plans. The plan then was further critiqued in
additional forums open to the entire campus community, as well as a special Senate
session. Faculty support for the Academic Strategic Plan was demonstrated decisively by
a unanimous vote of approval by the Academic Senate. The President followed by
accepting the plan as proposed.

The plan (Appendix IV.1) comprises three broad goals consistent with the university’s
mission and values, each accompanied by a more detailed set of actions to advance the
goals and a list of performance indicators to measure progress towards meeting the goals.
The goals can be generally characterized as dealing with (1) the ‘product’ of the
university — our learning and teaching, (2) the nature of the university as a community
of members with multi-faceted roles, and (3) the roles that the university itself and its
individual members have in larger communities. The plan also identifies shared
initiatives — common themes that reach across goals and strategic directions. These
shared initiatives reflect not only the complex nature of each goal but the emerging
consensus about the road ahead.




                                                                         Last revision: January 2009
           Western Association of Schools and Colleges
           Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities


The Ad Hoc Academic Planning Committee’s proposal concluded with a suggested
structure for moving forward. Both the Academic Senate and the President agreed with
the committee’s recommendation for the establishment of an Academic Affairs Planning
Evaluation Committee and a University Planning Committee. The Academic Affairs
Planning Evaluation Committee will begin its work in the Fall 2009 quarter. The
presence of the word “evaluation” in its name is indicative of its primary role to evaluate
and coordinate the ongoing planning taking place at the college and department level. It
will also develop benchmarks and milestones to provide ongoing measures of the
campus’ progress in moving toward the goals of the plan.

The University Planning Committee was populated in the Spring 2009 quarter and began
immediately to develop a comprehensive University Strategic Plan. The charge
(Appendix IV.2) of the University Planning Committee is to develop, through a
transparent and inclusive process, a University Strategic Plan from the Academic
Strategic Plan and the strategic plans prepared by the other divisions in the university.
The final plan will include broadly defined goals, strategic directions, and indicators of
progress that reflect the University’s mission, vision, and core values. The committee
will also propose guidelines for university-wide planning following the adoption of the
University Strategic Plan. The committee’s first work product was a timeline including
planned actions for development and communication (Appendix IV.3).

The task remains to institutionalize planning as an integral part of the university’s
academic cycle. Perhaps the most important result of this year’s efforts is the increasing
understanding that strategic planning is not simply a plan but a process — an ongoing
dialogue about Cal Poly Pomona’s future that engages all members of the university
community in routine processes of self-reflection.


General Education Assessment

Significant progress has been made on a revision of the general education assessment
process since the WASC visit in October 2008. A new policy has been approved by the
Academic Senate, a committee convened, a draft of goals and outcomes developed, and a
timeline leading to implementation by Spring 2009 prepared. This review of GE is based
on the Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) principles, emphasizing that the
GE program is an integrated program, not just a sum of the parts listed in Title V.

During both the 1990 and 2000 reaccreditation processes, the WASC Commission noted
the lack of a cohesive GE Assessment program. After the 2000 visit, the Academic
Senate proposed a new program with three upper division synthesis courses to integrate
the content covered in the lower division GE courses. The beginning of a change towards
learning-centeredness on campus was evident in this process, as outcomes for these
courses were developed along with the requirements for the courses. When the campus
was revisited in 2003, the new GE plan was noted positively, but the team reminded the
campus that it would need to assess this plan. The campus again responded, this time
with an assessment plan.



                                                                         Last revision: January 2009
           Western Association of Schools and Colleges
           Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities




The 2004 General Education Assessment Policy outlined a complex protocol. The policy
directed the creation of sixteen committees, one for each GE Area. Each committee was
comprised of instructors (including lecturers) who had taught classes in that GE Area in
the last year. The committee’s charge was to develop and implement an assessment plan
on a five-year cycle that contained at least two assessment measures, compare the work
of freshmen and transfer students, and evaluate the students’ ability to use the skills in
later classes. Between 2004 and 2007, eleven of the sixteen committees were constituted.
Although the assessment plan anticipated that the committees would develop plans in two
quarters, it took the committees almost twice this time to develop a plan and present it to
the Senate for approval. Three of the committees began implementation of their plans,
gathering and analyzing data. Another committee had its plan approved but did not have
the opportunity to implement it.

