conclusions2

The Steering Committee has proposed follow-up focus groups after the Reaffirmation Visit to establish the framework within which the university would develop these ideas.

The values underlying our self-study (learning, community, and quality) were, we believe, appropriate to the integrity and success of our project. We cannot claim to have perfectly achieved all of our goals, discussed in Chapter III. But we have made a good beginning.

Self-study is better understood on the campus than it was at the beginning of our project. Assessment is a tool we are fashioning to many uses. The Campus Climate Survey alone helped establish the seriousness and ethical character of this particular piece of institutional research (self-study). Coalitions between different units and status groups (horizontal linkages) are stronger than they were before, and some are new.

The thematic investigations helped us and our colleagues to determine what constitutes progress and how to measure it, in many instances. The discussions of student characteristics and behavior, of programs to promote student interests and learning, were productive, fascinating, and well attended. The research on leadership, shared governance, planning, and education management engaged many, many people in sometimes volatile, sometimes playful, but generally healthy and open dialogue. We think this dialogue will bear fruit in the form of better plans and more collaboration in the near future. Dissent and opposition are spurs to growth and change on our campus.

The strengths and weaknesses of our programs are clear to many now, and most of the faculty and administration are willingly involved in improvements, where called for. We have seen, and documented herein, the struggle of department after department to craft student learning outcomes assessment plans that fit their goals and capacities, demonstrating the abundance of flexibility, tenacity, and creativity we have in the academic personnel of our campus, whatever limitations of time, space, and money they may experience. Units, such as the Library or Graphics, have remade their images and improved their service through internal evaluation.

A major outcome of the self-study is that we are a bit closer to a clear sense of our collective selves. Having that will empower us to know what plans are possible for the community as a whole, which ones do not require us all to ‘fit in’, and which ones are for groups of us. All of this knowledge together gives us a strong foundation for internal accountability — the process by which the university questions and ratifies itself. This, in turn, provides the basis on which we request the re-affirmation of our institutional accreditation (external accountability).

The points of criticism raised by the WASC Report of 1990 have been considered as challenges by the theme writers (Appendix A4), along with those characteristics and circumstances of the university that pose difficulties for us. These and the other challenges we have tackled are listed in Annex A11. The remainder of this chapter summarizes the findings and recommendations or suggestions for action developed by the self-study. Findings include either environmental or internal conditions and events identified in the course of the research for this self-study that seem to affect the educational mission of the university in one way or another, positively or negatively.

This is not an encyclopedic list. Specific, high priority findings were analyzed and extensively discussed in the relevant sections of the preceding thematic chapters, and the actions suggested by the committee were contextualized and elaborated in these terms, with reference to scholarly literature in the appropriate fields, publications on the practical experiences of other universities (or this one), and ideas and models developed by people on our campus. In instances of problems, we have discussed avenues of correction. In cases of commendation, we suggest ways to learn from and spread these excellent practices.

To some extent, the challenges constituted our research agenda, the findings our results or conclusions signified by the research, and the recommendations/questions the approaches and action steps that seem to be indicated by them, in our view and that of various professional (external) and collegial consultants. We have not made any recommendations that we know are not within the capacity of the university to carry out; however, some may be more exigent than others. We do not think that cost or expedience should be the sole determinants of actions. The primary assumption behind the recommendations is that the goals and values of the university, as stated in the Strategic Planning Guidelines, will remain more or less the same for the foreseeable future. The findings and recommendations, plus action plans, are discussed in the remainder of this Conclusion by theme, with reference to specific supporting documents or pieces of research, in terms of the logic of the Key Questions boxes within the text.

