INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSAL 


California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 

Submitted to 
the Western Association of Schools and Colleges 


May 2006 




CONTENTS 


Institutional Context …………………………….………………………………………… 1 

• 
Responses to Issues Raised in Last Commission Action Letter ……………..…… 2 

o 
Assessment of Student Learning ……………………………………………… 2 

o 
Shared Vision and Governance ……………………………………..………… 3 

o 
Planning ………………………………………………………………….……… 4 

• 
Preliminary Self-Review Under the Standards ……………………………….…… 5 

• 
Process for Proposal Development and Leadership Involvement ………………. 6 

Framing the Review Process …………………………….………………………..……… 7 

• 
Overview and Goals for the Accreditation Review Process ……………………… 7 

• 
Approach for the Capacity and Preparatory Review ……………………………… 8 

• 
Approach for the Educational Effectiveness Review ……………………………… 9 

Demonstrating a Feasible Plan of Work and Engagement of 
Key Constituencies ……………………………………………………………………….. 11 

• 
Workplan and Milestones …………………………………………………………… 11 

• 
Effectiveness of Data Gathering and Analysis Systems ………………………….. 12 

Stipulations ……………………………………………………………………………….. 13 

Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………….. 14 

Data Tables ……………………………………………………………………………….. 49 


INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSAL 

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 

Submitted to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges 
May 2006 

“Cultivating Excellence: Building a Learning-Centered Model of Polytechnic Education” 

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT 

Cal Poly Pomona opened in the fall of 1938 as the 
Voorhis Unit of California State Polytechnic 
College, which had its main campus in San Luis 
Obispo. With an all-male enrollment of 110 
students, it was located on the 150-acre San 
Dimas site of the former Voorhis School for Boys. 
In 1949 cereal magnate W. K. Kellogg deeded 813 
acres of land in Pomona, just three miles south of 
the Voorhis campus, to the state of California, 
and in 1956, 508 students and 44 faculty and staff 
moved from San Dimas 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 California 
State Polytechnic College, Kellogg Campus; 
university status was granted in 1972. 

One of only six polytechnic universities 
nationwide, Cal Poly Pomona's hallmark is its 
learn-by-doing philosophy, directly stemming 
from its polytechnic mission, which reads 

Cal Poly Pomona’s mission is to advance 

learning and knowledge by linking theory 

and practice in all disciplines, and to 

prepare students for lifelong learning, 

leadership, and careers in a changing, 

multicultural world. 

Cal Poly Pomona covers 1,438 acres of rolling 
green hills and is the second largest campus in 
area in The California State University system. 
Located less than 30 miles east of downtown Los 
Angeles, in the heart of Southern California, Cal 
Poly Pomona is characterized by the tranquility 

of a small community, but also provides the 
variety of cultural offerings of a large urban 
center. The campus retains the fully functioning 
Kellogg Arabian horse ranch alongside rose 
gardens and avocado groves. 

The campus currently enrolls nearly 18,000 
undergraduate students and over 1,900 
postbaccalaureate students in 99 different degree 
programs across seven colleges and one school. 
The campus has experienced significant increases 
in enrollment demand, but careful enrollment 
planning efforts have maintained the pace of 
growth at approximately two and a half percent 
each year for the last six years. As a State 
University located in a multicultural urban 
metropolis, Cal Poly Pomona provides access to 
higher education for a large number of students 
from traditionally underrepresented groups; 
nearly seventy percent of the students enrolled at 
Cal Poly Pomona identify themselves as 
nonwhite. Outreach efforts are directed towards 
increasing enrollment while improving the 
academic quality of the student body and 
maintaining its broad diversity. With only 
thirteen percent of the undergraduates living on 
campus, the University has had to be more 
creative in its efforts to foster a sense of 
community among the students, faculty and staff. 

Cal Poly Pomona is committed to blending theory 
and practice in all its disciplines as it recognizes 
that the students who solve classroom problems 
today will be the employees who solve real-world 
problems tomorrow. Students are afforded 
opportunities to apply their knowledge in hands-
on projects, collaborate with faculty members on 

- 1 -



research and other scholarly activities, learn 
through co-curricular programs and activities, 
and participate in valuable internships and 
service-learning programs. 

The University has experienced considerable 
growth and improvement in its physical plant 
and instructional and information technology. 
Since 2000, the campus has added 231,000 square 
feet of academic facilities through the addition of 
new buildings and the expansion of existing 
facilities. Quality has also been markedly 
improved through replacement space 
construction and renovation. Enhancing student 
services, the Bronco Student Center expansion 
added meeting and study areas, a fitness center 
and new food services, and University Housing 
Services and the Cal Poly Pomona Foundation 
combined to add 900 beds, increasing student 
housing by 40 percent. A new pedestrian mall 
supports the campus master plan for a pedestrian 
campus in a commuter environment. Innovation 
Village, a 65-acre area of public-private 
partnerships, and Agriscapes, an instructional 
facility and community outreach venue, 
strengthen campus ties to the local area. 
Information technology continues to grow as a 
critical area, and the institution has invested 
heavily in academic and administrative 
computing and infrastructure. In 2004 the 
University launched the Learning-Centered 
Technology Initiative, comprised of two 
programs designed to improve the quality of 
instruction. The University has introduced a 
number of applications and programs to support 
e-learning, and in 2005 the University moved 
from project status to operationalization of the 
PeopleSoft Student System and its customer 
service portal, BroncoDirect. In addition, a major 
core infrastructure upgrade is in progress, with 
the campus email, file systems, identity 
management, backup, and web services 
scheduled to be replaced within the next year. 

The campus has experienced major changes in 
administrative leadership over the past few years. 
Following the retirement of Dr. Bob Suzuki, Dr. J. 
Michael Ortiz became Cal Poly Pomona’s fifth 
president. Since the last WASC visit, several 

leadership positions have been filled, including 
three vice presidents, five deans, and eleven 
associate vice presidents. The new leadership 
provides opportunities for bringing fresh 
perspectives to campus-wide issues of 
importance. Cal Poly Pomona employs 600 
tenured or tenure-track faculty and 
approximately 550 lecturers. The University is 
still recovering from substantial budget cuts in 
the early nineties as well as budget reductions 
between 2002 and 2004. The campus also has 
experienced a significant wave of retirements and 
the appointment of close to one hundred new 
faculty members over the past three years. This 
recruitment statistic is a remarkable achievement 
given the high cost of living in the Los Angeles 
basin. Those new faculty members join 
colleagues who balance a relatively high teaching 
load with a heightened expectation of 
commitment to scholarly work. In turn, the 
administration must find resources to support 
and reward high achievement. 

Responses to Issues Raised in Last 
Commission Action Letter 

In the WASC Commission Action Letter for Cal 
Poly Pomona’s special visit in 2003, several issues 
were raised that fall into three general categories 

– assessment of student learning, shared vision 
and governance, and planning. Through 
collaboration of all levels of administration 
together with faculty, staff and students, the 
University has made significant progress on those 
issues. 
Assessment of Student Learning 

Cal Poly Pomona has made considerable progress 
since 2003 in creating a culture of evidence about 
student learning. Faculty and the administration 
have collaborated on creating assessment 
mechanisms at the University level and the 
program level, and vital infrastructure to support 
those efforts is in place. 

Cal Poly Pomona has established and 
implemented important policies and processes in 
support of the assessment of student learning. 

- 2 -



Programs in all of the colleges have begun to 
develop assessment plans to guide their periodic 
reviews. Three of the colleges began this a 
number of years ago, prompted by discipline-
based accreditation boards. By the end of the 
2005-2006 year, all of the departments in three 
additional colleges will have developed 
assessment plans. 

In addition, since the last WASC visit, 
administrators from Academic Affairs worked 
with the Academic Senate to establish a General 
Education (GE) Assessment Policy, in which 
representative instructors from each of the 16 GE 
areas will develop five-year assessment plans (see 
Appendix I). Those plans must include the 
collection and analysis of evidence of student 
learning and mechanisms for using that evidence 
to improve courses or instruction in the GE areas. 
During the 2004-2005 academic year, faculty 
committees developed assessment plans in four 
of the GE areas, to be implemented in fall 2006. 
In 2005-2006, an additional four assessment plans 
were developed, to be implemented in fall 2007. 
It is expected that the remaining eight plans will 
be developed in 2006-2007. 

The University also has embarked on a campus-
wide effort to promote a learning-centered 
philosophy at all levels. Over the last three years, 
students, faculty and staff have met to explore 
what this entails at a Student Exchange, an 
Assessment Café, an Assessment Conference, and 
at two retreats facilitated by a Learning-Centered 
Faculty Community. This year, President Ortiz 
appointed members of the University to a 
Learning-Centered Task Force to further 
institutionalize this effort, and the cross-
divisional Educational Effectiveness 
Subcommittee has been developing a formal list 
of University student learning outcomes (see 
Appendix II). 

Finally, infrastructure essential to coordinating 
and implementing assessment activities is now in 
place. In response to concerns raised in the 
WASC special visit of 2003, the Office of 
Institutional Research, Assessment & Planning 
(IRAP) was reorganized to better support 

assessment activities across campus. That office 
currently is analyzing the results of a university-
wide alumni survey to assess graduates’ 
satisfaction with and perceived outcomes from a 
Cal Poly Pomona education. In addition, the 
Office of Undergraduate Studies and IRAP are 
collaborating on the implementation of the 
Collegiate Learning Assessment Lumina 
Longitudinal study to gain an objective measure 
of the effectiveness of the General Education 
program and other student learning programs. 

Shared Vision and Governance 

In the three years between the 2000 WASC visit 
and the 2003 special visit, Cal Poly Pomona 
engaged the campus community in focus groups, 
interviews, and other discussions, which resulted 
in a “Shared Vision Briefing Paper” that 
emphasized the University’s learn-by-doing 
philosophy, its polytechnic nature, and quality 
education. This shared vision was strengthened 
and reaffirmed when President Ortiz came to 
campus in 2003 and spent time listening to the 
views of individuals in the campus community. 
The main theme that emerged from those 
conversations was student success, with the 
overarching vision that “the University is 
recognized for programs of distinction that serve 
our students and the state in a learning-centered 
environment with the goal of making Cal Poly 
Pomona the standard bearer for the rest of the 
state in the success of our students.” 

Shared governance also has been strengthened 
through joint efforts of the administration and the 
faculty. Many important campus decisions and 
recommendations are now made by cross-
divisional committees or task forces comprised of 
faculty, administrators, staff, and students, such 
as the Enrollment Management Advisory 
Committee (EMAC) and its subcommittees, the 
Information Technology (IT) Governance 
Committee and its subcommittees, the University 
Learning-Centered Task Force, the University 
Advising Task Force, and the All University 
Teacher Education Committee (see Appendix III 
for descriptions of these groups). In addition, 
efforts are underway to develop a University 

- 3 -



Budget Committee, consisting of faculty and 
administrators, to provide a transparent 
budgeting process for the campus. 
Communication between the faculty and the 
administration is enhanced by the fact that the 
Academic Senate Chair sits on the President’s 
Cabinet once a month; the President attends the 
Academic Senate Executive Committee at least 
once a month; and the number of administrators 
attending Academic Senate meetings has 
increased. 

Planning 

When President Ortiz arrived on campus in 2003, 
he entered a difficult political climate. As noted 
in the last WASC visiting team report, there was a 
lack of trust between administration, faculty and 
staff. A series of planning-related efforts had 
been initiated but had not come to fruition, which 
frustrated the entire campus. This climate 
necessitated an incremental approach to 
planning, with early efforts focused on building 
bridges with faculty. 

In his first year on campus, President Ortiz 
reaffirmed the campus mission statement, which 
faculty, staff and administrators agree is an 
accurate statement of the shared values and goals 
of our campus. He identified five areas of special 
focus within this mission: cultivating programs of 
distinction, creating a learning-centered campus 
dedicated to student success, connecting with our 
surrounding community, effectively managing 
our enrollments, and promoting technological 
advances in support of learning. Placing the 
emphasis on “strategic thinking,” the President 
has been able to engage the campus in moving 
forward on several key initiatives. For example, a 
cross-divisional service learning program was 
developed; the Enrollment Management 
Advisory Committee was active in integrating 
efforts across divisions; a Learning-Centered Task 
Force was created to develop strategies for each 
unit to adopt practices that enhanced student 
learning; each College developed significant new 
programs to enhance retention and graduation 
rates; the All-University Teacher Education 
Committee helped coordinate and focus cross-

college efforts to prepare new teachers; and a new 
IT Governance Committee was established to 
enable institution-wide planning and 
development in the area of instructional and 
information technology. An action plan to 
integrate campus-wide strategies to facilitate 
student success and graduation was initiated in 
2005-2006. The Academic Senate played an 
important role in establishing goals and 
contributing to the membership of each of these 
task-based groups for each initiative. 

When budgets began to stabilize, the campus 
initiated a prioritization and budget recovery 
process designed to lay the groundwork for a 
new model for budgeting, decision-making, and 
planning. In this process each unit and program 
on campus is evaluated according to criteria that 
are grounded in the mission and goals of the 
University. One explicit goal of the Prioritization 
and Recovery process is to identify a material 
percentage of the campus general fund budget 
over the next three years to reinvest in areas of 
high priority to help enhance programs of 
distinction and those with the demonstrated 
potential to be distinctive. This will be 
accomplished by identifying programs and units 
that should receive additional investment, those 
that should remain at current levels of funding, 
and those that which funding, should be reduced, 
combined, or eliminated. Initial reports on the 
priorities and recommended recovery activities 
for each division will be submitted to both the 
President and the Executive Committee of the 
Academic Senate to influence 2007-2008 budget 
development discussions and will be shared with 
the campus community for comment and 
discussion (see Appendix IV for a description of 
divisional Prioritization and Recovery activities). 

A second goal for this prioritization process was 
to serve as the first step of a University planning 
process. Through Prioritization and Recovery 
members of the campus community will examine 
their current environment and identify strengths, 
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. This will 
then serve as the basis for establishing 
institutional planning for the academic program, 
finances, facilities, enrollment management, 

- 4 -



human resource development, organizational 
structure, and technology. To facilitate the 
progression from Prioritization and Recovery to 
strategic planning, President Ortiz has asked the 
Cabinet and the Executive Committee of the 
Academic Senate to establish a University 
planning body and process that will use the 
findings from Prioritization and Recovery as the 
basis for a strategic plan. 

Preliminary Self-Review Under the 
Standards 

Cal Poly Pomona’s preliminary self-review was 
based on two main sources – results of the 
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), 
in which the University participated in spring 
2005, and the results of campus-wide surveys and 
unit-level discussions about important issues 
facing the campus. Results of the former are 
presented in Appendix V, and details about the 
latter are described below in the section on 
proposal development. 

Standard One: Defining Institutional Purposes 
and Ensuring Educational Objectives. Cal Poly 
Pomona approaches its reaccreditation review 
with a relatively new President, who has 
reaffirmed the mission of the University and 
received very positive evaluations of his 
leadership in a three-year review conducted by 
the California State University (CSU) System 
Chancellor’s Office. According to campus-wide 
surveys and discussions, the Cal Poly Pomona 
community strongly believes in the polytechnic, 
learn-by-doing mission of the University and 
clearly supports the CSU system charter of broad 
access to higher education, enrolling a large 
number of students from traditionally 
underrepresented groups. In addition, according 
to results of the NSSE, the majority of Cal Poly 
Pomona students believe that their experiences 
contributed to their understanding of people 
from other racial or ethnic backgrounds. A key 
issue for the review will be the extent to which 
Cal Poly Pomona creates a sense of community 
and belonging for all members of the University 
community. 

Standard Two: Achieving Educational 
Objectives Through Core Functions. In terms of 
achieving educational objectives, Cal Poly 
Pomona provides strong undergraduate and 
graduate degree programs, as evidenced by the 
fact that the University is accredited by ten 
different professional accrediting agencies, 
including the Accreditation Board for 
Engineering and Technology (ABET), the 
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of 
Business (AACSB), and the National Architecture 
Accrediting Board, among others. Graduation 
requirements in all programs are clearly 
articulated; in fact, programs are required to 
provide students with “road maps,” which are 
curriculum guides for graduating in four, five, or 
six years. Academic programs also are required 
to undergo external reviews every five years. 
Those reviews have become increasingly 
assessment based, although some programs are 
farther along in their assessment efforts than 
others. Results of campus-wide surveys suggest 
that members of the University community 
believe that Cal Poly Pomona produces “wellqualified 
graduates,” and results of the NSSE 
suggest that seniors at Cal Poly Pomona believe 
that they have gained important knowledge and 
skills, such as solving complex problems and 
using computing and information technology, as 
a result of their experiences here. Notable 
exceptions were the extent to which students 
thought their writing skills had improved and the 
extent to which they had acquired a broad 
general education. Although a large majority of 
Cal Poly Pomona seniors reported that the 
institution had contributed quite a bit or very 
much to gains in these areas, the numbers were 
significantly lower than at comparison 
institutions. The University has made significant 
strides in the assessment of general education, 
with the implementation of a GE assessment 
policy and participation in the Collegiate 
Learning Assessment, and it plans to use the 
results of those assessments to improve general 
education at Cal Poly Pomona. Overall, student 
success has emerged as a very strong theme on 
campus, not only in the campus-wide surveys, 
but through important campus initiatives, such as 
Learning Centeredness, Facilitating Graduation, 

- 5 -



and Assessment of Advising. Progress on and 
assessment of those initiatives will be key foci in 
the accrediting review. 