Although progress was unacceptably slow, some results were obtained. The committees
for two of the areas assessed reached the same conclusions – that care must be taken to
ensure that students get a more uniform experience and that all instructors are committed
to the GE outcomes. For Area D1, U.S. History, the pilot assessment was deemed a
success, the reviewing of a sample of assignments to be a manageable process. For Area
A2, Written Communication, the pilot was considered incomplete. The evaluation of a
random sample of in-class essays found that a majority of the students demonstrated
adequate rhetorical ability, although there were a significant number whose writing
suggested inadequate exposure to English, and who would probably have benefited from
the ESL track. However, the evaluators concluded that measuring improvement within
one quarter was not appropriate, and that their process did not allow for the evaluation of
proofreading or revision, two valuable tools of written composition. For Area B1,
Physical Sciences, most students were able to answer assessment questions correctly, but
could not justify their answers. Further assessment would be needed to determine if this
difficulty is based on a lack of understanding of the question or the scientific concept.
(The GE outcomes, plans, and reports based on the 2004 policy are available at
http://www.csupomona.edu/~academic/programs/ge_assessment/plans.shtml.)

Flaws in the 2004 protocol became evident over time. It took considerable effort to staff
and support the work of an ever-growing number of committees. The committees had
difficulty coming up with plans that were manageable, and cited insufficient staffing and
financial resources to implement the plans. Some of the committees stated that their
work did not give them a feeling for the place of their particular GE Area in the GE
program as a whole. In Fall 2007, the Associate Vice President for Undergraduate
Studies consulted with the GE Assessment Committees’ chairs and other campus
representatives, discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the existing policy, as
well as possible alternatives that might be more manageable and sustainable. Based on
the feedback received, a proposal for a new policy was developed. (Appendix IV.4) The
proposal was shared with the GE Assessment Committees chairs, the Deans Council, and
the Academic Senate General Education Committee. The proposal was revised, and in
Fall 2008 was submitted to the Academic Senate by the Senate GE Committee chair and
the AVP. It was approved in January 2009, and implementation began soon thereafter.



                                                                         Last revision: January 2009
           Western Association of Schools and Colleges
           Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities




The 2009 GE Assessment Policy includes a protocol that differs from the previous
protocol in several significant ways. There is only one committee rather than 16
committees. The approach is outcome-based, and begins with an examination of the
program rather than evaluating each of the subareas. The committee is directed to use
existing data and data collection processes when possible. Faculty who teach courses in
general education will be asked to participate in the assessment activities, but will not be
responsible for organizing the assessment.

The committee has been constituted with representatives from six of the eight colleges,
including three representatives from the College of Letters, Arts, and Social Sciences.
The GE Assessment Committee developed a set of goals and outcomes which currently is
being shared with the campus for feedback. (Appendix IV.5) The goals and outcomes
have been mapped to the University Learning Outcomes and to the current GE areas.
The committee also has constructed a timeline for the next year leading to
implementation of the assessment plan in the Spring 2010 quarter. (Appendix IV.6)
Questions to be considered next year include what data will be collected and how often,
who will collect the data, and who will analyze the data. The Committee has identified
some potential sources of data, including the Graduation Writing Exam, capstone projects
and reports, and exit interviews and alumni surveys conducted as part of program and
accreditation reviews. It is anticipated that some of the outcomes will be revised during
this process.

The GE Assessment Committee is committed to the process outlined in the new GE
Assessment Policy and has expressed strong interest to continue development in 2009-10.
The critical requirement for this initiative to be successful will be to build a manageable
sustainable plan with adequate resources that reflect its importance to the campus’
educational effectiveness goals.


