WASC Acceptance Letter

Cal Poly Pomona's Institutional Proposal was accepted by WASC on June 5, 2006

Text of Acceptance Letter

WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS & COLLEGES
ACCREDITING COMMISSION FOR SENIOR COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES

RECEIVED
JUL 14 2006
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

July 11, 2006 cc: Ron Fremont

Tomas D. Morales
Provost and Vice President Academic Affairs
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
3801 West Temple Ave.
Pomona, CA 91768

Dear Tomas:

At its June 30, 2006 meeting, a panel of the Proposal Review Committee considered the California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Institutional Proposal for its next reaffirmation of accreditation review. Members of the panel asked me to express their appreciation for your participation in the telephone conference call, and for that of your colleagues. Your participation made it evident to the panel that the proposal was the product of broad and interested engagement across many segments of the institution. Your responses to the panel's questions were helpful in assisting them to better understand the institution's context and its intentions for the upcoming comprehensive review.

As I indicated in my July 5, 2006 voicemail to you, the panel acted to accept the proposal. The panel was very positive regarding all aspects of the proposal, from the wide spread and meaningful participation of the University community, the shared vision, and collaboration being central to institutional success. The planning process was informed by key questions that led to a thoughtful, strategic approach to self-evaluation that informed the development of the proposal. The themes that have been articulated are both appropriate and challenging. The University is to be commended for their outstanding proposal.

The proposal now becomes the framework for the accreditation review process and represents a plan of action and commitment by the institution. The proposal will be shared with the visiting teams for both the Capacity and Preparatory Review and the Educational Effectiveness Review, and with the Commission following each Review. It is understood that adjustments in the activities undertaken under the proposal will be made as implementation occurs. Major changes to the proposal, such as in the direction or focus of institutional activities for the accreditation review process, are to be approved in advance by Commission staff.

We wish you well and look forward to working with you on this review cycle.

Sincerely,

Neil Hoffman
Associate Director

Cc: J. Michael Ortiz, President
Proposal Review Committee
Ralph A. Wolff