Standard Three: Developing and Applying 
Resources and Organizational Structure to 
Ensure Sustainability. In terms of essential 
resources, Cal Poly Pomona is in a stronger 
position today than it was just a few years ago 
when it experienced several years of budget cuts. 
Due to strong but carefully controlled enrollment 
growth and careful fiscal management, the 
University has not only operated without a 
deficit, but has enhanced its physical plant and 
information technology infrastructure and hired a 
large number of new faculty members. 
Nonetheless, budget-related issues are still of 
concern to members of the campus community. 
In particular, one important issue that emerged in 
campus-wide surveys and discussions was how 
best to support and foster the unique teacher-
scholar model on which Cal Poly Pomona prides 
itself. This issue is being addressed in the 
Prioritization and Recovery process and will be a 
key focus of the Capacity and Preparatory 
Review. 

Standard Four: Creating an Organization 
Committed to Learning and Improvement. For 
the past three years, Cal Poly Pomona has been 
engaged in a Learning-Centered initiative, with 
the goal of becoming a more student centered 
learning organization. Although the University 
has not yet developed a formal strategic plan, it 
has engaged in “strategic thinking” and is in the 
midst of a Prioritization and Recovery process 
that will serve as the first step in a University 
planning process. Because it is evidence-based 
and grounded in the mission, vision and goals of 
the University, Prioritization and Recovery will 
serve as the cornerstone of the review process. 
Indeed, an important goal is for the accreditation 
process to foster campus-wide engagement in 
learning from the evidence that is collected, as 
well as planning efforts that flow from that 
learning. 

Process for Proposal Development and 
Leadership Involvement 

A small WASC working group was constituted in 
January 2005, consisting of leadership from 
Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, and the 
faculty. This group launched an iterative, 
grassroots-based process for identifying themes 
for the proposal. In the first phase the group 
created a five-minute video on the accreditation 
process that concluded with a link to an online, 
open-ended survey asking participants how they 
would like the University to be viewed five years 
from now, what the challenges were facing Cal 
Poly Pomona, and what issues the community 
should be thinking and talking about. The video 
and survey were sent out to all faculty, staff, and 
students in April 2005. 

In Fall 2005, President Ortiz appointed the WASC 
Steering Committee, consisting of the leadership 
of the Academic Senate and all five divisions of 
the University (see Appendix VI). The Steering 
Committee reviewed the results of the open-
ended survey and used the most frequent 
responses as the basis for a closed-ended paper 
survey that was distributed to all faculty and staff 
during fall quarter kickoff meetings. Between the 
two surveys, 1353 members of the campus 
community weighed in on what issues were 
important to them (see Appendix VII for survey 
results). The Steering Committee collated the 
responses and presented a summary of the 
suggestions to the campus for further discussion. 
The Committee asked each department and unit 
to discuss the suggested themes and to report 
back their preferences; 75 percent of departments 
and units submitted a report. The consistency of 
responses was surprising. Three themes emerged 
as leading candidates across all constituencies: 
enhancing the visibility and reputation of Cal 
Poly Pomona as an outstanding polytechnic 
university, fostering student learning and 
success, and understanding better the new role of 
faculty in our teaching-intensive but scholarship-
based university environment. These themes 
reflect well the concerns and aspirations of 
University community members. 

- 6 -



Throughout this year, the campus has been 
provided with updates on the reaccreditation 
process through the Chair’s Report to the 
Academic Senate, email messages to the 
community, and a website accessible to the entire 
campus (http://www.csupomona.edu/~wasc/). 

The proposal itself was developed by the cross-
divisional Steering Committee, with input and 
feedback from the Executive Committee of the 
Academic Senate, the President’s Cabinet, the 
Deans’ Council, the cross-divisional WASC 
Capacity and Preparatory Review Subcommittee, 
and the Educational Effectiveness Subcommittee. 

FRAMING THE REVIEW PROCESS 

Overview and Goals for the Accreditation 
Review Process 

Through an iterative process of seeking campus-
wide input on important issues and concerns, Cal 
Poly Pomona has identified the following 
overarching theme within which to frame its 
review process: “Cultivating excellence: 
Building a learning-centered model of 
polytechnic education.” 

The specific themes within this framework are: 

1. 
Institutional Excellence: Demonstrating our 
growth as an outstanding learning institution 
in an urban environment that serves a 
multitude of student needs. 
2. 
Evolution of the Teacher-Scholar: Fostering 
the synergy between teaching, scholarship, 
creative activities, and practice. 
3. 
Student Success: Propelling a diverse group 
of learners toward extraordinary life 
achievements. 
Following the special visit in 2003, the campus 
began several initiatives, such as Facilitating 
Graduation, Learning Centeredness, 
Prioritization and Recovery, Enrollment 
Management, and Assessment of Student 
Learning and Advising, that connect with the 

above three themes. Each initiative has generated 
new ways of working and set new expectations 
for work on common issues. Cal Poly Pomona 
begins this reaccreditation cycle at a time when 
these separate initiatives are well-positioned to be 
integrated and institutionalized. The discipline of 
reaccreditation will facilitate the integration 
process and help us establish the following 
outcomes as part of standard practice on campus. 

We envision three important outcomes of the 
reaccreditation process. 

OUTCOME #1: ESTABLISH AN ONGOING 
PRACTICE OF INQUIRY AND ANALYSIS. 

The campus will establish key indicators of 
performance and attainment that we can use to 
assess our progress toward achieving our focal 
goals. Some indicators are already tracked and 
reported on campus; others will likely emerge 
from the Prioritization and Recovery process. 
We will use the reaccreditation process to be 
more intentional about aligning those indicators 
with the University mission and goals and to 
institutionalize their use in decision-making 
processes. We will know we have made progress 
toward this outcome when we routinely ask, 
answer, and publish the indicators for the 
question “How are we doing” about each of our 
key goals. 

OUTCOME #2: INTEGRATE AND ALIGN 
ACTIVITIES WITH THE UNIVERSITY MISSION 
AND GOALS AND WITH EACH OTHER. 

The key question here is, “What should we be 
doing, given our mission?” The Prioritization 
and Recovery process will give us more 
experience with articulating how our actions line 
up with our goals. We expect to institutionalize 
ongoing monitoring of the extent to which we are 
doing what we say is important, investing 
appropriate resources to achieve expected 
outcomes, and engaging in initiatives that are 
necessary and effective. 

- 7 -



OUTCOME #3: DEVELOP THE HABITS OF 
ONGOING REFLECTION, IMPROVEMENT, 
AND PLANNING THAT ARE CENTRAL TO A 
LEARNING ORGANIZATION. 

The key question here is, “Given our current level 
of performance on our goals, what is the best way 
to proceed?” It is not sufficient to gather data on 
key performance indicators or align current 
activities with the mission and goals; it is 
essential to plan effective strategies for achieving 
those goals. Although several strategic initiatives 
are underway, and individual departments and 
colleges may think strategically, the 
reaccreditation process will foster campus-wide 
engagement in learning from evidence, as well as 
planning efforts that flow from that learning. 

Moving forward, we expect that these outcomes 
will facilitate the exploration of our themes and 
result in a self-sustaining and self-correcting 
approach to working toward our goals. 

Approach for Capacity and Preparatory 
Review 

The Capacity and Preparatory Review at Cal Poly 
Pomona will involve the University’s self-
assessment of its capacity under the four 
standards; be grounded in the University 
mission, vision, and goals; and address the three 
key themes detailed above. 
The cornerstone of preparation for the Capacity 
and Preparatory Review is the Prioritization and 
Recovery Process that is already underway. Key 
elements of this process are the identification of 
review criteria within each division and the 
collection of a variety of indicators of 
performance on those criteria. Although the five 
divisions have developed different criteria for 
evaluating their programs within the divisions, 
the different sets of criteria all share two 
characteristics – they are consistent with the 
University mission, vision, and goals, and they 
address issues of quality and effective 
management of resources. At the University 
level, a common set of criteria will be applied to 
programs across divisions to make decisions 

about allocation of resources and organizational 
structures. 

In the Division of Academic Affairs, quantitative 
indicators that are being collected include data on 
student applications, enrollments, academic 
performance, persistence and graduation, 
number of full-time versus part-time faculty, 
faculty workload, FTE taught, budget 
expenditures, and grants and contract activity, 
among others. A special database is being built 
for the project, and the plan is to continually add 
to that database and produce reports from it each 
year. 

Some key capacity questions that will be 
addressed in Prioritization and Recovery include: 

• 
Does Cal Poly Pomona have the capacity to 
promote its mission and vision to both 
external and internal constituencies? 
• 
Does the University have the appropriate 
resources to meet the demand for access to 
its academic programs? 
• 
Does the University have the appropriate 
structures and processes in place to foster 
the well-being and success of its diverse 
student body? 
• 
What resources have been identified to 
support the learn-by-doing philosophy 
embedded in learning programs 
throughout the University? 
• 
How does Cal Poly Pomona achieve an 
appropriate balance of full-time and part-
time faculty to assure student learning in 
academic programs? 
• 
What is the appropriate student to faculty 
ratio needed to support Cal Poly Pomona’s 
learn-by-doing philosophy? 
• 
How does Cal Poly Pomona most 
effectively deploy resources to support 
faculty professional development and 
scholarly activities? 
• 
What is the appropriate balance of 
undergraduate to graduate students to 
assure the delivery of quality academic 
programs? 
- 8 -



• 
Is space utilized in the most effective way to 
support student learning, faculty 
professional development, and the effective 
delivery of services? 
• 
How does Cal Poly Pomona most 
effectively deploy technology for the 
purposes of supporting and enhancing 
teaching and learning, enhancing support 
services to students, and increasing 
administrative efficiencies? 
Because this process is based on the campus 
mission and goals and is focused on budget 
recovery and alignment of resources, it logically 
lays the groundwork for the Capacity and 
Preparatory Review. To build on this process 
and connect it to the review, a Capacity and 
Preparatory Review Subcommittee has been 
appointed, consisting of administrators in the five 
divisions as well as four faculty members (see 
Appendix VIII). That group has been meeting 
since February 2006 to develop its work plan for 
the next two years. One of its first tasks is to 
align the criteria and indicators from the 
Prioritization and Recovery process with the four 
standards. 

To capture and organize the data generated by 
the Prioritization and Recovery process, as well 
as additional data from other sources, the 
University will develop an institutional electronic 
portfolio. Reflective essays will focus on capacity 
issues related to the three themes. 

Approach for Educational Effectiveness 
Review 

The Educational Effectiveness Review at Cal Poly 
Pomona will involve the University’s self-
assessment of its educational effectiveness under 
the four standards; be grounded in the University 
mission, vision, and goals; and address the three 
organizing themes detailed above, with particular 
emphasis on issues related to student success. 

In general, our goal for the Educational 
Effectiveness Review process is that by the time 
the report is due, we will have asked and 
answered the broad question, “What has 

changed?” and have meaningful evidence to 
support our answer. In addition, the broad 
questions associated with our outcomes for the 
review will be addressed from an effectiveness 
perspective: 

• 
How are we doing? 
• 
What should we be doing? 
• 
How should we proceed? 
Theme #1: “Institutional Excellence” 

The focus of this theme is to demonstrate our 
growth as an outstanding learning institution in 
an urban environment that serves a multitude of 
student needs. Key questions under this theme 
include: 1) Are we successfully publicizing the 
mission and essential characteristics of Cal Poly 
Pomona and using this visibility to attract 
funding and recruit superior faculty and 
administrators; 2) How effective are our outreach 
and recruitment campaigns in attracting well-
prepared students from diverse socioeconomic 
and ethnic backgrounds; 3) How effectively are 
we creating a sense of community among all 
members of the University; and 4) What are our 
“programs of distinction,” especially those 
related to enabling learning among a variety of 
types of learners? 

Important data to address some of those issues 
are already being collected as part of the 
Prioritization and Recovery process. Those data 
include annual grants and contracts activity at the 
program level, annual gifts at both the program 
and University level, and annual student admit to 
student enrollment ratios, by gender and 
ethnicity. In addition, the University will 
conduct a campus climate survey to assess 
improvements over the five years since the last 
survey was administered. The University will 
also conduct a marketing survey to determine the 
effectiveness of its public relations efforts, and it 
is in the process of developing a campus-wide 
expo of “Best Practices in Learning,” that will 
become an annual event during the fall quarter. 

- 9 -



Theme #2: “Evolution of the Teacher-
Scholar” 

The teacher-scholar concept is not new to 
academia. One can find many examples where a 
faculty member's responsibilities are described 
separately in terms of delivery of instruction 
(teacher) and research activities (scholar). What is 
unique to Cal Poly Pomona is the way in which 
its faculty members seek to blend the delivery of 
instruction and research or creative activities into 
one setting. That is, the goal at Cal Poly Pomona 
is to foster the synergy between teaching, 
scholarship, creative activities, and practice. Key 
questions under this theme include: 1) How do 
teaching and scholarship enhance each other; 2) 
Are we effectively achieving a hybrid between 
teaching and scholarship; and 3) How effective 
are our faculty review process, reward structure, 
and professional development opportunities in 
promoting the teacher-scholar model? 

Key indicators that are already being collected 
include numbers of faculty publications, 
qualitative data on departmental support for 
faculty development and scholarship, and a 
survey of junior faculty on their perceptions of 
faculty development at Cal Poly Pomona. 
Additional evidence that will be developed 
includes faculty publications in assessment or 
disciplinary teaching journals, numbers of 
students involved in undergraduate research 
experiences, and faculty publications with 
student co-authors. Finally, a plan is being 
discussed for the University Reappointment, 
Tenure and Promotion (RTP) Committee to 
conduct a review of all departmental RTP criteria. 

Theme #3: “Student Success” 

The focus of this theme is how to propel a diverse 
group of learners toward extraordinary life 
achievements. Key questions to be addressed 
under this theme include: 1) To what extent are 
Cal Poly Pomona students attaining desired 
learning outcomes, both at the program and 
University level, as a result of their curricular and 
co-curricular learning experiences at Cal Poly 
Pomona; 2) How has Cal Poly Pomona impacted 

students’ personal development; and 3) How has 
Cal Poly Pomona expanded the educational, 
career and other future opportunities of its 
students? 

Evidence that is already being collected includes 
academic program assessment plans, results of an 
alumni survey, results of the National Survey of 
Student Engagement (NSSE), results of the 
Collegiate Learning Assessment, student 
graduation rates by cohort, gender and ethnicity, 
and results of student learning outcomes 
assessments conducted in leadership and cross-
cultural programs sponsored by the Division of 
Student Affairs. 

Cal Poly Pomona plans to administer the NSSE 
again in spring 2008 to assess improvements 
since the 2005 survey administration and will 
administer another alumni survey in 2009. The 
University will continue to collect data through 
the Collegiate Learning Assessment Lumina 
Longitudinal Study. In addition, the results of 
academic program assessments and GE area 
assessments will be collected, as well as regular 
reports of how programs are using those results 
for continuous improvement. The Assessment of 
Advising initiative is well underway, and results 
from assessments of advising programs will be 
collected. Finally, additional units within the 
Division of Student Affairs are developing 
student learning outcomes and methods for 
assessing their attainment. 

The Educational Effectiveness Subcommittee has 
been appointed and its members have already 
begun their work (see Appendix IX). This group, 
with input from the campus community, has 
taken the lead in formalizing a set of University 
learning outcomes. Moving forward, this group 
is charged with serving as the campus-wide 
assessment planning and coordinating 
committee. It will collaborate with a liaison in 
each of several existing groups working on 
projects related to student learning to collect 
information on the groups’ activities (including 
evidence related to those activities) and to 
facilitate coordination between the groups. 

- 10 -



DEMONSTRATING A FEASIBLE 
PLAN OF WORK & ENGAGEMENT 
OF KEY CONSTITUENCES 

Workplan & Milestones 

Capacity and Preparatory Review 

A Capacity and Preparatory Review 
Subcommittee has been appointed and begun 
working. The following work plan is anticipated. 