V.     Identification of Other Changes and Issues Currently Facing the Institution
       This brief section should identify any other significant changes that have occurred
       or issues that have arisen at the institution (e.g., changes in key personnel,
       addition of major new programs, modifications in the governance structure,
       unanticipated challenges, or significant financial results) that are not otherwise
       described in the preceding section. This information will help the Interim Report
       Committee gain a clearer sense of the current status of the institution and
       understand the context in which the actions of the institution discussed in the
       previous section have taken place.

California Economy

The national and California economies were hit hard in 2008 by falling home prices, a
massive credit crunch, and worsening job losses. Consumer and business spending fell
significantly in both economies. As a result, the outlook for the California economy is




                                                                         Last revision: January 2009
           Western Association of Schools and Colleges
           Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities


for negative growth in 2009, followed by weak, if any, growth in 2010, and more
improvement by 2011.

The poor state economy caused state revenues to fall dramatically, necessitating huge
cuts to the state budget for 2008-09 and 2009-10. State general support to the CSU was
reduced in 2008-09 by $97.6 million. $66.3 million of that was a permanent reduction
that will continue into 2009-10. The impact for Cal Poly Pomona was a reduction of
$4,979,100 in 2008-09 with $3,357,000 of it being permanent and hence impacting 2009-
10. Continued declines in state revenue mean that an additional $584 million is likely to
be cut from the 2009-10CSU budget. This amounts to a cut of almost $30 million for Cal
Poly Pomona, which would have unprecedented negative impacts on the University’s
enrollment, instruction, personnel, support, and services.

Enrollment continues to be capped system-wide at 2007-08 levels. The worsening budget
problems caused the Chancellor’s Office to mandate, in early June, a system-wide
enrollment cut of 40,000 students by fall 2010. This means a reduction of about 2,000
students for Cal Poly Pomona, which will significantly impact admission of new students
and increase time-to-degree for continuing students. In addition, student fees have been
increased by 10 percent for 2009-10, and a larger increase is anticipated. Higher fees will
cause an increase in demand for financial aid, and the potential for major reductions in
federal, state and private aid may cause a decrease in enrollment.

The university is making every effort to meet course demand within its budget
constraints. The difficult decision was made to cancel virtually all state-supported
courses for summer 2009. Many of these courses have been moved to self-support
through the College of Extended University. This action will help to conserve state
funding for academic year courses. In addition, upper division transfer student
admissions have been closed for the winter 2010 quarter (and probably for spring 2010)
in an attempt to better align enrollment with available course offerings.

Increased class size (which runs counter to the Cal Poly Pomona learn-by-doing
philosophy), faculty workloads, limited services and programming, and staffing
reductions are likely to all be part of the budget solution over the next few years. While
faculty appointments and salaries are influenced by contract negotiations, increases in
faculty salaries are unlikely, and there is concern about the ability to retain junior faculty.
In addition, services provided by auxiliaries (e.g., Student Health Services, Parking and
Transportation, University Housing, and Associated Students, Incorporated) are
dependent on fee revenue; decreased enrollment will impact their ability to provide a
high level of service to students and the campus community.

Change in Academic Leadership

There has been significant change in leadership in Academic Affairs in the last two years.
The 2008-09 year began with a new Provost, Marten denBoer, leading four interim deans,
one new dean, and only three experienced deans in the eight academic colleges. National
searches were conducted for the open positions and most new deans will be in place by



                                                                         Last revision: January 2009
           Western Association of Schools and Colleges
           Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities


the start of the 2009-10 academic year. During the year the Dean of the Library also
retired, and an interim Director has been appointed pending another national search.
Active leadership from senior faculty members in three of the interim positions and an
experienced Provost Staff mitigated management disruption, and the fresh viewpoints
and knowledgeable advice offered has led to lively meetings and productive outcomes.