IX. CAL POLY AT THE CROSSROADS OF THE PRESENT AND BEYOND
conclusion	Introduction to Conclusions
	The most powerful, general observations we have made during the course of the self-study have to do with two needs: a need for greater coherence and connection of actions, programs, and plans, and a need for more attention to matters of human relations and needs, such as respect, self-esteem, support, and security. These needs have been brought up in conversations, survey results, and policy documents repeatedly. They do not reflect deficiencies or failures on the part of any particular element of the campus; nor are they needs experienced by Cal Poly Pomona alone among universities. Merely, for us, they seem to be pressing and ramifying. The self-study process makes its greatest contribution in identifying such needs and proposing action plans to address them. The Administration and Faculty should establish *continuous self-study* in such a form as to: generate data for accreditation, accountability, program reviews, and other evaluation/monitoring/assessments, provide a forum for discussion of any matters related to the administration of educational programs, reduce duplication or parallelism of reportage, enhance interaction between different elements of the campus, smooth a path for planning and institutional educational effectiveness assessment. The Administration and Faculty should craft an informal *courtesy or civility protocol* applying to email, inter-personal communication, and all treatment of people. The Steering Committee has proposed follow-up focus groups after the Reaffirmation Visit to establish the framework within which the university would develop these ideas. The values underlying our self-study (learning, community, and quality) were, we believe, appropriate to the integrity and success of our project. We cannot claim to have perfectly achieved all of our goals, discussed in Chapter III. But we have made a good beginning. Self-study is better understood on the campus than it was at the beginning of our project. Assessment is a tool we are fashioning to many uses. The Campus Climate Survey alone helped establish the seriousness and ethical character of this particular piece of institutional research (self-study). Coalitions between different units and status groups (horizontal linkages) are stronger than they were before, and some are new. The thematic investigations helped us and our colleagues to determine what constitutes progress and how to measure it, in many instances. The discussions of student characteristics and behavior, of programs to promote student interests and learning, were productive, fascinating, and well attended. The research on leadership, shared governance, planning, and education management engaged many, many people in sometimes volatile, sometimes playful, but generally healthy and open dialogue. We think this dialogue will bear fruit in the form of better plans and more collaboration in the near future. Dissent and opposition are spurs to growth and change on our campus. The strengths and weaknesses of our programs are clear to many now, and most of the faculty and administration are willingly involved in improvements, where called for. We have seen, and documented herein, the struggle of department after department to craft student learning outcomes assessment plans that fit their goals and capacities, demonstrating the abundance of flexibility, tenacity, and creativity we have in the academic personnel of our campus, whatever limitations of time, space, and money they may experience. Units, such as the Library or Graphics, have remade their images and improved their service through internal evaluation. A major outcome of the self-study is that we are a bit closer to a clear sense of our collective selves. Having that will empower us to know what plans are possible for the community as a whole, which ones do not require us all to ‘fit in’, and which ones are for groups of us. All of this knowledge together gives us a strong foundation for internal accountability — the process by which the university questions and ratifies itself. *This, in turn, provides the basis on which we request the re-affirmation of our institutional accreditation (external accountability).* The points of criticism raised by the WASC Report of 1990 have been considered as challenges by the theme writers (Appendix A4), along with those characteristics and circumstances of the university that pose difficulties for us. These and the other challenges we have tackled are listed in Annex A11. The remainder of this chapter summarizes the findings and recommendations or suggestions for action developed by the self-study. Findings include either environmental or internal conditions and events identified in the course of the research for this self-study that seem to affect the educational mission of the university in one way or another, positively or negatively. This is not an encyclopedic list. Specific, high priority findings were analyzed and extensively discussed in the relevant sections of the preceding thematic chapters, and the actions suggested by the committee were contextualized and elaborated in these terms, with reference to scholarly literature in the appropriate fields, publications on the practical experiences of other universities (or this one), and ideas and models developed by people on our campus. In instances of problems, we have discussed avenues of correction. In cases of commendation, we suggest ways to learn from and spread these excellent practices. To some extent, the challenges constituted our research agenda, the findings our results or conclusions signified by the research, and the recommendations/questions the approaches and action steps that seem to be indicated by them, in our view and that of various professional (external) and collegial consultants. We have not made any recommendations that we know are not within the capacity of the university to carry out; however, some may be more exigent than others. We do not think that cost or expedience should be the sole determinants of actions. The primary assumption behind the recommendations is that the goals and values of the university, as stated in the Strategic Planning Guidelines, will remain more or less the same for the foreseeable future. The findings and recommendations, plus action plans, are discussed in the remainder of this Conclusion by theme, with reference to specific supporting documents or pieces of research, in terms of the logic of the Key Questions boxes within the text.