MAY 2006 

• 
Institutional Proposal submitted 
JUNE 2006 

• 
Institutional Proposal submitted 
SUMMER 2006 

• 
Analysis of Prioritization and Recovery data 
• 
Create structure for institutional electronic portfolio 
FALL 2006 

• 
Review Prioritization and Recovery recommendations 
• 
Begin working on reflective essays 
• 
Begin quarterly data collection; populate portfolio 
WINTER & SPRING 2007 

• 
Continue data collection 
• 
Solicit feedback on reflective essays 
SUMMER 2007 

• 
Analyze data collected and prepare reports for campus 
dissemination 
FALL 2007 

• 
Engage campus community in discussions of the data 
• 
Address issues raised by the data 
• 
Begin drafting report 
• 
Continue data collection 
WINTER & SPRING 2008 

• 
Solicit input on drafts of report 
• 
Continue data collection 
• 
Analyze and disseminate data 
SUMMER 2008 

• 
Submit Capacity & Preparatory Review Report 
• 
Prepare for Capacity & Preparatory Review team visit 
FALL 2008 

• 
Capacity & Preparatory Review team visit 
WINTER & SPRING 2009 

• 
Review Capacity & Preparatory Review team report 
Educational Effectiveness Review 

An Educational Effectiveness Subcommittee has 
been appointed and begun working. The 
following work plan is anticipated. 

SUMMER 2006 

• 
Finalize list of University student learning outcomes 
FALL 2006 

• 
Campus-wide “Best Practices in Learning Expo” 
• 
Review educational effectiveness indicators from 
academic programs 
WINTER & SPRING 2007 

• 
Conduct workshops on using data to improve programs 
• 
Follow-up Assessment of Advising Conference 
SUMMER 2007 

• 
Provide Capacity & Preparatory Review Subcommittee on 
Educational Effectiveness-related activities 
FALL 2007 

• 
Campus-wide “Best Practices in Learning Expo” 
• 
Review how programs are using assessment data for 
improvement 
• 
Administer the Admitted Student Questionnaire (ASQ) 
WINTER & SPRING 2008 

• 
Provide feedback on Capacity & Preparatory Review 
Report 
• 
Continue collection of effectiveness data 
SUMMER 2008 

• 
Analyze data collected and prepare reports for campus 
dissemination 
FALL 2008 

• 
Campus-wide “Best Practices in Learning Expo” 
WINTER & SPRING 2009 

• 
Review Capacity & Preparatory Review team report 
• 
Continue collection of effectiveness data 
FALL 2009 

• 
Campus-wide “Best Practices in Learning Expo” 
• 
Begin drafting Educational Effectiveness Review Report 
• 
Continue data collection 
WINTER & SPRING 2010 

• 
Solicit inputs on drafts of report 
SUMMER 2010 

• 
Submit Educational Effectiveness Review Report 
• 
Prepare for Educational Effectiveness Review team visit 
FALL 2010 

• 
Educational Effectiveness Review team visit 
- 11 -



Effectiveness of Data Gathering and 
Analysis Systems 

Cal Poly Pomona has several key structures and 
processes in place to support effective data 
gathering and analysis. The Office of 
Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning 
(IRAP) has as its mission to enhance the 
institutional effectiveness of Cal Poly Pomona by 
facilitating the use of meaningful data in decision 
making and planning. The office, staffed with 
both institutional research and assessment 
professionals, provides official reports of campus 
statistics to external and internal constituencies. 
It also conducts research studies on factors 
related to student persistence and success, plays a 
lead role in institution-level assessment efforts, 
such as alumni surveys, the National Survey of 
Student Engagement (NSSE), and the Collegiate 
Learning Assessment, supports the 
implementation of the General Education (GE) 
Assessment Policy, consults with academic 
programs in the development and 
implementation of assessment plans, and 
supports campus initiatives and planning. IRAP 
also manages a data warehouse that allows end 
users across campus to access a variety of near-
real time data reports on such topics as 
applications, admissions, enrollments, class 
registration activity, student profiles and contact 
information, and grade distributions. The system 
also allows for some customization of reports so 
that users can perform special analyses. The 
Executive Director of IRAP reports directly to the 
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs 
and serves as the Accreditation Liaison Officer 
and as a member of the WASC Steering 
Committee. 

Also reporting to the Provost is the Director of 
Academic Resources, whose office is charged 
with administration of budget, facilities, 
technology and staff resources for the Division of 
Academic Affairs. This office provides reporting 
and analyses to support budget development and 
planning for the division; analyzes classroom and 
office utilization for the division to facilitate 
decisions about effective use of space; tracks and 
analyzes staffing needs for the division, and 

develops ways to analyze the relationships 
between elements such as budgets, salaries, 
workloads, and student-faculty ratios. The 
Director of Academic Resources serves on the 
Capacity and Preparatory Review Subcommittee. 
In addition, the Associate Vice President for 
Undergraduate Studies oversees the 
implementation of academic program review and 
assessment and works closely with the Executive 
Director of IRAP to support the implementation 
of the GE Assessment Policy. The Associate Vice 
President for Undergraduate Studies also serves 
on the WASC Steering Committee. 

Other structures and processes that will be critical 
in providing data to support the Capacity and 
Preparatory Review and the Educational 
Effectiveness Review are the Office of 
Administrative Affairs Information Services, 
which will facilitate the collection of financial and 
human resource data, the cross-divisional 
planning committee for the new data warehouse 
that will come online in 2007, and the process that 
has been developed for collecting and analyzing 
data for Prioritization and Recovery. 

Commitment of Resources to Support the 
Accrediting Review 

Essential resources to support centralized efforts 
in the accreditation review process have been 
assured by the President and the Provost. 
Included in those efforts would be coordination 
of activities across campus and data collection, 
analysis, and dissemination. Most of that work 
will take place in the Capacity and Preparatory 
Review Subcommittee and the Educational 
Effectiveness Subcommittee. Material support for 
centralized efforts will be in the form of 
reassigned time for faculty and backfill for 
administrator or staff time. The administration 
also will provide resources to ensure the success 
of the new campus-wide data warehouse and will 
provide support for campus-wide workshops, 
conferences, or expos. Resources to support 
review-related activities that take place at the 
department level, such as collecting or tracking 
department-level data, will be provided by 
colleges or divisions. 

- 12 -



STIPULATIONS 

• 
Cal Poly Pomona is using the review process to demonstrate its fulfillment of the two Core 
Commitments, that it will engage in the process with seriousness and candor, that data presented 
are accurate and that the Institutional Presentation will fairly present the institution. 
• 
That the institution has published and publicly available policies in force as identified by the 
Commission (in Appendix 1 of the WASC Handbook). Such policies will be available for review on 
request throughout the period of accreditation. 
• 
Cal Poly Pomona will abide by procedures adopted by the Commission to meet United States 
Department of Education (USDE) procedural requirements. 
• 
Cal Poly Pomona will submit all regularly required data, and any data specifically requested by the 
Commission during the period of Accreditation. 
• 
Cal Poly Pomona has reviewed its off-campus programs and distance education degree programs 
to ensure that they have been approved as required by the WASC Substantive Change process. 
J. Michael Ortiz 
President 
-13-



APPENDICES 


I. GE Assessment Policy 
II. University Student Learning Outcomes 
III. Descriptions of Committees Demonstrating Shared Governance 
• 
Enrollment Management Advisory Council and its subcommittees 
• 
Information Technology (IT) Governance 
• 
University Learning-Centered Task Force 
• 
All-University Teacher Education Committee 
• 
University Advising Task Force 
IV. Prioritization and Recovery Divisional Summaries 
V. Results of the 2005 National Survey of Student Engagement 
VI. WASC Steering Committee 
VII. Results of Campus Surveys Related to WASC Themes 
VIII. Capacity and Preparatory Review Subcommittee 
IX. Educational Effectiveness Subcommittee 
- 14 -



APPENDIX I: GE Assessment Policy 

CALIFORNIA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY POMONA 
ACADEMIC SENATE 
GE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT POLICY 


AS-2156-045/AH 
Academic Senate Amended/Adopted 11/17/04 
Transmitted to President Ortiz 11/18/04 
Accepted by President Ortiz 12/6/04 

GE Assessment Policy 

Introduction 

The assessment of the General Education program (GE) is an outcomes assessment of the program 
mandated by the Trustees of the California State University (CSU) in Executive Order 595 and by the 
senior division of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) in their Standards. The 
assessment is expected to address the place of each area of GE and the GE program in a student's 
education, and, after students have fulfilled this part of the GE requirement, are the expectations of 
the program being met. These expected outcomes, the policies of how they are to be judged, and 
conclusions about the expectations are to be published by the Office of Academic Affairs for the 
campus community. The assessment data remains in the hands of the faculty. 

This assessment does not collect information or make judgments about student grades in a course, 
how effective a teacher may be in a course, or anything about specific requirements of a particular 
class. It does not even concern itself with the question of whether the outcomes expected for this GE 
area are explicitly learned in that particular class. Because the assessment is about the outcomes of a 
program segment that can be fulfilled by a variety of different courses, the outcomes expectations 
will, necessarily, be broad in nature. 

GE Area Assessment Committee Structure 

The Ad Hoc GE Assessment Committee proposes the assessment is to be conducted by 16 
individual committees, each of which is composed of faculty actively teaching in that area of GE. 
Each area committee will be supported by a non-voting representative of the Division of Academic 
Affairs who will provide advice on administrative matters. As a group these faculty are referred to 
as the "Area -- Assessment Committee." Each Area Committee determines the outcomes 
expectations and measures the effectiveness of that area of GE. Each Area Assessment Committee 
submits its report to the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate for review of form and 
procedures. The Executive Committee forwards the report to the Academic Senate with its 
recommendations for approval or modification. The policies in the report take effect after the 


recommendations/modifications of the Academic Senate are approved by the campus president. 
Courses that are not assessed regularly risk losing their GE status. 

Establishing Area Assessment Committees 

Cal Poly Pomona has 16 areas defined in its GE program at this time. Some areas involve only a 
single academic department; others involve numerous academic departments. For each area the 
Office of Undergraduate Studies (or its successor) will provide the administrative/clerical support 
for the Area Assessment Committee. It will also provide space for the Area Assessment Committee 
to store the documentary evidence under the committee's control and upon which committee 
decisions have been based for a period of up to five years. 

Each year the Office of Undergraduate Studies compiles two lists of faculty who have taught courses 
in each GE area during the past 12 months. One list is of Tenured/Tenure-track faculty and the other 
is of Adjunct Faculty who are currently employed by Cal Poly Pomona. This pool of faculty function 
as a virtual department to set and examine the GE assessment policies and results. 

The Office of Undergraduate Studies will poll the pool of faculty to determine initially what 
procedure the faculty want to use (e.g., meet as a committee of the whole, or select a working group 
to draft the proposals for the full group to approve), how they want to meet (e.g., once annually at a 
retreat or more frequently in shorter meetings), and who will chair the assessment effort for that 
area. A member of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Academic Senate on GE Assessment and the 
Associate Provost will convene these organizational meetings and serve as resources until a chair of 
the Area Assessment Committee is elected. The Executive Director of Institutional Research, 
Assessment, and Planning (IRAP) will be invited to these initial meetings to describe the services 
provided by IRAP in support of assessment activities. In general these Area Assessment Committees 
are expected to be self-sustaining, but if an unexpected event occurs the Office of Undergraduate 
Studies would need to re-poll the group to get it restarted in its activities. 

Adjunct faculty are invited, but not required, to participate in Area Assessment Committees since 
they are not currently compensated for this kind of activity. Tenured/Tenure-track faculty are 
expected to participate as part of their assigned related duties. If the pool of faculty decide to have 
representatives draft policies and review outcomes, Adjunct Faculty will elect their representative(s) 
from among their number in approximate proportion to their fraction of the total pool. The intent is 
to have the people who actually teach the GE courses make the academic decisions. 

The Provost will appoint an ex officio, non-voting member to work with the faculty of the Area 
Assessment Committees to help them achieve their assessment goals. The ex officio member is 
neither an approver nor an enforcer; nor would the ex officio member be eligible to serve as 
committee chair. The Office of Undergraduate Studies will arrange for committee support to include 
securing meeting facilities, providing photocopy services, and seeing that calendar schedules are 
met as well as seeing that all Area Assessment Committee members have the appropriate 
documents to make their decisions. Among these would be Executive order 595 and the current 
WASC Standards concerning GE; these must be followed in all Area Assessment Committee 
decisions. In addition, the area GE Program description currently found on the Academic Affairs 
web site must either be followed or revised. (To the extent that any recommendations by the Area 
Assessment Committee approved by the Academic Senate and signed by the campus president 


change the Area GE requirements, the revised requirements become binding for future campus GE 
actions, and the Academic Affairs web site and related documents should be updated accordingly.). 
Historic documents such as the 1986 description of the GE program at Cal Poly, Pomona, the 1994 
Cal Poly report to WASC on GE, and course enrollment statistics should be supplied to the Area 
Assessment Committee as needed. 

Area Assessment Committee Charge 

In the first annual cycle of GE assessment the Area Assessment Committee should determine the 
expected outcome(s) for this area of GE. Such a statement should consist of one or possibly two 
sentences that reflect the purpose of this area in the university curriculum. Because these 
expectations describe the outcome of this part of GE the statement should not reference anything 
that happens during the classes with GE status in that area. 

Next the Area Assessment Committee needs to identify between two and five pieces of Evidence 
that measure how well the desired Outcomes have been achieved. At least one of these pieces of 
Evidence must be from some activity occurring after students have completed the area GE classes. 
For example, students' communications skills in, say, a history class might serve as Evidence of the 
effectiveness of the communication portions of the GE program, or perhaps the mathematics skills 
exhibited in an engineering or psychology class would be Evidence of the mathematics GE 
effectiveness. Surveys of students have only a limited role among these pieces of Evidence. 

Evidence could consist of portfolios prepared by students, and assimilated knowledge exhibited in a 
particular final exam question or portion of a term paper. It should be noted that this latter sort of 
Evidence of GE effectiveness is distinct from the skills and knowledge required by the particular 
class. For example, in an essay question on a history test a student could have all the kings of 
England mixed up and hence do poorly in the history class, but show good logical structure, 
punctuation, and grammar in the essay so documenting that the basic communication skills have 
been mastered. There is no simple relation between a student's mastering the expected GE outcomes 
and his/her grade in a particular class. 

Once the GE Area program outcomes have been established and the forms of Evidence determined, 
then the Area Assessment Committee needs to generate a rubric and set of criteria for meeting these 
expectations. With these tools Evidence is examined to determine if the GE program outcome 
expectations have been met. The Area Assessment Committee's first report to the Academic Senate 
will contain the Outcome statement, the acceptable evidence, and the rubric. 

In future GE assessment cycles selected classes will be examined by the Area Assessment Committee 
using Academic Senate-approved policies to judge the effectiveness of the GE Program. Every 
course (not necessarily every section) should be examined at least once every five years. At least 
some of the data should be examined to see if there is a significant difference between native Cal 
Poly Pomona students and transfer students. Based on the results of these assessments, the rubric or 
the outcome statement for an area of GE may need to be modified. An annual report by each Area 
Assessment Committee should be sent to the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate stating 
the conclusions drawn from their assessment activities. Any recommendations for a change in 
assessment policies will be included in that report, and the report will be forwarded to the 
Academic Senate for its approval and subsequently to the President for his/her approval. 


Time Lines 

Starting at the beginning of the quarter after the President approves this policy the Office of 
Undergraduate Studies will begin facilitating the organization of the Area Assessment Committees 
for Areas B1, B2, B3, and D1 of the lower division GE areas, distributing documents, and arranging 
meeting schedules. At the start of the second regular quarter after the President's approval of this 
policy these four Area Assessment Committees will begin formulating outcome statements, 
evidence lists, and rubrics. After these policies have been approved by the Academic Senate and the 
President, an annual assessment cycle will begin, and the effectiveness of that part of the GE 
program evaluated. A table showing this time line is attached. The remaining eight lower division 
GE areas and the upper division GE will have their time lines shifted back one year by this 
assessment. 

After all the lower division GE areas have been assessed for one full cycle (the end of the second 
year of the program since the first year produces policies but no assessment) a similar process would 
begin for upper division GE courses. The upper division GE involves a larger number and more 
diverse collection of courses. Experience gained working with the more homogeneous lower 
division GE will help in dealing with the more complex upper division situation. In addition, the 
WASC Standards require evidence that the upper division GE courses are actually integrating the 
outcomes of the lower division courses in their respective areas of GE. Clearly this can only be done 
once the outcomes have been defined and tested in a minimum of one annual assessment cycle. 

Annual reports from the Area Assessment Committees would be due at the office of the Academic 
Senate in electronic format as shown in the time-line table. 


APPENDIX II: University Student Learning Outcomes 

Introduction 

The WASC Steering Committee charged the Educational Effectiveness Sub-Committee with drafting 
a statement of the educational objectives of the university. 

The sub-committee carefully considered the university mission statement: 

Cal Poly Pomona’s mission is to advance learning and knowledge by linking theory and practice in all 
disciplines, and to prepare students for lifelong learning, leadership and careers in a changing, multicultural 
world. 

After research, reflection, deliberation and consultation, the EE sub-committee submits the 
following draft statement to contribute to campus conversations about the educational objectives of 
Cal Poly Pomona. 