Frequent leadership changes have also occurred at the academic department chair level.
In response, the Office of Faculty Affairs and the Faculty Center for Professional
Development have been working with representatives of the University Council of Chairs
to create opportunities and resources to support chairs in their leadership development.
As a result of this collaboration, four initiatives are currently underway. A department
chair leadership retreat will take place in June 2009, addressing issues identified by chairs
as critical to their performance; a number of campus resource personnel will be sharing
insights in an interactive program focusing on responses to difficult interactions with
faculty, students, and staff; in fall 2009, a department chair orientation, being developed
with input from recently appointed chairs, will be offered to all new chairs; finally, an
online department chair resource guide will be developed to give chairs easy access to the
data and tools necessary to make effective decisions.


Teacher-Scholar Model

In response to WASC concerns that the faculty do not have a clear sense of the meaning
of the Cal Poly Pomona Teacher-Scholar model, Academic Affairs convened a Teacher-
Scholar Task Force, with one faculty representative from each college, the members of
the WASC Teacher-Scholar writing group, the Associate Vice President for Research and
Graduate Studies, the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs, and the Director of
the Faculty Center for Professional Development.

The Task Force was charged (Appendix V.1) to develop a working definition of the
model and a plan to engage the faculty in a dialog about the model, conduct a thorough
literature review, develop benchmarks and indicators of progress, consider obstacles to
full implementation of the model, and provide recommendations for overcoming these
obstacles.

The Task Force has met weekly since its formation in Winter 2009 to complete the first
of its charges while making progress on the literature review. The Task Force has
tentatively agreed on the following learning-centered definition of the Teacher-Scholar
model for Cal Poly Pomona:

       Teacher-Scholars are committed to life-long intentional learning and to
       modeling and promoting this conception of learning to our students. To
       this end, CPP Teacher-Scholars reflectively approach the task of teaching;
       actively participate in the scholarship of discovery, teaching, application,
       integration, and engagement; and integrate teaching and scholarship in
       ways that encourage students to become active intentional learners.



                                                                         Last revision: January 2009
           Western Association of Schools and Colleges
           Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities




This definition is currently being further developed, motivating campus-wide
consideration, so by Fall 2009 a serious, thoughtful and well-informed discussion about
the model can take place. In 2009-10 the Task Force will continue to address other
elements of its charge, ensuring that the faculty is kept informed of its progress.


University and Program Assessment

The University’s Learning-Centered Initiative continues to advance. This initiative
began in 2005 when President Ortiz broadened the work of a faculty learning committee
into a campus-wide effort. Each division and college developed a learning-centered
“tipping point” plan in February 2007, and since then has presented semiannual progress
reports. Part of the most recent reports was a presentation by the colleges (Appendix
V.2) showcasing the extent of learning-centeredness throughout their work. Out of this
initiative grew the annual “Stories of Successful Learning” event, the second of which
was held on February 26, 2009. 51 poster presentations were submitted, reporting
progress on such activities as Gift of Numbers - Early Field Experience for Future
Mathematics teachers; Applying the Principles of Universal Design for Learning in the
Teaching of Nutrition; Writing Trees - A Technique to Improve Writing Quality in the
Design Disciplines; and I&IT Learning: Providing Learning-Centered Environments for
Students.

Academic program assessment also continues to make progress. In Winter 2009,
Academic Affairs formed an Assessment Implementation Task Force to provide more
centralized support for academic departments in their assessment plan implementation.
The committee is made up of one faculty representative from each college, two associate
deans, one dean, the AVP for Undergraduate Studies, the AVP for Graduate Studies, and
the Director of the Faculty Center for Professional Development. A graduate student and
a college assessment coordinator also served as members of the Task Force. The charge
of the Task Force (Appendix V.3) is to provide a channel for communication about
academic assessment matters to Academic Affairs, the Academic Senate, faculty, and
other members of the campus community, to identify and provide opportunities for
professional development, and to promote a culture of evidence by reviewing and
reporting on programs’ assessment efforts.

In 2008-09, the Task Force worked with the academic departments to map the University
Learning Outcomes (ULO’s) to the Academic Program Outcomes and supported
departments in their development and refinement of curriculum maps. Many possible
discussion topics arose from the outcome mapping exercise, including the expected level
of mastery of the ULO’s, the depth to which they are covered in each academic program,
and the expansion of program outcomes to identify how mastery will be demonstrated
and measured.