Draft Statement of Educational Objectives 

Through participating in curricular and co-curricular learning opportunities, the graduates of 
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, will develop the following competencies: 

Critical Thinking 

• to think clearly and logically, analyze and interpret information, evaluate ideas, and draw 
inferences through reasoning 
Problem Solving 

• to identify, formulate, assess, investigate, evaluate and solve problems effectively and creatively 
Quantitative Reasoning 

• to apply quantitative reasoning to understand, analyze and explain evidence 
Communication Skills 

• to apply verbal, written, visual and listening skills to communicate persuasively and coherently to 
diverse audiences 
21st Century Literacies 

• 
to apply 21st century literacies including information, quantitative and scientific, to locate, 
evaluate, use and communicate among a wide variety of sources and tools 
Interpersonal Skills 

• to apply teamwork and leadership skills to achieve common goals 
in a diverse multicultural environment 

Liberal Learning 

• to demonstrate knowledge and appreciation of the physical and natural world, and of the 
development and legacies of diverse world cultures 
Disciplinary Learning 

• to apply fundamental information, concepts, theories and methods in their principal disciplines; 
and to successfully integrate, adapt and apply their disciplinary knowledge 
Integrating and Transferring Learning 

• to make connections across disciplines and between current and new knowledge; and to apply 
their knowledge in professional and community life 
Ethical Understanding 

to understand and apply ethical considerations in professional, personal and social life 

Intentional Learning 

• to employ self-knowledge of the social and cognitive factors influencing their learning, and 
engage in ongoing reflection and exploration for the purpose of personal development 
Global Citizenship 

to understand the responsibilities of being a global citizen and the role of civic engagement in 
fostering a democratic society 

Lifelong Learning 

• to exercise Cal Poly Pomona’s learn-by-doing approach in real-world situations, and as a basis for 
lifelong learning 
Rev. May 8, 2006 


APPENDIX III: Descriptions of Committees 
Demonstrating Shared Governance 


Enrollment Management Advisory Council 

http://www.dsa.csupomona.edu/enrollmentservices/emac/ 

The Enrollment Management Advisory Council reflects an institutional commitment to student success 
and provides a structure for the campus-wide collaboration that is essential to effectively support student 
learning. The Council promotes and facilitates the involvement/commitment of key campus constituents 
in achieving the following objectives: 

. 
Provide for the development, implementation and integration of strategies, infrastructure, 
programs and resources that contribute to student learning and the successful recruitment, 
persistence and graduation of students. 
. 
Provide a structure for the collaboration/shared governance of faculty, students, staff and 
administrators that is essential to initiate and sustain institutional change. 
. 
Promote the integration of academic learning and student development to enhance student 
success. 
. 
Provide a platform for discussion of annual and long-term enrollment targets and goals. 
. 
Provide referrals/recommendations to the appropriate decision-making bodies for action. 
. 
Develop, sustain and communicate a campus-wide enrollment management effort that is based 
on the university’s mission, vision, strategic and academic plans and that is responsive to the 
unique profiles and needs of each of the seven colleges and the Collins School. 
2005-06 Objectives 

The objectives of the Council are updated annually and reflect topics/issues relevant to the current 
enrollment challenges and opportunities of the campus. The work of the Council builds on the 
accomplishments and direction of prior years’ Councils. 

Most of the work of the Advisory Council is conducted by subcommittees under the overall direction of 
an Executive Council. The five subcommittees for 2005-06 are: 

 Academic Quality and Support 
 First Year Transition and Experience 
 Marketing and Outreach 
 Remediation 
 Student Scholarships 

Enrollment Management Advisory Council Executive Committee 

http://www.dsa.csupomona.edu/enrollmentservices/emac/exec.asp 

The Executive Committee is tri-chaired by the Chair of the Academic Senate, the Provost and Vice 
President for Academic Affairs, and the Vice President for Student Affairs. 

The Executive Committee is responsible for: 

• 
Overseeing and coordinating the work of the entire Council 
• 
Meeting at least once a month at regularly scheduled times to perform such functions as 
reviewing subcommittee reports and taking action on subcommittee recommendations, 
reviewing progress, addressing obstacles, identifying needed resources, and making any 
mid-course corrections 
• 
Providing for coordination and communication among the subcommittees 
• 
Ensuring regular communication with the campus community through periodic progress 
reports and recommendations to the campus leadership, including the President’s 
Cabinet, the Deans Action Council and the Academic Senate 
• 
Ensuring that campus constituents remain informed and have the opportunity to provide 
feedback. 
The Executive Committee will meet monthly and all EMAC members are encouraged to attend 
the monthly Executive Committee meetings. EMAC subcommittees will meet every two weeks 
or more frequently if needed. Meetings of the full membership of the Enrollment Management 
Advisory Council will be held quarterly. 

Academic Quality and Support Subcommittee 

http://www.dsa.csupomona.edu/enrollmentservices/emac/academicquality.asp 

Identify current campus policies, procedures and practices that impact timely and successful degree 
completion and make recommendations as appropriate for policy/procedure changes. 

2005-06 Objectives: 

• 
Review the graduation application and degree check process, deadlines, timelines and 
communication to students and make recommendations as appropriate for improved services to 
students and academic advisors. 
• 
Review campus policies and practices (i.e., course drops, withdrawals, incompletes and repeats) 
and make recommendations as appropriate for policy/process changes. 
• 
Seek ways to strengthen the role of the academic councils and academic clubs and increase their 
connections with faculty, deans, associate deans and academic departments. 
• 
Continue to evaluate and make recommendations related to bottleneck courses and other course 
availability and scheduling issues. 
• 
Continue to coordinate efforts with the Academic Advising Task Force to assess and enhance 
advising and make additional recommendations. 

Marketing and Outreach Subcommittee 

http://www.dsa.csupomona.edu/enrollmentservices/emac/marketing.asp 

Review current practices and communications to prospective and current students. Recommend 
strategies to better communicate and promote the mission, strengths and uniqueness of Cal Poly Pomona 
both internally and externally to effectively attract, enroll, and graduate students with the potential to 
succeed. 

2005-06 Objectives: 

• 
Evaluate effectiveness of current policies and practices in attracting and facilitating the 
enrollment and engagement of students, including graduate, international and credential/teacher 
education. 
• 
Evaluate and make recommendations on how centralized recruitment efforts can be aligned to 
support the recruitment needs of the seven colleges and Collins School. 
• 
Evaluate and recommend initiatives to provide centralized support of the recruitment and 
outreach efforts of multiple campus constituents. 
• 
Play an active advisor role in the creation, design and dissemination of the university's 
communication and information flow to prospective and current students. 
• 
Foster coordination/integration of the prospective and current student communication plan with 
the university public relations communication/marketing plan and ASI. 
• 
Research and recommend practices/methodologies/communication modes and strategies that are 
responsive to our current student profile. 
• 
Collaborate with the EMAC First Year Transition and Experience Subcommittee to evaluate and 
make recommendations on the appropriate communication with or involvement of parents and 
family members in supporting their students’ college education. 
Remediation Subcommittee 

http://www.dsa.csupomona.edu/enrollmentservices/emac/remediation.asp 

Review current policies and practices related to remediation, recommend improvements, and investigate 
additional opportunities to support students in the successful completion of their preparatory 
coursework within their first year. 

2005-06 Objectives 

• 
Evaluate best practices at other institutions (CSU campuses and community colleges) and 
consider/recommend creative ways to deliver preparatory course work and support and tutorial 
services. 
• 
Analyze testing time frame and communication to prospective students regarding testing and 
preparatory coursework requirements and recommend improvements. 
• 
Evaluate the benefits and feasibility of a cohort or learning community approach to remediation. 
• 
Evaluate the impact of enrollment in remedial coursework prior to matriculation and make 
recommendations. 

First Year Transition and Experience Subcommittee 

http://www.dsa.csupomona.edu/enrollmentservices/emac/transition.asp 

Evaluate campus policies, procedures and practices that support student success and satisfaction in the 
first year; make recommendations to engage multiple campus constituents in the development of an 
expanded orientation/first year transition model that promotes student success and engagement and 
supports the efforts of the individual colleges. 

2005-06 Objectives: 

• 
Building on the subcommittee’s prior research over the last two years, evaluate and recommend 
interventions or communications that would appropriately complement a first year course for 
entering freshmen and transfers, particularly those that would be appropriate for the winter and 
spring quarters. 
• 
Evaluate the pattern of student engagement in the first year, including a review of the 2005 
BroncoFusion evaluation report and the NSSE survey completed in spring 2005. Make 
recommendations as appropriate. 
• 
Investigate the possibility/desirability of coordinating student workshops/seminars for first year 
students during the 2005-06 academic year and make recommendations for implementation as 
appropriate. 
• 
Collaborate with the EMAC Marketing and Outreach Subcommittee to evaluate and make 
recommendations on appropriate communication with or involvement of parents and family 
members in supporting their students’ college education. 
Student Scholarships Subcommittee Charge 

http://www.dsa.csupomona.edu/enrollmentservices/emac/scholarship.asp 

Evaluate available and potential scholarship opportunities for current and prospective students and 
make recommendations for an integrated campus approach to the utilization of scholarships for both 
general and targeted student populations to support enrollment and student success goals. 

2005-06 Objectives 

• 
Benchmark CPP scholarship programs with those offered at other institutions to recommend a 
framework for the expansion of scholarship opportunities for general and targeted student 
populations. 
• 
Evaluate progress of a centralized online scholarship information repository, search match 
engine, on-line scholarship application and make recommendations for enhancements. 
• 
Evaluate communication and marketing of scholarship opportunities to prospective and current 
students and recommend improvements. 
• 
Construct and recommend a model which identifies areas where funding is needed to attract and 
retain students with the potential to succeed and/or areas that are attractive to prospective and 
current donors. 
• 
Evaluate current and potential strategies or sources of scholarship funding at the college and 
university level and make recommendations. 

Information Technology (IT) Governance Committee 

http://www.csupomona.edu/~itgovernance/execcommittee.html 

Function 

Provide strategic direction and oversight. Review and approve IT projects that require significant 
resources or have substantial impact on the campus IT structure. 

http://www.csupomona.edu/~itgovernance/tlt.html 

Functions 

Development of a new and enhanced infrastructure to support technology use for instruction in 
classrooms and online; develop an overall strategy to support the instructional technology goals set by 
the IT Governance Executive Committee 

http://www.csupomona.edu/~itgovernance/standards.html 

Functions 

Develop plans to address the critical issues related to IT support on the campus; develop a strategy and 
process for adopting campus-wide standards for hardware and software. 

http://www.csupomona.edu/~itgovernance/admin.html 

Functions 

Set priorities for administrative computing projects, purchases, and systems development; develop 
overall strategy to support the administrative goals outlined by the IT Governance Executive Committee. 


University Learning Centered Task Force 

Charge 

• 
OVER-ARCHING OUTCOMES 
o 
To improve communication and understanding, as well as increase collaboration among 
members from different university divisions. 
o 
To base learning-centered activities and recommendations on university-wide input 
o 
To create a ‘university-level learning community’ in order to share ideas and knowledge of 
learning-centered principles and activities. 
o 
To advance the learning-centered transformation process. 
B. 
2005-06 Outcomes 
o 
Identify and recommend linkages for increased collaboration between divisions. 
o 
Identify and recommend changes to some university structures and/or processes in order to 
align then with learning-centered principles. 
o 
Increase engagement of the university community by creating opportunities for learning-
centered activities and discussions that appeal to the entire campus community. 
o 
Identify and recommend a vehicle to showcase best learning-centered practices on campus. 
o 
Propose ways to connect/integrate the university’s 3 main initiatives: Learning-Centered 
Transformation, Prioritization/Recovery, and WASC. 
o 
Assess progress toward creating a “tipping point” in CPP’s transformation to a learning-
centered university and make appropriate recommendations 
o 
Assess campus community’s understanding of the learning-centered initiative 
o 
Make recommendations on a transformational strategy for 2006-07 

All-University Teacher Education Committee 

Statement of Purpose 

“Teacher Education is central to the mission of the CSU and a priority at both the system and campus 
levels. It is essential that Cal Poly Pomona embrace preparation of teachers as a responsibility shared by 
all. The formation of this committee represents our clear commitment to make teacher preparation an all-
university responsibility. The goal in charging the committee is to achieve a clear vision and action plan 
that is endorsed by all our colleges and divisions of the University.” 

History of All University Committee on Teacher Education 

The All University Committee on Teacher Education grew out of the last accreditation by the California 
Commission on Teacher Credentialing. It was established as an ongoing entity that would play a major 
role after the CCTC review. It would serve as the advisory group for Cal Poly Pomona’s teacher 
education program. 


Priorities identified in the formation of the Committee included: 
--Overseeing and examining the Cal Poly Pomona teacher education curriculum. 
--Laying a foundation for increased collaboration with school districts and communities. 
--Planning the steps for working more closely with individual K-12 schools. 


Members’ Perceptions of Committee Roles 

Early in its history, Committee members were asked to share with the group what they thought the 
purposes and goals of the Committee should be. Answers included the following. 

--Bring University problems related to teacher education to a level that can be addressed. 

--Integrate the range of disciplines that need to be involved in teacher education. 

--Increase the stature of teacher education on the campus and of participation in teacher education 

activities. 

--Establish better communications and relations between CEIS and the other colleges. 

--Provide more information to other Colleges regarding teacher education at Cal Poly. 

Operational Aspects of the Committee 

In defining the operations of the All University Committee on Teacher Education, it was determined that 
a major portion of the work and activity would be done by the subcommittees. Concrete and detailed 
recommendations were to come out of each of the subcommittees. This tradition continues to exist. 


University Advising Task Force 

Mission Statement 
2005 

Revised 28 February 2005 

The mission of academic advising is to assist students in relating their needs, values, and abilities to 
their educational goals. The University is committed to comprehensive advising to help develop 
mature and self-directed students capable of thinking, judging, and making appropriate decisions. 

Vision Statement 

Academic advising at Cal Poly Pomona shall be a shared responsibility emphasizing the partnership 
between faculty, staff, and students in the attainment of educational goals. 

Philosophy Statement 

The faculty and staff of the university have a commitment to: 

• 
Promoting effective academic advising by assisting students in clarifying personal and 
career goals, developing educational goals consistent with the student’s academic abilities 
and aspirations, and evaluating progress toward established goals. 
• 
Promoting academic excellence to students. 
• 
Recognizing the diverse academic and cultural backgrounds of our students. 
• 
Utilizing the resources of the university by referring students to appropriate support 
services. 
Promoting a shared vision of academic progress emphasizing the students’ responsibility in seeking 
academic advising and the faculty/staff responsibility to provide current and accurate information and 
guidance. 


APPENDIX IV: Prioritization and Recovery Divisional Summaries 

I&IT Prioritization 
Prioritization and Recovery Summary – 2005-06 


Expected Outcomes: 

5 
Clear understanding of I&IT’s mission and values and how they relate to the university’s 

mission and goals 
5 
Identify programs and services we offer, want to offer, or are asked to offer 
5 
Develop criteria for prioritizing programs and services 


o 
Identify points of intersection among I&IT departments, and between I&IT and other 
divisions (both existing and potential) 
o 
Review our programs and services to determine whether they should receive increased 
support, decreased support, level support, be restructured, discontinued, or initiated 
o 
Prepare recommendations to IT Governance or the Academic Senate, where appropriate 
5 
Report progress and results through a website 
5 
Ensure that appropriate communication takes place as changes are anticipated, planned, and 
implemented 

The Cycle: 

Assess .. Evaluate .. Plan .. Implement .. Assess 

Progress to Date: 

• 
Mission and Core Values 
• 
Priorities 
• 
Define Programs & Services – 104 of them 
• 
A Prioritization Process – multi-tiered procedure 
• 
Initial Assessment of all 104 programs & services 
• 
2005-06 Budget Principles, Procedures, and Recommendations 
Who’s Doing It 

• 
P& R Committee consists of 
o 
Leadership Team: VP, AVP, 6 Directors, Executive Assistant to the VP 
o 
One Staff Member from each I&IT Department 
Work in Progress 

• 
Documenting Review-and-Enhancement Procedures in Process 
• 
Documenting Programs/Services Designated as Delivering High Quality for Low Cost to a 
Significant Number of Users 
• 
Evaluating in Detail Projects Designated as In Need of Further Review 
• 
2006-07 Budget Planning 
It’s all on the Web 

• 
http://www.csupomona.edu/~prioritization/iit/index.shtml 

Division of Student Affairs 
Prioritization and Recovery Summary – 2005-06 


The Division’s prioritization efforts began in May 2004, after our leadership had the opportunity to 
read and discuss “Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services” by Robert Dickeson. The Division 
also had the opportunity to discuss the book with Dr. Dickeson and evaluate strategies for how his 
recommendations could be applied to Student Affairs. 


As the University considered the adoption of an academic prioritization process, it was clear that 
non-academic areas would not fit perfectly into the process that would be developed for academic 
departments and programs. As such, each Division was charged to identify a comparable process 
that would be effective for the unique considerations of the Division. 


Prioritization Guiding Principals: 
In light of the significant financial and operating impacts on each department in the Division of 
Student Affairs, the Division adopted the following guiding principals for our Prioritization and 
Recovery efforts: 


• 
Student Affairs is fully committed to the preservation of all of our broad program functions, as 
they are essential to the educational mission of the University. 
• 
Due to the breadth, depth, and diversity of services and functions found in the Division of 
Student Affairs, the prioritization process would produce few meaningful results when 
comparing programs across the Division (e.g. comparing Housing with Admissions and Police). 
• 
The Dickeson strategies assume that resources exist in each program that can be reallocated to 
higher priorities of the Division or University. This is problematic for Student Affairs. Years of 
extensive budget and enrollment cuts have left our departments and programs without a 
minimal operating budget and this has greatly impacted the quality and quantity of available 
services. In addition, new demands, including the conversion to PeopleSoft and increased 
requests for assistance from other departments facing reductions, increased the pressure on 
departments for quality performance. 
• 
While the Division will not use this process for comparing programs in different departments, 
there is significant potential benefit for every department and unit to use the prioritization 
process to compare intra-departmental programs and services. Many of our individual programs 
offer a broad range of programs and services and could potentially benefit from a reduction in 
these programs and services, with a redirection of resources to higher priority programs. 
• 
Because of the internal focus of this process, it was agreed that resources freed in this process 
would be maintained in the department or unit. 
• 
It is expected that a department-focused prioritization effort will engage all levels of personnel 
in each program or unit. 

• 
While Student Affairs is committed to preserving broad program functions essential to the 
University, there is perceived potential benefit by the consolidation of small programs and units. 
These benefits include increased financial flexibility of consolidated programs, increased 
flexibility in managing human resource issues, and improved management oversight by 
assuring that each major department or program have an appropriate HEERA manager 
directing them. 
Student Affairs Prioritization Criteria: 
Agreeing with the “spirit” of the Dickeson recommendations, Student Affairs developed a division-
wide set of evaluation criteria. These criteria are beneficial in that similar conversations could be 
held in each department, even when the services from department to department varied greatly. 
These criteria were developed initially in smaller divisional writing teams and repeatedly shared 
with our entire leadership for feedback. 


In addition, criteria scoring grids were developed to assist departments with the evaluation and 
comparison of their programs and services. Departments were permitted to individually determine 
if weighing their criteria results would produce a more effective and mission specific result. 


Outcomes to Date: 
During the 2004-05 academic year, the Student Affairs prioritization effort yielded the following 
results: 


• 
Most departments in the Division engaged in the evaluation of their programs and services 
using the established prioritization criteria. The goal for each department was to determine a set 
of high-priority programs that would be eligible for additional reallocated resources and a set of 
low-priority programs that could be de-emphasized or potentially eliminated. 
• 
Student Support and Equity Programs (SSEP) Consolidation – In an effort to streamline 
academic support services provided by the former Educational Equity Services and University 
Advising Center; a merger of these programs into the newly created Student Support and Equity 
Programs was completed. This expanded unit strengthens the services to Educational 
Opportunity Program (EOP) and undeclared students, will produce operational efficiencies, and 
enlarge our capacity to generate external support and new initiatives. 
Future Outcomes: 
For the 2005-06 academic year, each department is expected to develop and act on an 
implementation plan to reallocate resources from their identified low-priority programs to their 
established high-priority programs. 



Administrative Affairs – Prioritization and Recovery Initiatives 

Prioritization and Recovery Summary – 2005-06 

Following an extensive organizational effectiveness study, a rigorous prioritization and recovery 
evaluation of divisional actions and alternatives was conducted. A task force was convened and 
charged with recommending criteria against which each department’s operations and services 
would be evaluated. 

• 
Fifty-two services, products and/or programs were identified as meeting the definition of 
“core work”. Core work is defined as: A core service, product and/or program is defined as 
the most significant work in a unit that brings value to and promotes Cal Poly Pomona as a 
Learning-Centered University. 
• 
A questionnaire was developed to elicit the information needed to apply the selected criteria 
to the fifty two programs and services. 
• 
Task Force members met to analyze each unit’s answers to the questionnaire and complete 
an assessment rating the core service against each criterion. 
• 
After completing this analysis of the core work, task force members evaluated and placed 
into one of four categories areas that were in need of an infusion of resources in order to 
improve the delivery of their core work. This work will be used in later discussions as a part 
of the recovery process and development of a Division Recovery Plan. 
After completing this work, the division’s contributions to a learning-centered university became 
clear and established our future focus. The division task force is now working with individual 
departments to identify value-added services that support Cal Poly Pomona as a Learning-Centered 
University. 

The division is immediately focusing on two learning-centered actions: 

• 
Expansion of the division's intern program 
Administrative Affairs is already at work expanding an intern program into Learning Labs. 
The division is in a unique position to provide real work experience to students. 
Administrative Affairs is also building a more formal relationship with the Academic Affairs 
Division to create more and more opportunities for student to earn credit while actively 
participating in the work of the division. 

• 
Development of a student advisory group for the division 
Another activity in progress is the appointment of a Student Advisory Group that will 
participate in the decision-making processes of Administrative Affairs. 

The expected outcomes of the Administrative Affairs’ learning centered initiatives will be 
cornerstones in the division’s prioritization and recovery plans. 


Academic Affairs Division Prioritization and Recovery Activities 
Prioritization and Recovery Summary – 2005-06 


Introduction - The Academic Affairs Division Prioritization and Recovery Planning process is 
designed to align academic program planning and budgeting with the mission, vision and goals of 
the university. Mission-driven criteria will be used for evaluating all programs in the division for 
prioritized funding and related planning. The Academic Affairs Division prioritization process will 
be integrated with the campus-wide prioritization process encompassing all campus programs and 
services. 

Background and Charter - The Prioritization and Recovery Planning Committee (PRPC) was 
formed in Spring 2005 under the auspices of the President and the Executive Committee of the 
Academic Senate. The PRPC is a trustee committee chartered to serve the university by 
accomplishing the following tasks: 

1. 
Identify all academic and nonacademic programs within Academic Affairs. 
2. 
Identify any commonalities among the programs for the purpose of grouping the programs. 
3. 
Set up the common criteria for each group of programs by which each program will be 
examined for recommending increased support, decrease support, restructuring, or 
discontinuing. 
4. 
Collect quantitative and qualitative data from various sources such as colleges, schools, 
departments, or institutional research, which could support such recommendations. 
5. 
Analyze data based on the criteria developed by the committee and propose 
recommendations. 
6. 
Report findings to the University President and the Academic Senate. 
The six major university goals (as listed on page 12 of the university catalog) were used by the PRPC 
to develop criteria and measurement indicators for evaluating instructional programs. The six major 
university goals are: 

Goal 1- To promote excellence in teaching, learning, and educational programs 

Goal 2- To enhance effective acquisition, planning, and management of resources 

Goal 3- To promote and enhance research, scholarly, professional, and creative activities 

Goal 4- To enhance support for students 

Goal 5-To improve the campus environment 

Goal 6- To increase community involvement 


Four over-arching criteria dimensions were developed that encompass these goals within the 
context of the mission and vision of the university. A total of 14 criteria have been developed with 
qualitative inputs and quantitative measures chosen for use in scoring and ranking. The data 
indicators encompass strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities related to each program. 
The 14 criteria listed by dimension are: 

CRITERIA DIMENSION ONE - Centrality to Mission/Validation Context 

1.1: Internal and external demand for the program: 
1.2: Essentiality of the program 
1.3: Support of the polytechnic mission of the university and support for campus-wide 
programs and priorities 
CRITERIA DIMENSION TWO - Quality/Outcomes 

2.1: Learning assurance (includes assessment practices and results) 
2.2: Preparation of students for a diverse/global community 
2.3: Faculty research and creative activity 
2.4: Quality of student advising 
2.5: Contribution to the sense of community and the intellectual quality of the campus 
CRITERIA DIMENSION THREE - Efficiency 

3.1: Utilization of physical space 
3.2: Utilization of human resources 
3.3: Utilization of technology 
3.4: Utilization of time 
3.5: Management of financial resources 
CRITERIA DIMENSION FOUR - Opportunity Analysis of the Program 

4.1: Opportunities for growth or enhancement in meeting the University Mission 
Refinement of the Criteria - A template was created for uniformly gathering information and data 
for evaluation. During the Fall 2005 quarter, all colleges were asked to critique the criteria and 
template and suggest enhancements. Many changes were made as the result of numerous fine 
suggestions from faculty and relayed through their departments and colleges to the PRPC. Then, 
during the Winter 2006 quarter a focus group of department chairs was used to further refine the 
template. 

Data Gathering and Evaluation - During the Spring 2006 quarter all academic programs in 
conjunction with Institutional Research Assessment and Planning are providing input for their 
programs. College level committees will review program input for consistency and provide 
recommendations or context as they deem appropriate. 


The PRPC will be weighting, evaluating, and ranking programs during Summer 2006 with the goal 
of preparing recommendations for each program’s future funding level. Recommendations will fall 
into one of the following categories: 

1. 
Increased/enhanced funding – For good programs that are growing or for essential programs 
that require enhancement to better serve internal or external demand. 
2. 
Level funding – For programs that have adequate funding 
3. 
Reduced funding – For programs that that are declining or could use resources more 
efficiently without suffering 
4. 
Greatly reduced or eliminated funding – For programs that are greatly reduced in size, can 
be combined with similar programs, or should be discontinued 
Academic Affairs will be using a web-based interface to gather information for each program that 
will be stored in a data base for ease of analysis. The data base will also be available for future 
analysis, record keeping, budgeting, planning, and assessment efforts. 

Communications and Feedback – An Academic Affairs Division website has been created that 
includes documents, committee information, progress reports, FAQs, and links to resources and 
references. 

Non-instructional Programs in Academic Affairs – A similar process is in the early stages for 
evaluating non-instructional programs in the Academic Affairs Division. 


UNIVERSITY ADVANCEMENT 
Prioritization and Recovery Summary – 2005-06 


The prioritization and recovery review began to move forward in August 2005, upon the completion of search 
for a new vice president. As UAD is a division designed to support the academic mission, it is essential that 
any long term plan is synergized with Academic Affairs. 

Consultation Process 

The division vice president met individually with every staff member to address short and long term 
goals. Those interviews came together as discussion points with division leaders that included: Ron 
Simons, Ron Fremont, Aida Morad, Sharon Joyce, Nikki Khurana, Ken Bonner, Melissa Riordan, 
Pamela Allen, Francine Ramirez and the development directors. The vice president conceptualized the 
outcomes with senior leadership and addressed the impact of the division priorities with all impacted 
managers. The outcomes to date, as well as the restructured division organization chart, were 
introduced to the division as a whole on November 15. 

Consultation Outcomes 

Chief among the division priorities are providing the infrastructure to support the university’s 
development efforts, as well as meet university communication and system-wide advocacy initiatives. 
To ensure that resources were being used in the most effective way, the division underwent a 
reorganization that saved the need to hire three new positions, resulting in the savings of $210,000 
annually. 

Current Updates 

Three-Year Advancement Plan Approval – The President approved the three-year plan for the Chancellor’s 
Office (see attached) that address three primary goals for the division. They include: 

• 
Campaign readiness and Major Gift Opportunities 
• 
Advocacy Initiatives 
• 
Division Reorganization and Redeployment 
In support of those goals, the division recently has: 

• 
Transferred the governmental affairs office from the President’s Office to UA 
• 
Redeployed staff position to support development directors’ special events/programming 
• 
Created new option for collateral print materials to support schools 
• 
Restructured gift processing to ensure a more seamless receipt of gifts 
• 
Begun a comprehensive search for a new AVP for University Development 
• 
Begun a comprehensive search for a new position – Director Of Planned Giving 
• 
Completed search for new DOD for Engineering 
• 
Begun a search for a new DOD for Athletics 
Pending Priorities 

• 
Equitable clerical support for development directors. 
• 
Compensation equity 
• 
Greater support for alumni affairs 
• 
Dedicated resources to support Chancellor’s advocacy initiatives. 
• 
Following campus prioritization/recovery recommendations, complete a master plan that will address 
how the university will fund and implement a comprehensive capital campaign. 

APPENDIX V: Results of the 2005 National Survey of Student Engagement 

Table 1 

Level of Academic Challenge Cal Poly 
Pomona* 
CSU 
Consortium Master’s 2005 
NSSE 
Institution “quite a bit” or “very much” emphasizes 
spending a significant amount of time studying 
First-year 78% 76% 78% 81%** 
Seniors 84% 80% 79% 80% 
Spent twenty-six or more hours per week of class 
preparation time. 
First-year 6% 8% 7% 9% 
Senior 17% 14% 10% 12% 
“Often” or “very often” came to class without 
completing readings or assignment. 
First-year 23% 22% 18% 18% 
Senior 27% 23% 20% 20% 
Wrote five or more 5-page reports. First-year 63% 63% 71% 72% 
Senior 55% 66% 64% 65% 
Wrote five or more reports between 5 and 19 pages. First-year 31% 34% 36% 38% 
Senior 43% 52% 48% 52% 

Table 2 

Active & Collaborative Learning Cal Poly 
Pomona 
CSU 
Consortium Master’s 2005 
NSSE 
Made a class presentation (“often” or “very often”). First-year 42% 45% 35% 33% 
Senior 69% 64% 68% 64% 
Asked questions in class or contributed to class 
discussion (“often” or “very often”). 
First-year 50% 47% 60% 62% 
Senior 61% 62% 75% 75% 
Worked with other students on projects during class 
(“often” or “very often”). 
First-year 56% 46% 43% 42% 
Senior 59% 52% 49% 46% 
Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare 
class assignments (“often” or “very often”). 
First-year 43% 37% 41% 43% 
Senior 69% 60% 59% 60% 
Participated in a community-based project as part of 
a course (“sometimes”, “often” or “very often”) 
First-year 25% 36% 39% 38% 
Senior 38% 51% 53% 50% 

Table 3 

Learning Outcomes Cal Poly 
Pomona 
CSU 
Consortium Master’s 2005 
NSSE 
Institution contributed “quite a bit” or “very much” to your development in the area of ……. 
Analyzing quantitative problems. First-year 62% 66% 64% 65% 
Senior 82% 73% 72% 72% 
Solving complex real-world problems. First-year 53% 51% 51% 52% 
Senior 66% 58% 59% 59% 
Thinking critically and analytically. First-year 77% 76% 80% 82% 
Senior 86% 86% 87% 87% 
Using computing and information technology. First-year 72% 69% 70% 70% 
Senior 85% 79% 79% 78% 
Acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills. First-year 55% 52% 59% 59% 
Senior 73% 69% 75% 72% 
Writing clearly and effectively. First-year 70% 67% 73% 73% 
Senior 71% 77% 78% 77% 
Acquiring a broad general education. First-year 79% 77% 81% 82% 
Senior 79% 82% 86% 86% 


Table 4 

Student – Faculty Interactions Cal Poly 
Pomona 
CSU 
Consortium Master’s 2005 
NSSE 
“Often” or “very often” received prompt feedback 
from faculty on your academic performance. 
First-year 49% 55% 61% 63% 
Senior 58% 64% 72% 72% 
“Often” or “very often” discussed grades or 
assignments with an instructor. 
First-year 40% 44% 51% 50% 
Senior 53% 55% 62% 63% 
“Often” or very often” discussed ideas from your 
readings or classes with faculty members outside of 
class. 
First-year 19% 15% 19% 20% 
Senior 26% 21% 29% 30% 
“Often” or “very often” worked with faculty 
members on activities other than coursework. 
First-year 12% 10% 14% 15% 
Senior 18% 17% 24% 26% 
“Often” or “very often” talked about career plans 
with a faculty member or advisor. 
First-year 23% 20% 31% 30% 
Senior 35% 33% 46% 47% 
“Good” or “excellent” quality of academic advising 
you received at your institution. 
First-year 66% 70% 76% 76% 
Senior 64% 64% 71% 71% 
Mean rating of quality of relationships with faculty 
members (on a scale of 1 = unavailable, unhelpful to 
7 = available, helpful) 
First-year 4.84 5.15 5.35 5.36 
Senior 5.20 5.36 5.67 5.64 

Table 5 

Campus Environment Cal Poly 
Pomona 
CSU 
Consortium Master’s 2005 
NSSE 
Mean rating of quality of relationships with other 
students (on a scale of 1 = unfriendly, unsupportive, 
sense of alienation, to 7 = friendly, supportive, 
sense of belonging) 
First-year 5.23 5.46 5.54 5.56 
Senior 5.52 5.58 5.70 5.68 
Institution “quite a bit” or “very much” develops a 
sense of community among students, staff, and 
faculty.* 
First-year 41% 45% 
Senior 40% 41% 
Institution “quite a bit” or “very much” provides the 
support you need to help you succeed academically. 
First-year 67% 69% 75% 76% 
Senior 63% 64% 72% 73% 
“Quite a bit” or “very much” help that your 
institution provides in helping you cope with nonacademic 
responsibilities. 
First-year 29% 29% 33% 34% 
Senior 19% 18% 25% 25% 
“Quite a bit” or “very much” that your institution 
provides the support you need to thrive socially. 
First-year 39% 37% 43% 44% 
Senior 29% 26% 34% 34% 
Mean rating of quality of relationships with 
administrative personnel and offices (on a scale of 1 
= unhelpful, inconsiderate to 7 = helpful, 
considerate) 
First-year 4.29 4.54 4.76 4.76 
Senior 4.33 4.42 4.67 4.63 

*CSU Consortium question 

*Total number of Cal Poly Pomona participants is 850 (410 first-year students; 440 seniors) 
**Bold numbers are significantly different from Cal Poly Pomona. 