In 2009-10, working with the Faculty Center for Professional Development, the Task
Force will facilitate discussions of these topics, and will review the annual reports on



                                                                         Last revision: January 2009
           Western Association of Schools and Colleges
           Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities


program assessment to identify examples of best practices, areas of improvement, and
high priority workshop topics.


The Comprehensive Campaign

The campus has launched a comprehensive campaign to raise $150 million over the next
five to seven years, an endeavor that will transform the academic landscape of Cal Poly
Pomona. The main element of the campaign is scholarship expansion and faculty and
program support funded through major increases in endowments.

The polytechnic learning model calls for state-of-the-art equipment and facilities.
Maintaining Cal Poly Pomona’s polytechnic advantage requires a commitment to modern
learning centers, equipment and technology. Small classes and laboratories for hands-on
research projects and experiments require more intensive capital investment than standard
lecture halls. That type of support is not included in state budget funding. Private
support will create opportunities by funding scholarships, endowing positions, building
premier facilities, and creating an education climate that draws the best and brightest
minds from all walks of life.

Our current endowment of $1,644 per student is far below the average for our peer group.
Through the comprehensive campaign, Cal Poly Pomona seeks to increase its endowment
more than fivefold. Endowed scholarships will enable the university to guarantee
opportunities for academically promising students. Endowed positions will attract the
best teacher-scholars and are essential in disciplines such as business, science and
technology, where state salaries for faculty fall far below the market average.
Endowment income also will provide a stable, reliable source of annual revenue for
premier programs that require greater support. Endowed program support will enable the
university to address critical needs such as the shortage of engineers in California, the
need for more Science and Math teachers in the public schools, and the wave of returning
veterans, some of whom have suffered disabling combat injuries.


VI.    Concluding Statement
       Reflect on how the institutional responses to the issues raised by the Commission
       have had an impact upon the institution, setting forth follow-up steps to be taken.

This interim report represents the campus’ commitment to addressing the issues raised by
the commission. The approach the campus has taken in acting on these issues
demonstrates the priority given to the role of shared governance in our actions. Each
committee convened to work on these issues has administrator and faculty membership,
with faculty playing an important role. In many cases, the chair is a faculty member.
The process of developing a strategic plan also caused the campus to re-dedicate itself to
its hybrid of centralized and decentralized decision-making. Strategic planning begins at
the department level, to be coordinated at the college level, to be evaluated at the division
level and finally incorporated into a university plan. Faculty participation is vital at each


                                                                         Last revision: January 2009
           Western Association of Schools and Colleges
           Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities


level, in the formation of the department plans and as the majority on the Academic
Affairs Planning Evaluation Committee and a majority of the Academic Affairs
representation on the University Planning Committee.

The issues raised by WASC were already priorities on campus and the additional
visibility provided by WASC was both a help and a hindrance. It provided a justification
for a results-driven timeline, but created the suspicion that the various initiatives
described in this report were motivated mostly by WASC concerns, raising questions
about the longer-term commitment of the administration. It was necessary to reassure the
committees that their efforts were not “just for WASC” and that these initiatives would
not be abandoned after this report is submitted or after the upcoming visit in 2010.

The same reassurance is now offered to the WASC Commission. Cal Poly Pomona is
committed to becoming a more learning-centered institution, embedding evaluation and
reflection not only in the academic work in Academic Affairs, but also in the work of all
divisions. Assessment of the general education program will drive a broader
conversation on how to provide students a meaningful and effective program integrated
with the University Learning Outcomes. The teacher-scholar model, with resources to
support it, is a high priority of the faculty and supported by the academic leadership.
Finally, the university is committed to planning processes that will both guide immediate
actions in this difficult fiscal period and provide a longer-term perspective to position the
university in the community, the region, the CSU system, and the larger academic
community.




                                                                         Last revision: January 2009

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:11/5/2012
language:English
pages:13