Table 6 

Activities – Co-Curricular, Work, Commuting Cal Poly 
Pomona 
CSU 
Consortium Master’s 2005 
NSSE 
Attended an art exhibit, gallery, dance, or other 
theatre performance (“often” or “very often”). 
First-year 21% 22% 28% 29% 
Senior 17% 21% 23% 26% 
University emphasizes attending campus events and 
activities (special speakers, cultural performances, 
athletic events, etc.) (“quite a bit” or “very much” 
First-year 50% 49% 64% 66% 
Senior 46% 44% 53% 56% 
Over 15 hours of off-campus employment per week. First-year 27% 24% 22% 19% 
Senior 51% 46% 43% 37% 
Over 15 hours per week of providing care for 
dependents living with you. 
First-year 9% 5% 8% 7% 
Senior 14% 19% 20% 15% 
Over 10 hours per week commuting to class. First-year 10% 9% 8% 6% 
Senior 18% 9% 8% 9% 

Table 7 

Personal & Social Development Cal Poly 
Pomona 
CSU 
Consortium Master’s 2005 
NSSE 
University “quite a bit” or “very much” contributed 
to understanding yourself. 
First-year 56% 54% 62% 62% 
Senior 62% 57% 65% 66% 
University contributed to developing a personal 
code of values and ethics (“quite a bit” or “very 
much). 
First-year 52% 48% 55% 56% 
Senior 53% 49% 59% 59% 
Your experience at this institution contributed to 
your developing effective leadership skills (“quite a 
bit” or “very much).* 
First-year 30% 30% 
Senior 48% 48% 
Your experience at this institution contributed to 
your ability to work effectively with others (“quite a 
bit” or “very much). 
First-year 68% 67% 70% 70% 
Senior 83% 76% 80% 79% 
Tried to better understand someone else’s views by 
imagining how an issue looks from his or her 
perspective (“often” or “very often”). 
First-year 59% 56% 58% 61% 
Senior 60% 64% 65% 66% 
Had serious conversations with students of a 
different race or ethnicity than your own (“often” or 
“very often”). 
First-year 57% 54% 48% 50% 
Senior 58% 57% 49% 52% 
University contributed to understanding people of 
other racial and ethnic backgrounds (“quite a bit” or 
“very much). 
First-year 58% 51% 53% 52% 
Senior 55% 55% 53% 53% 
University contributed to development/growth in 
contributing to the welfare of your community 
(“quite a bit” or “very much). 
First-year 31% 36% 44% 46% 
Senior 39% 39% 48% 48% 

*CSU Consortium question 

Table 8 

Satisfaction Cal Poly 
Pomona 
CSU 
Consortium Master’s 2005 
NSSE 
How would you evaluate your entire educational 
experience at this institution (“good” or “excellent”) 
First-year 80% 85% 87% 87% 
Senior 84% 84% 87% 88% 
If you could start over again, would you go to the 
same institution you are now attending (“Probably 
yes” or “definitely yes”) 
First-year 80% 81% 82% 83% 
Senior 82% 82% 82% 82% 


APPENDIX VI: WASC Steering Committee 

http://www.csupomona.edu/~wasc/ 

The Cal Poly Pomona WASC Steering Committee is charged with providing leadership to the campus 
throughout the WASC reaccreditation review. 

Specific responsibilities include: 

• 
Soliciting campus input on important issues facing the University 
• 
Developing the general framework for the review 
• 
With campus-wide consultation, developing goals for the review 
• 
Preparing the Institutional Proposal 
• 
Coordinating the work of the Capacity and Preparatory Review and Educational Effectiveness 
Subcommittees 
Membership: 

• 
Dr. Fancis Flores, Professor of Chemistry & Chair of the Academic Senate 
• 
Dr. Margaret Kasimatis, Executive Director, Institutional Research, Assesment & Planning 
• 
Ms. Nikki Khurana, Director, Annual Fund 
• 
Mr. Darwin Labordo, Associate Vice President, Finance and Administrative Services 
• 
Dr. David Levin, Director, I&IT Learning 
• 
Dr. Tomas Morales, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs 
• 
Dr. Claudia Pinter-Lucke, Associate Vice President, Undergraduate Studies 
• 
Dr. John Self, Assoc Dean/Assoc Professor, Collins School of Hospitality Mgt 
• 
Dr. Donald Straney, Dean, College of Science 
• 
Ms. Kathy Street, Associate Vice President, Enrollment Services 

APPENDIX VII: Results of Campus Surveys Related to WASC Themes 

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED CAMPUS SURVEY 
Spring 2005 

Question #1: Views of CPP Five Years from Now 

RESPONSE CATEGORIES RESPONSE 
FREQUENCY 
Excellence; good reputation, recognition; high quality; competitive; challenging 153 
Produces qualified, well-trained graduates, sought by employers, grad schools 42 
"Learn-by-doing"; hands-on training; polytechnic 63 
Focus on teaching; committed, caring, qualified faculty; learning-centered; student-centered 49 
Accessible; affordable 20 
Use of technology in all we do; leading-edge technology 18 
Known for its diversity 17 
Support for student success 16 
Research school; good research programs 13 

Question #2: What are the challenges facing Cal Poly Pomona? 

RESPONSE CATEGORIES RESPONSE 
FREQUENCY 
Budget; limited state funding 102 
Courses: Sufficient numbers, frequency of offerings, time offered etc 97 
Faculty issues (workload, compensation, more faculty needed, recruitment, retention) 65 
Parking 30 
Technology usage, availability; cutting edge; keeping up 29 
Shaping and enhancing the CPP niche (recognition, reputation, image) 26 
Updating facilities; more infrastructure 24 
Managing growth, enrollment 24 
Increasing student costs, fees 23 

Question #3: What issues should the Cal Poly Community be thinking and talking about? 

RESPONSE CATEGORIES RESPONSE 
FREQUENCY 
Class availability, scheduling 50 
Various faculty issues (low quality of faculty; increase number; incentives, compensation; 
improve faculty-student interactions) 47 
Improve services, support, on-campus opportunities to students 29 
Funding, budgets 25 
Curriculum enhancement, revision; alternative delivery options 25 
Student success after CPP 23 
Quality of student life; need for student-oriented campus community; ways to nurture community 23 
Vision, goals; what is Cal Poly Pomona; what do we want to be? 22 
High tuition, fees, books 18 


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR CLOSED-ENDED CAMPUS SURVEY 
Fall 2005 

When you think about Cal Poly Pomona five years from 
now, how important is it that the institution is viewed as? Mean 
An excellent or "top-notch" university 4.56 
Providing access to a wide variety of students 4.44 
Producing qualified, well-trained students 4.77 
A polytechnic university 4.13 
Using leading-edge technology across campus 4.46 
Being a diverse community 4.27 
Having a "learn-by-doing" approach to education 4.40 
Being supportive of student success 4.66 
Having strong graduate programs 4.32 
Having strong research programs 4.15 
To what extent do you view each of the following as a 
challenge facing Cal Poly Pomona? 
The level of state funding 4.52 
Offering a sufficient number & variety of courses to students 4.02 
Recruiting & retaining faculty 3.95 
Staying current w/ technology 3.99 
Shaping the Cal Poly Pomona image 3.70 
The condition of facilities & infrastructure 4.06 
Managing student enrollments 3.79 
Costs for students 3.90 
How much is each of the following an issue that the Cal 
Poly Pomona community should be thinking and talking 
about? 
Availability of classes to students 4.32 
Quality of faculty-student interactions 4.20 
Providing support & services to students 4.23 
Obtaining funding or managing the budget 4.47 
Recruiting & retaining high quality faculty 4.36 
Revising the curriculum 3.71 
Student success after Cal Poly Pomona 4.17 
Quality of student life 4.00 
Cal Poly Pomona's identity 3.94 
Costs for students 4.04 

Total N = 912 


APPENDIX VIII: Capacity and Preparatory Review Subcommittee 

http://www.csupomona.edu/~wasc/documents/cpr_sub.shtml 

Charge for the Capacity and Preparatory Review Sub-Committee 

11/29/2005 

As a member of the Sub Committee for the Capacity and Preparatory Review, you play an important role 
in assisting with the collection, analysis, and reporting of data as it relates to Cal Poly Pomona's capacity 
and preparedness to fulfill our mission. This is a critical Sub Committee that sets the stage for the Sub 
Committee on Educational Effectiveness. 

The Preparatory Review examines the extent to which Cal Poly Pomona meets Core Commitment One of 
the WASC guidelines: "The institution functions with clear purposes, high levels of institutional integrity, 
fiscal stability, and organizational structures and processes to fulfill its purposes." This review is 
sometimes referred to as the "capacity review," since it examines the resources that would make it 
possible for Cal Poly Pomona to provide a stable, responsible, and educationally effective education for 
all of its students. 

The Preparatory Review is intended to be a focused review which includes a site visit with clearly 
defined purposes and procedures. These purposes and procedures include: 

1. 
Assure that the data presented fairly and accurately portray the state of Cal Poly Pomona at the 
time of the review. 
2. 
Evaluate key resources, structures, and processes to assure that they operate at or above the 
threshold levels acceptable for accreditation and, where appropriate, identify any capacity- 
related issues that need to be carried forward in the Educational Effectiveness Review. 
3. 
Assess Cal Poly Pomona's preparedness to undertake the Educational Effectiveness Review and 
assist the Steering Committee in refining its focus and plan for that review. 
To support the Preparatory Review, Cal Poly Pomona is responsible for developing a Preparatory 
Review Report. The following structure is suggested: 

1. 
An Introduction that describes the contents of the Institutional Presentation together with any 
changes in the context that may have arisen since the approval of the Proposal. 
2. 
The Institutional Proposal, which includes: 
1. 
An updated set of Basic Descriptive Data originally submitted with the Proposal; 
2. 
A set of prescribed exhibits and statistical data displays; 
3. 
A set of exhibits and data displays chosen by Cal Poly Pomona as evidence of its 
Commitment to Capacity. 
3. 
Reflective Essays in regard to each specific Standard that indicate what the exhibits contained in 
the Portfolio mean to Cal Poly Pomona, what issues they raise, and why those included were 
chosen in addition to the prescribed exhibits. 

4. 
A Concluding Essay that summarizes Cal Poly Pomona's case that it meets the Commitment to 
Capacity, provides a reflective view of its strengths and weaknesses in relation to the 
Commission's Standards, and proposes appropriate recommendations and follow-up steps. The 
Concluding Essay should include commentary on Cal Poly Pomona's preparedness for 
undertaking the Educational Effectiveness Review. 
5. 
An Appendix that documents Cal Poly Pomona's response to previous concerns identified by the 
Commission in its action letter and major recommendations of the last visiting team. 
To verify the evidence included in the Preparatory Review Report, there will be a brief site visit using the 
methodology of academic visit. Characteristics of the site visit include the following: 

1. 
Review Teams will normally range from two to four people; 
2. 
On campus reviews normally last between one to two days; 
3. 
The Review Team is responsible for assuring "due diligence" on the part of Cal Poly Pomona. A 
sample of key processes and issues will be selected by the Review Team in advance of the visit 
for review and auditing. 
4. 
The Review Team is expected to review the Report prior to the site visit to clarify any 
ambiguities, request additional evidence, and/or submit questions or issues that it wishes to 
explore in more detail. 
The Review Team will prepare a report commenting on Cal Poly Pomona's compliance with 
accreditation standards, especially those in relation to the Core Commitment of Institutional Capacity. 
The team is also expected to comment on the Cal Poly Pomona's preparedness to engage in a serious 
analysis of Educational Effectiveness. The team report will be submitted to Cal Poly Pomona for 
comment in errors of fact before the report is finalized and sent to the Commission. 


APPENDIX IX: Educational Effectiveness Subcommittee 

http://www.csupomona.edu/~wasc/effectivness_sub.shtml 

Charge for the Educational Effectiveness Sub-Committee 

1. The Special Themes model will be used for the Educational Effectiveness Report. The 
subcommittee will assist the Steering Committee in interpreting, clarifying, and refining: the topics 
for review, the areas of inquiry or researchable questions, and the methodology for engaging each 
topic. 
2. Coordinate with the Capacity and Preparatory Review Subcommittee (CPRS), taking into account 
CPRS's identification of capacity-related issues that impact the Educational Effectiveness Review 
and assessment of readiness to undertake the Educational Effectiveness Review. 
3. Define timelines and action steps for the completion of the Educational Effectiveness Review that 
meet the overall timing of the University's WASC accreditation process. 
4. Prepare and submit the drafts Educational Effectiveness Report to the Cal Poly Pomona 
University WASC Steering Committee for finalization. 
5. Demonstrate sustained engagement by Cal Poly Pomona University on the extent to which the 
campus fulfills its educational objectives. 
6. Implement a process of inquiry and engagement to enable the Commission to make a judgment 
about the extent that the university fulfills its Core Commitment to Educational Effectiveness 
7. In preparing the draft Educational Effectiveness Report, the subcommittee assures that the 
following are addressed: 
• 
review of the design and results of institutional efforts to evaluate effectiveness of 
educational programs; 
• 
examination of institutional practices for evaluating student learning; 
• 
development and sharing of good practices in using educational results to improve the 
process of teaching and learning; 
• 
examination of the alignment of institutional resources with activities designed to achieve 
the institution's educational objectives; and 
• 
promotion of sustained engagement with selected issues of Educational Effectiveness 
consistent with Commission Standards and identified and approved through the Proposal 
Review Process. 
8. Assure that the Faculty is deeply involved in the design and implementation of the Educational 
Effectiveness Report and review process, as well as others at the institution connected to issues of 
Educational Effectiveness. 

9. When the Educational Effectiveness Review moves to the site visit stage, the members of the 
subcommittee will serve as primary liaison with the Commission's Review Team. The subcommittee 
coordinates the audits designed to validate procedures and to verify the accuracy of data included 
in the Report. If additional feedback or information is requested, the subcommittee coordinates the 
response to the Commission. 
10. When the Commission submits its team report to the Cal Poly Pomona University for comment 
before it is finalized, the subcommittee coordinates the review and input process, assuring that 
representative university-wide comment is received. 
11. If applicable, coordinate the preparation of a formal written statement by Cal Poly Pomona 
University in response to the final report. 
November 15, 2005 


REQUIRED DATA ELEMENTS 


• 
Institutional Type and Organizational Structure 
o 
Mission Statement (in catalog) 
o 
Organizational Chart 
o 
Catalog 
• 
Student Body Characteristics 
o 
Table 1: Enrollments by Level 
o 
Table 2: Enrollments by Full-time/Part-time 
o 
Table 3: Total degrees granted by level 
• 
Academic Programs 
o 
List of academic programs currently offered (see catalog) 
• 
Faculty and Staff 
o 
Table 4: Faculty Headcount (full- and part-time) 
• 
Fiscal, Physical and Information Resources 
o 
Table 5: Financial Ratios 
o 
Financial audits for last two years 
• 
Educational Effectiveness Indicators 
o 
Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators 
• 
Summary Data Form 
- 49 -



Cal Poly Pomona 
Organizational Chart 




Table 1: Headcount Enrollment by Level 

YEAR 
TOTAL 
HEADCOUNT 
LOWER 
DIVISION 
HEADCOUNT 
UPPER 
DIVISION 
HEADCOUNT 
GRADUATE 
HEADCOUNT 
POST-BACC (Non-
Grad) 
HEADCOUNT 
NON-DEGREE 
HEADCOUNT TOTAL FTE 
ENROLLMENTENROLLMENT 
N % N % N % N % N % 
2000-2001 19,041 6,856 36.0% 9,773 51.3% 1,063 5.6% 1,171 6.1% 178 0.9% 15,669 
2001-2002 19,821 6,921 34.9% 10,294 51.9% 1,135 5.7% 1,277 6.4% 194 1.0% 16,310 
2002-2003 19,804 6,846 34.6% 10,573 53.4% 1,217 6.1% 1,039 5.2% 129 0.7% 16,603 
2003-2004 19,003 6,514 34.3% 10,437 54.9% 1,245 6.6% 766 4.0% 41 0.2% 15,965 
2004-2005 19,885 6,867 34.5% 11,107 55.9% 1,221 6.1% 641 3.2% 49 0.2% 16,717 

Table 2: Headcount Enrollment by Status and Location 

YEAR 
TOTAL 
HEADCOUNT 
ENROLLMENT 
FULL-TIME PART-TIME ON-CAMPUS 
LOCATION 
OFF-CAMPUS 
LOCATION 
2001-2002 19,152 14,764 4277 19,041 111 
2002-2003 19,927 15,502 4,319 19,821 106 
2003-2004 19,922 15,925 3,879 19,804 118 
2004-2005 19,117 15,302 3,701 19,003 114 
2005-2006 20,007 15,798 4,087 19,885 122 


Table 3: Total Degrees Granted by Level 

YEAR 
TOTAL 
DEGREES 
GRANTED 
ASSOCIATE BACHELOR POSTBACCALAUREATE 
MASTER DOCTORATE OTHER 
2000-2001 3,085 0 2,763 0 322 0 0 
2001-2002 3,187 0 2,808 0 379 0 0 
2002-2003 3,281 0 2,935 0 346 0 0 
2003-2004 3,529 0 3,200 0 329 0 0 
2004-2005 3,562 0 3,207 0 355 0 0 

Table 4: Faculty Headcount 

YEAR 
TOTAL 
FACULTY 
HEADCOUNT 
FULL-TIME 
FACULTY 
PART-TIME 
FACULTY 
Total 
Faculty 
FTE 
2001-2002 1205 663 542 765 
2002-2003 1217 689 528 774 
2003-2004 1224 672 552 768 
2004-2005 1012 556 456 696 
2005-2006 1199 625 574 743 


Table 5: Financial Ratios 

RETURN ON NET ASSETS (NOTE 1 ) 
CHANGE IN NET ASSETS/TOTAL BEGINNING NET ASSETS 
NET INCOME RATIO 
CHANGE IN UNRESTRICTED NA/TOTAL UNRESTRICTED 
REVENUES 
OPERATING INCOME RATIO 
OPERATING INCOME/TOTAL EXPENSES 
VIABILITY RATIO 
EXPENDABLE NET ASSETS/LONG TERM DEBT (NOTE 2) 
INSTRUCTIONAL EXPENSE PER STUDENT (NOTE 3) 
NET TUITION PER STUDENT 

YEAR 12002 
YEAR 22003 
YEAR 32004 
YEAR 4 
2005 
3.51% 21.90% -10.68% 7.99% 
-1.37% 0.39% 2.08% 7.23% 
31.96% 35.58% 35.17% 41.35% 
76.17% 110.43% 102.93% 10.38% 
4,921.05 4,914.48 5,292.31 5,225.71 
2,053.87 2,125.94 2,520.44 2,871.62 

NOTE 1: 

Fluctuations caused by the recording of capital revenues: 
2002 - $ 8,123,253.00 
2003 - $34,016,000.00 
2004 - $ 0.00 
2005 - ($7,975,000.00) A capital project that was de-allocated was reappropriated in 2006 


NOTE 2: 
In Year 4 (2005), long term debt increased by $61M for the new parking structure 
and the new student housing facility. 


NOTE 3: 
Instructional expense per student decreased in 2005 compared to 2004 because of budget 
reductions from the State of California. 



Table 6: 
Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators 


CATEGORY 
1. Have 
formal 
learning 
outcomes 
been 
developed? 
2. Where are 
these learning 
outcomes published? 
3. Other than GPA, 
what data/evidence is 
used to determine that 
graduates have achieved 
stated outcomes for the 
degree? 
4. Who interprets the 
evidence? What is the 
process? 
5. How are the 
findings used? 
6. Date 
of last 
program 
review for 
this degree 
program 
At the institutional 
level: 
Yes On the University website, 
http://www.csupomona.ed 
u/~wasc/ 
Alumni Survey, National 
Survey of Student 
Engagement (NSSE), 
Collegiate Learning 
Assessment, Graduate 
Writing Test 
President's Cabinet, divisional 
leadership groups, Deans' 
Council, Department Chairs 
in each College 
To provide feedback on the 
effectiveness of campus-wide 
initiatives; guide 
improvement in those areas 
NA 
For general education if an undergraduate institution: 
Standard GE Program Yes, for four of 
16 GE areas. 
Another four are 
in development 
and the 
remaining 8 will 
be developed by 
June 2008 
In their assessment plans, 
which are posted on the 
Undergraduate Studies 
Website. 
In-class work and homework 
Course grades in courses 
taken after the GE courses 
Exams 
Projects 
Course Portfolios 
Survey 
Committees made up of 
faculty who teach the GE 
courses in that area will 
collect and analyze the data 
and share the results with all 
such faculty. The process 
differs from one area to 
another. 
To determine strengths and 
weaknesses in program; to 
adjust the curriculum and 
pedagogy; to adjust the 
outcomes for particular 
courses 
NA 
Interdisciplinary GE 
Program 
Yes Catalog, on website, on all 
course syllabi, and in 
promotional literature 
Student self-evaluations 
Exit interviews 
Portfolio Review 
Capstone Projects 
External evaluator 
Student Surveys 
Alumni Surveys 
Interpreted by IGE 
instructors, including full-
time, part-time, and adjunct 
faculty, at a minimum of 
three meetings per year. 
Findings lead to innovation 
and adoption of new 
strategies to promote student 
learning. New strategies are 
piloted and the results 
assessed before full adoption 
2001-02 
List each degree program: 
College of Agriculture 
Agricultural Biology - BS Yes 
annual report, available in 
department office Exit Survey 2002-03 
Agricultural Science – BS Yes 
accreditation report on 
teacher education/Ag.Ed, 
available in department 
office 
review by teaching 
interviewers and 
administration 2002-03 
Agronomy – BS Yes 
annual report, available in 
department office Exit Survey 2002-03 
Animal Health Science – 
BS Yes 
annual report, available in 
department office 2002-03 
Animal Science – BS Yes 
annual report, available in 
department office Exit Survey 2002-03 


CATEGORY 
1. Have 
formal 
learning 
outcomes 
been 
developed? 
2. Where are 
these learning 
outcomes published? 
3. Other than GPA, 
what data/evidence is 
used to determine that 
graduates have achieved 
stated outcomes for the 
degree? 
4. Who interprets the 
evidence? What is the 
process? 
5. How are the 
findings used? 
6. Date 
of last 
program 
review for 
this degree 
program 
Apparel Merchandising 
and Management – BS Yes 
annual report, available in 
department office 2002-03 
Food Marketing and 
Agribusiness Management 
– BS Yes 
annual report, available in 
department office student surveys/interviews 2002-03 
Food Science and 
Technology – BS Yes 
annual report, available in 
department office student surveys/interviews 2002-03 
Foods & Nutrition – BS Yes 
annual report, available in 
department office 2002-03 
Horticulture – BS Yes 
annual report, available in 
department office Exit Survey 2002-03 
Irrigation Science – BS Yes 
annual report, available in 
department office Exit Survey 2002-03 
Soil Science – BS Yes 
annual report, available in 
department office Exit Survey 2002-03 
Agriculture - MS 
College of Business 
Business Administration - 
BS 
Yes College of Business 
Website 
Capstone course, exam on 
core competencies, ETS field 
test, student cases, student 
projects, student oral 
presentations and graduating 
student surveys 
Assurance of Learning and 
Curriculum Improvement 
Committee 
To determine if curricular 
and/or other program 
modifications are needed 
2004-05 
(AACSB 
accreditation) 
Master of Business 
Administration 
Yes College of Business 
Website 
Thesis, assessment program Graduate Studies Committee To determine if curricular 
and/or other program 
modifications are needed 
2004-05 
(AACSB 
accreditation) 
Business Administration - 
MS 
Yes College of Business 
Website 
Thesis, assessment program Graduate Studies Committee To determine if curricular 
and/or other program 
modifications are needed 
2004-05 
(AACSB 
accreditation) 
College of Education and Integrative Studies 
Liberal Studies - BA Yes In development Pass rates and scores on 
CBEST and CSET exams; 
capstone courses. 
In development In development 1999-2000 
Gender, Ethnicity, and 
Multicultural Studies -
BA 
Yes In the department Capstone senior project EWS Faculty who work with 
students on projects will 
evaluate outcomes 
To review and revise program 
to address areas of weakness 
1999-2000 


1. Have 2. Where are 3. Other than GPA, 4. Who interprets the 5. How are the 6. Date 
CATEGORY formal 
learning 
these learning 
outcomes published? 
what data/evidence is 
used to determine that 
evidence? What is the 
process? 
findings used? of last 
program 
outcomes graduates have achieved review for 
been stated outcomes for the this degree 
developed? degree? program 
Education Multimedia - Yes Course syllabi, Program MA thesis/project that act as Thesis/Project Chairs Program modifications and 2003-04 
MS Assessment Plan the capstone of the students’ 
learning outcomes in the 
program 
We do not have a formal 
collective system in place for 
this yet. 
upgrades 
Multiple Subject Yes Course Outlines, course Completion of all course Each course instructor, Continuous assessment will 2003 (CTC 
Credential Syllabi, Program requirements, directed Teacher Education Faculty be used to assist the Accreditation) 
Assessment plan; CCTC Teaching, CSET, CBEST, Committee, Credential candidate in remediation 
TPE’s (Teacher RICA and professional Analyst. and/or additional training 
Performance 
Expectations) – available 
in department office 
Portfolio, Teacher 
Performance Assessment TPA (Teacher Performance 
Assessment) assessed by 
trained outside assessors 
experiences. In addition this 
provides focal points for 
program and or class 
modification. 
Single Subject Credential Yes Course Outlines, course 
Syllabi, Program 
Assessment plan; CCTC 
TPE’s (Teacher 
Performance 
Expectations) – available 
in department office 
Completion of all course 
requirements, directed 
Teaching, CBEST, Subject 
Matter content or CSET and 
professional Portfolio, 
Teacher Performance 
Assessment 
Each course instructor, 
Teacher Education Faculty 
Committee, Credential 
Analyst. 
TPA (Teacher Performance 
Assessment) assessed by 
trained outside assessors 
Continuous assessment will 
be used to assist the 
candidate in remediation 
and/or additional training 
experiences. In addition this 
provides focal points for 
program and or class 
modification. 
2003 (CTC 
Accreditation) 
Education Specialist I Yes Course Outlines, course Completion of all course Each course instructor, Continuous assessment will 2003 (CTC 
Credential Syllabi, Program requirements, directed Teacher Education Faculty be used to assist the Accreditation) 
Assessment plan; CCTC Teaching, CBEST, Subject Committee, Credential candidate in remediation 
TPE’s (Teacher Matter content or CSET. Analyst. and/or additional training 
Performance experiences. In addition this 
Expectations) – available provides focal points for 
in department office program and or class 
modification. 
Tier II Preliminary Yes Course syllabi, Credential EDU 520 Candidate In EDU 520, the entire The findings are utilized for 2003-04 
Administrative Services Application to COA Assessment is the Program faculty participate in continuous program 
Credential 
On the individual course 
description and the 
Application to the 
Committee on 
Accreditation 
culminating class for the 
program. EDU 530 
Fieldwork guides students in 
the development of a 
portfolio of administrative 
skills gained in the Program. 
interpreting the data. 
In EDU 530, the site 
supervisor and the University 
supervisor determine the 
grade to be awarded. 
improvement. 
College of Engineering 


1. Have 2. Where are 3. Other than GPA, 4. Who interprets the 5. How are the 6. Date 
CATEGORY formal 
learning 
these learning 
outcomes published? 
what data/evidence is 
used to determine that 
evidence? What is the 
process? 
findings used? of last 
program 
outcomes graduates have achieved review for 
been stated outcomes for the this degree 
developed? degree? program 
Aerospace Engineering 
- BS 
Yes Published in University 
Catalog and self-study for 
Accreditation Review 
Comprehensive Final Exam 
University Graduation 
Writing Test (GWT 
Capstone Senior Design 
Course 
Industry/Government 
Critiques 
Aerospace Industry Action 
Council Consultation 
Graduating Senior Exit 
Survey 
The aerospace faculty 
interpret the evidence 
according to Bloom’s 
Taxonomy 
Modify and introduce new 
courses 
Introduction of a lab to a 
lecture 
Incorporate visual aids 
Use of guest lecturers and 
tours 
Additional oral/written 
presentations 
2005-06 
(ABET 
accreditation) 
Chemical and Materials Yes Published in University Sophomore Self-Assessment Each of the Assessment tools The core curriculum has been 2005-2006 
Engineering - BS Catalog and self-study for 
Accreditation Review 
CHE Senior Self Assessment 
Focus Groups addressing 
specific courses 
Fundamentals Exam 
Final Project 
Oral Reports 
Lab Reports 
Senior Design Performance 
Embedded Assessment in 
Selected Lecture Courses 
Industry Advisory Council 
Input 
was assigned to a specific 
CME faculty who completed 
statistical analysis and a mini 
summary report. These 
results were then reviewed in 
detail during CME faculty 
CHE Program Assessment 
Meetings. This process will 
continue in succeeding years. 
modified to include two 
major hands-on laboratory 
classes. 
Incorporate a materials 
engineering component. . 
Proactively facilitate 
mentor/protégé relations. 
Strengthen the final project 
component 
Encouraging our students to 
give formal, oral 
presentations about the 
project work both on campus 
and at professional meetings. 
Industrial and Yes Posted at 2005-06 
Manufacturing www.csupomona.edu/~ros (ABET 
Engineering - BS enkrantz/imeassessmentdo 
cs.htm 
accreditation) 
College of Environmental Design 
Bachelors of Yes The National Senior Projects, portfolio Faculty review senior projects We use the NAAB review 2002 
Architecture Architectural Accrediting 
Board (NAAB) sets 
Student Performance 
Criteria for accredited 
programs and publishes 
these requirements. 
reviews and reviews by 
outside critics 
and portfolios. A report on 
our program and one year of 
student work in all courses is 
reviewed by the NAAB 
visiting Teams. 
and other reviews to 
periodically revise and update 
our curriculum. 
(NAAB 
accreditation) 


1. Have 2. Where are 3. Other than GPA, 4. Who interprets the 5. How are the 6. Date 
CATEGORY formal 
learning 
these learning 
outcomes published? 
what data/evidence is 
used to determine that 
evidence? What is the 
process? 
findings used? of last 
program 
outcomes graduates have achieved review for 
been stated outcomes for the this degree 
developed? degree? program 
Masters of Architecture Yes The National 
Architectural Accrediting 
Board (NAAB) sets 
Student Performance 
Criteria for accredited 
programs and publishes 
these requirements. 
Thesis projects and reviews 
by outside critics 
Faculty review Thesis 
projects. A report on our 
program and one year of 
student work in all courses is 
reviewed by the NAAB 
visiting Teams. 
We use the NAAB review 
and other reviews to 
periodically revise and update 
our curriculum. 
2002 
(NAAB 
accreditation) 
Art - BA Yes Accreditation document, 
available in department 
office 
Senior project capstone 
course 
NASAD, faculty To make department as well 
as curriculum improvements 
2003 (NASAD 
accreditation) 
Graphic Design - BFA Yes Accreditation document, 
available in department 
office 
Capstone course and Portfolio NASAD, faculty To make department as well 
as curriculum improvements 
2003 (NASAD 
accreditation) 
Landscape Architecture Yes Strategic Plan and Course Studio reviews; portfolio Faculty; professional As a measure of curriculum 2005 
- BS syllabi, available in 
department office 
reviews, Career Day, national 
accreditation by Landscape practitioners; accreditation 
quality and relevancy. As a 
measure of program direction 
(accreditation) 
Architecture Accreditation and as a mechanism for 
Board. board . Year-end assessment curriculum 
development/revision. 
of curriculum by the faculty. 
Master of Landscape Yes Strategic Plan, available in 606 studio; graduate thesis. Faculty; professional As a measure of curriculum 2005. 
Architecture department office Studio reviews; portfolio 
reviews, Career Day, national practitioners; accreditation 
quality and relevancy. As a 
measure of program direction 
(accreditation) 
accreditation by Landscape and as a mechanism for 
Architecture Accreditation board . Year-end 606 studio curriculum 
Board development/revision 
and thesis reviews by the 
faculty. 
Regenerative Studies -
MS 
Yes Implementation Program 
Proposal Document; 
individual course 
outlines/syllabi outline 
learning outcomes for 
specific courses, available 
in department office 
Terminal Master’s 
thesis/project serves as 
capstone experience; public 
presentations of work in core 
courses are used to gauge 
learning outcomes of specific 
courses 
Faculty, led by graduate 
program coordinator interpret 
the evidence. Annual faculty 
retreats are used to review 
learning outcomes observed 
in course presentations and 
review of capstone theses. 
Information is integrated with 
data from focus groups of 
students concerning course 
assessment, to adjust learning 
outcomes of specific courses, 
and refine teaching methods. 
Program 
initiated in 
2004-05 


CATEGORY 
1. Have 
formal 
learning 
outcomes 
been 
developed? 
2. Where are 
these learning 
outcomes published? 
3. Other than GPA, 
what data/evidence is 
used to determine that 
graduates have achieved 
stated outcomes for the 
degree? 
4. Who interprets the 
evidence? What is the 
process? 
5. How are the 
findings used? 
6. Date 
of last 
program 
review for 
this degree 
program 
Urban and Regional Yes Provided in the Faculty juries of individual The evidence is interpreted Continuous curriculum 2002-03 (PAB 
Planning - BS department’s last 
accreditation self study. 
Course specific learning 
outcomes are articulated 
in course syllabi. 
capstone student research 
projects; performance in 
capstone studio class 
(measured by awards 
received for work products). 
Periodic feedback is obtained 
from employers and the URP 
alumni association during 
accreditation. 
by the Planning Accreditation 
Board review team in 
conducting accreditation 
reviews. It is also interpreted 
by the faculty curriculum 
committee that makes 
recommendation to the 
faculty. 
enhancement through changes 
in curriculum, revised 
courses, coordination 
between courses to reinforce 
learning outcomes, and the 
use of experimental courses 
to test new teaching concepts. 
accreditation) 
Masters of Urban and Yes Provided in the Oral examinations of The evidence is interpreted Continuous curriculum 2002-03 (PAB 
Regional Planning department’s last 
accreditation self study. 
Course specific learning 
outcomes are articulated 
in course syllabi. 
individual capstone student 
research and/or 
comprehensive examinations; 
performance in URP 641/642 
capstone studio class. 
Periodic feedback is obtained 
from employers and the URP 
alumni association during 
accreditation. 
by the Planning Accreditation 
Board review team in 
conducting accreditation 
reviews. It is also interpreted 
by the faculty curriculum 
committee that makes 
recommendations to the 
faculty. 
enhancement through changes 
in curriculum, revised 
courses, coordination 
between courses to reinforce 
learning outcomes, and the 
use of experimental courses 
to test new teaching concepts. 
accreditation) 
College of Letters, Arts, and Social Sciences 
Anthropology - BS Yes Assessment Plan 
Document, available in 
department office 
Senior Colloquium; 
portfolios; alumni surveys; 
exit interviews; assessment 
surveys 
Assessment Committee 
(faculty) reviews portfolios 
and other data; Anthro 
coordinator recommends 
changes 
Changes in the curriculum 
and specific courses are based 
on the findings 
2003-04 
Behavioral Sciences - BA Yes Assessment Plan 
Document, available in 
department office 
Assessment Exam; evaluation 
of upper division papers; 
focus groups in Senior 
Seminar; exit surveys 
Assessment Committee 
(faculty) reviews sample 
papers; assessment exams; 
focus group & survey data 
and makes recommendations 
to faculty 
Changes in the curriculum 
and specific courses are based 
on the findings 
2000-01 
Communication - BS Yes Assessment Plan 
Document, available in 
department office 
Employer survey; internship 
final reports; third party 
recognitions; exit interviews; 
advisory board 
Committee of the Whole 
reviews survey results, final 
reports, exit interview 
findings, and recognitions 
received 
Changes in the curriculum 
and specific courses are based 
on the findings 
2003-04 
Economics - BS Yes Assessment Plan 
Document, available in 
department office 
Capstone sequence; 
comprehensive exam; student 
survey; alumni survey; 
embedded questions 
Assessment Committee 
(faculty) review senior 
projects, results of exam, and 
survey results 
Changes in the curriculum 
and specific courses are based 
on the findings 
2003-04 


CATEGORY 
1. Have 
formal 
learning 
outcomes 
been 
developed? 
2. Where are 
these learning 
outcomes published? 
3. Other than GPA, 
what data/evidence is 
used to determine that 
graduates have achieved 
stated outcomes for the 
degree? 
4. Who interprets the 
evidence? What is the 
process? 
5. How are the 
findings used? 
6. Date 
of last 
program 
review for 
this degree 
program 
English - BA Yes Assessment Plan 
Document, available in 
department office 
Assessment Seminar; 
portfolios; exit interviews; 
alumni surveys 
Assessment Committee 
(faculty) reviews portfolios 
annually; group exit 
interviews and biannual 
alumni survey conducted; 
report provided to full faculty 
for discussion 
Changes in the curriculum 
and specific courses are based 
on the findings 
2004-05 
Geography - BS Yes Assessment Plan 
Document, available in 
department office 
Senior Colloquium; 
portfolios; senior & alumni 
surveys; institutional data 
Assessment Committee 
(faculty) evaluates portfolios 
and other coursework, survey 
data, and other institutional 
data 
Changes in the curriculum 
and specific courses are based 
on the findings 
1999-2000 
History - BA Yes Assessment Plan 
Document, available in 
department office; HST 
300 handout 
Senior thesis; course 
evaluations; portfolios; GWT; 
alumni surveys 
Assessment committee 
(faculty) review theses and 
portfolios and prepare report 
for Dept. discussion; other 
data reviewed by faculty 
Changes in the curriculum 
and in specific courses are 
based on the findings 
1999-2000 
Kinesiology - BS Yes Assessment Plan 
Document, available in 
department office 
Senior Seminar/Project; 
professional portfolio; alumni 
surveys; GWT 
Assessment Committee 
(faculty) review portfolios 
and other data and report to 
full faculty for discussion and 
action 
Changes in the curriculum 
and specific courses are based 
on the findings 
1999-2000 
Music - BA Yes Assessment Plan 
Document, available in 
department office 
Senior projects; exit 
interview; juries; auditions; 
alumni survey 
Committee of the Whole 
reviews data three times per 
year (as it becomes available 
from various instruments) 
Changes in the curriculum 
and specific courses are based 
on the findings 
2002-03 
Philosophy - BA Yes Assessment Plan 
Document, available in 
department office 
Capstone seminar; review of 
sample papers 
Faculty committee analyzes 
various data elements and 
reports to full faculty for 
discussion and to develop a 
plan 
Changes in the curriculum 
and in specific courses are 
based on the findings 
2003-04 
Political Science - BA Yes Assessment Plan 
Document, available in 
department office 
Exit interview; “best paper” 
review; alumni surveys; 
GWT 
Faculty meet in an annual 
retreat setting to discuss 
findings from previous year’s 
assessment activities 
Changes in the curriculum 
and in specific courses are 
based on the findings 
1999-2000 
Psychology - BA Yes Assessment Plan 
Document, available in 
department office 
Assessment Exam; evaluation 
of upper division papers; 
focus groups in Senior 
Seminar; exit surveys 
Assessment Committee 
(faculty) reviews sample 
papers; assessment exams; 
focus group & survey data 
and makes recommendations 
to faculty 
Changes in the curriculum 
and specific courses are based 
on the findings 
2000-01 


CATEGORY 
1. Have 
formal 
learning 
outcomes 
been 
developed? 
2. Where are 
these learning 
outcomes published? 
3. Other than GPA, 
what data/evidence is 
used to determine that 
graduates have achieved 
stated outcomes for the 
degree? 
4. Who interprets the 
evidence? What is the 
process? 
5. How are the 
findings used? 
6. Date 
of last 
program 
review for 
this degree 
program 
Social Sciences - BA Yes Assessment Plan 
Document, available in 
department office 
Synthesis course; Student 
portfolio 
Committee of the Whole for 
assessment reviews portfolios 
using rubrics; Social Science 
coordinator recommends 
changes 
Changes in the curriculum 
and specific courses are based 
on the findings 
2003-04 
Sociology - BA Yes Assessment Plan 
Document, available in 
department office 
Assessment Exam; evaluation 
of upper division papers; 
focus groups in Senior 
Seminar; exit surveys 
Assessment Committee 
(faculty) reviews sample 
papers; assessment exams; 
focus group & survey data 
and makes recommendations 
to faculty 
Changes in the curriculum 
and specific courses are based 
on the findings 
2000-01 
Spanish - BA Yes Assessment Plan 
Document, available in 
department office 
Capstone Class; oral 
presentation; portfolio; exit 
survey; alumni survey 
All faculty will constitute the 
Assessment Committee and 
review all portfolios, survey 
data, and listen to all 
presentations 
Changes in the curriculum 
and specific courses are based 
on the findings 
2004-05 
Theater - BA Yes Assessment Plan 
Document, available in 
department office 
Alumni Survey; senior 
projects; portfolios; post-
show discussions; 
professional adjudications; 
exit interviews 
Committee of the Whole 
reviews data from various 
sources 
Changes in the curriculum 
and specific courses are based 
on the findings 
2003-04 
History - MA No New program 
Political Science - MPA No 2006 
(accreditation) 
Kinesiology - MS No 
Psychology - MS No 
English - MA No 
Economics - MS No 
College of Science 
Biological Sciences – all 
programs 
Biology – BS 
Biotechnology BS 
Botany – BS 
Environmental Biology – 
BS 
Microbiology BS 
Zoology – BS 
Biological Sciences - MS 
Yes Posted on department 
website, 
www.csupomona.edu/~bio 
logy/curriculum/slo_short. 
htm 
In development In development In development 2002 


CATEGORY 
1. Have 
formal 
learning 
outcomes 
been 
developed? 
2. Where are 
these learning 
outcomes published? 
3. Other than GPA, 
what data/evidence is 
used to determine that 
graduates have achieved 
stated outcomes for the 
degree? 
4. Who interprets the 
evidence? What is the 
process? 
5. How are the 
findings used? 
6. Date 
of last 
program 
review for 
this degree 
program 
Chemistry – BS and 
MS 
Yes On Department website 
http://www.csupomona.ed 
u/~chemistry/learning_out 
comes.htm 
In development Results of assessment efforts 
are discussed by department 
faculty 
Curriculum, including 
prerequisites, is modified 
2004-05 
Computer Science – BS 
and MS 
Yes http://www.csupomona.ed 
u/~cs/assessment/ 
Portfolio-based course 
summary reports 
Graduating Student Surveys 
Advisory Board Meetings 
Instructors use the portfolios 
to measure student learning in 
the course relative to the 
outcomes; assessment 
coordinator analyzes surveys 
and minutes from board 
meetings. 
To revise curriculum and 
general degree requirements 
2002-2003 
(ABET 
accreditation) 
Geology – BS Yes Department Web Page Exams, homework, lab Academic advisors, faculty, Adjust course timelines 1999-2000 
Integrated Earth Studies exercises, term projects, 
research papers, senior theses, 
pre/post test, course 
evaluations, student advising, 
survey of alumni 
department chair content, assignments, and 
teaching pedagogy; resolve 
course scheduling conflicts; 
adjust curriculum to address 
deficiencies, redundancies, 
and new or increased 
emphasis; identify areas for 
growth 
Mathematics – BS and MS Yes On the department 
website, 
http://www.csupomona.ed 
u/~math/Department%20g 
oals.pdf 
In development Assessment Committee, who 
will interpret the evidence 
and report the findings as 
well as suggestions for 
improvement to the 
Department 
To improve the program as 
indicated 
2002-03 
Physics - BS Yes Posted on department 
website, at 
<http://www.csupomona.e 
du/~physics/facstaff.htm> 
Major Field of Achievement 
Test 
Pre Test 
Survey students, faculty, and 
alumni 
Survey other Physics 
departments 
Survey client departments 
Budget and Planning 
Committee, department chair 
Determine: areas of curricular 
strengths and weaknesses; 
need for revision of options; 
modification of instruction in 
computational methods and 
tools; level of preparation of 
incoming students; 
reasonableness of student 
workload; how to better meet 
the needs of client 
departments 
2002-033 
Collins School of Hospitality Management 
Collins Yes course outlines and course 
syllabi 
Exams, presentations 
Team and individual projects 
Demonstrations 
2001-02 


INSTITUTION: __California State Polytechnic University, Pomona___ PRESIDENT/CEO: __Dr. J. Michael Ortiz___________ DATE: _May 12, 2006___ 

SUMMARY DATA FORM 

1. YEAR FOUNDED: ____1938_____________ 
2. CALENDAR PLAN: ______Quarters______________________________ 
3. DEGREE LEVELS OFFERED: ______ Associate ___X__ Bachelors ___X___ Masters ______ Doctorate ______ Professional 
4. SPONSORSHIP AND CONTROL: _______State__________________________________________________________________________________ 
5. LAST REPORTED IPEDS DATA FOR ENROLLMENT BY ETHNICITY AND GENDER 
Use IPEDS definitions for students. Data reported as of _________October 15, 2005____________________________ (date) 

Enrollment by 
Category 
Total 
FTE of 
Students* 
Total 
Headcount 
of Students 
Non-
Resident 
Alien 
Headcount 
Black, Non-
Hispanic 
Headcount 
Am Indian/ 
Alaska Native 
Headcount 
Asian / Pacific 
Islander 
Headcount 
Hispanic/ 
Latino 
Headcount 
White/Non-
Hispanic 
Headcount 
Ethnicity 
Unknown 
Headcount 
Total 
Male 
Headcount 
Total 
Female 
Headcount 
Undergraduate 15,087 16,994 917 661 53 5,525 4,742 4,365 1,747 10,288 7,722 
Graduate 999 1,875 128 78 10 374 397 609 279 821 1,054 
Non-degree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Total 16,194 19,885 1,045 739 63 5,899 5,139 4,974 2,026 11,109 8,776 

* If you have used a formula other than FTE = FT + (PT/3), please indicate how you have calculated FTE. 
6. LAST 3 YEARS IPEDS DATA FOR 6-YEAR COHORT GRADUATION RATE BY ETHNICITY & GENDER: 
If you track graduation rates separately for freshman students and for students who transfer in to your institution, please use question 6 to record FRESHMAN 
GRADUATION RATES and question 7 to record TRANSFER STUDENT GRADUATION RATES. 

Please indicate if the data provided in question 6 table below is ____X___for freshmen only OR ________for freshmen and transfer students combined. 

Freshman 
Cohort Year 
(Entering Fall) 
Overall 
Graduation Percentage 
Non-Resident 
Alien 
% 
Black, Non-
Hispanic 
% 
Am Indian/ 
Alaska Native 
% 
Asian / Pacific 
Islander 
% 
Hispanic/ 
Latino 
% 
White/Non-
Hispanic 
% 
Ethnicity 
Unknown 
% 
Male 
% 
Female 
% 
1997 44.6 39.4 41.4 30.0 47.2 41.8 44.2 44.7 37.7 53.6 
1998 42.4 56.0 24.3 25.0 47.6 33.9 45.7 35.9 38.6 47.7 
1999 45.9 52.7 22.8 36.4 47.1 40.1 51.1 48.8 40.8 53.5 
Averages 44.3% 49.4% 29.5% 30.5% 47.3% 38.6% 47.0% 43.1% 39.0% 51.6% 


7. If you track freshman and transfer graduation rates separately (see question 6), please provide 
LAST 3 YEARS DATA FOR 6-YEAR COHORT TRANSFER GRADUATION RATE BY ETHNICITY & GENDER: 
Transfer 
Cohort Year 
(Entering Fall) 
Overall 
Graduation Percentage 
Non-Resident 
Alien 
% 
Black, Non-
Hispanic 
% 
Am Indian/ 
Alaska Native 
% 
Asian / Pacific 
Islander 
% 
Hispanic 
% 
White/Non 
Hispanic 
% 
Ethnicity 
Unknown 
% 
Male 
% 
Female 
% 
1996 59.2% 80.4% 26.1% 100.0% 60.1% 56.7% 59.4% 56.0% 53.5% 68.0% 
1997 62.9% 71.3% 48.3% 40.0% 63.3% 56.7% 65.9% 64.2% 59.0% 68.1% 
1998 65.1% 78.6% 53.3% 16.7% 67.1% 60.4% 62.1% 63.9% 63.5% 67.0% 
Averages 62.4% 76.8% 42.6% 52.2% 63.5% 57.6% 62.5% 61.4% 58.7% 67.7% 

8. CURRENT FACULTY: Total FTE of faculty___743_____________ as of ___10/15/05_____________ (date) 
Full-time faculty headcount: ___625_______ % Non-Caucasian ___28.7____ % Male __62.6____ % Female __37.4____ 
Part-time faculty headcount:___574_______ % Non Caucasian ___29.4____ % Male __60.4____ % Female __39.6____ 
9. FTE STUDENT TO FTE FACULTY RATIO: _____22.5:1__________ 
10. FINANCES: 

A. 
Annual Tuition Rate: Undergraduate Resident Tuition: $2,520/Academic Year_(full-time) Undergraduate Non-Resident Tuition: __$226/unit___ 
Graduate Resident Tuition: $3,102/Academic Year (full-time)_ Graduate Non-Resident Tuition: ____$226/unit _____ 
B. 
Total Annual Operating Budget: __$202,064,942___ 
C. Percentage from tuition and fees: 
______
29.87%________ 
D. 
Operating deficit(s) for past 3 years: _________0_________ (FY2003); _________0________ (FY2004); _________0_______ (FY2005) 
E. 
Current Accumulated Deficit: 
_____________0___________________ 
F. Endowment: 
__
$22,000,000 (2004-2005)___ 
11. GOVERNING BOARD: A. Size: _____N/A*_______________ B. Meetings a year: ______________________ 
12. OFF-CAMPUS LOCATIONS: A. Number: ________3___________ B. Total Enrollment: _______122______________ 
13. ELECTRONICALLY-MEDIATED PROGRAMS (50% or more offered online): A. Number: _____0______ B. Total Enrollment: _______________ 
*Board of Trustees is for entire CSU system.