Preparatory Review Overview

Preparatory Review Sections

I. Introduction

II. Institutional Context

III. Thematic Features:

A. Opportunity
B. Exploration
C. Interaction

IV. Summary and Conclusion

Appendices

A. Evidentiary Report: Opportunity

B. Evidentiary Report:Exploration

C. Evidentiary Report: Interaction

D. Exemplars

E. Strategic Planning Goals

F. Plan for Educational Effectiveness Review

G. WASC Self-Report Steering Committee

H. Required Displays

Preparatory Review

SECTION II: INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

California State University System

California State University, Fresno, also known as Fresno State, is one of twenty-three campuses of the California State University (CSU) system. The CSU is responsible to a Board of Trustees which is, in turn, responsible to the Governor of California. The Board of Trustees determines regulations governing the system, publishing them in the California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Division 5. The chief executive of the CSU is the chancellor, currently Dr. Charles Reed, supported by the Chancellor’s Office and advised by his staff and by the Council of Presidents of the various campuses. The Chancellor’s Office, in consultation with the campuses, sets overall policy, allocates state funding of the system, and negotiates all collective bargaining agreements with the various unions.

University Administrative Organization

The campus has a relatively conventional organizational structure with a president and four vice-presidents—provost and vice president for Academic Affairs, vice president for Administrative Affairs and Chief Financial Officer, Vice President for Student Affairs and dean of students, and vice president for University Advancement. In addition to the four vice presidents, the director of Athletics, the internal auditor, and the university budget officer report directly to the President. The last also reports to the vice president for Administrative Affairs.

The most recent vice president for Administrative Affairs and chief financial officer, Dr. Benjamin F. Quillian, served in that position from 1993 to January 2003, when he assumed the position of senior vice president, business and operations, of the American Council on Education. His replacement, Cynthia Teniente-Matson, will assume this responsibility in March 2004. The vice president’s office is responsible for financial operations, human resources, information technology, facilities management, public safety, and auxiliary organizations.

Dr. Paul M. Oliaro assumed the position of vice president for Student Affairs and dean of students at the start of the fall semester, 2002. Dr. Oliaro’s immediate predecessor left the university to assume the position of vice chancellor for Student Affairs at UC Davis. Student Affairs includes enrollment services, academic enhancement services, health and psychological services, and student life.

Dr. Peter N. Smits has served as vice president for University Advancement since 1994. The Office of University Advancement is responsible for university development, university relations, and alumni relations.

Financial Management

In 2001-02, the university received a total of $167 million in general funds, consisting of over $130 million in base allocation and over $36 million in revenues and reimbursements, primarily student fees and tuition. In addition, grants, contracts, and private donations to the university have been running near $60 million per year providing 25 to 30 percent of the total university budget. All basic university functions are funded from the general funds.

The internal allocation process begins with an “off the top” allocation to centrally monitored funds covering personnel benefits, student financial aid, and a variety of other expenses. That is followed by the Level A allocation of funds to the operations of the president’s office and those of the four vice-presidents. This allocation is made by the president in consultation with his vice-presidents and the University Budget Committee. The vice-presidents are responsible for allocations to their operations – the Level B allocations.

In Academic Affairs, funds allocated to instruction are distributed to each college/school utilizing a formula based upon enrollment and an index reflecting the modes of instruction and support operations in that college/school. The University Budget Committee periodically reviews both the indices used and the formula and advises the provost on any revisions. (Almost 10 years ago, following on the budget crisis of the early 1990s, the Academic Senate recommended and the president approved a policy of making separate allocations to the library for operations and acquisitions. Indeed, through most of that period, the acquisitions allocation was increased by 10 percent each year.) Within the colleges and schools, budget committees have been established to advise the deans on allocations at that level.

Origin and Academic Structure

California State University, Fresno traces its history back to 1911 with the opening of Fresno State Normal School, located at the current site of Fresno City College. The move to the current site took place in the mid 1950s, and the current name, California State University, Fresno, dates from 1972.

The academic programs have expanded considerably since 1911 and the campus now offers degrees at the baccalaureate, master's, and doctoral level in a wide range of pure and applied disciplines. The departments offering these degrees are currently housed in eight schools/colleges:

• College of Agricultural Sciences and Technology
• College of Arts and Humanities
• Craig School of Business
• Kremen School of Education and Human Development
• College of Engineering and Computer Science
• College of Health and Human Services
• College of Science and Mathematics
• College of Social Sciences

In addition to these instructional units, there are divisions of Graduate Studies, Library Services, and Continuing and Global Education.

Academic Shared Governance

A strong tradition of academic shared governance prevails in the CSU. This practice has been embedded over the years in the Constitution of the Academic Assembly (i.e., the faculty), of which the Academic Senate is the representative body. Provisions defining rights and responsibilities have been drawn from multiple sources, foremost of which are the State Legislature, the CSU Board of Trustees, and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).

Consultation and joint decision-making between administration and faculty is recognized by the California Higher Education Employer-Employees Relations Act (HEERA). Regarding curricular and academic personnel matters, “faculty recommendations are normally approved, except in rare instances and for compelling reasons. The collegial process also recognizes the value of participation by the faculty in budgetary matters, particularly those directly affecting the areas for which the faculty has primary responsibility” (CSU Board of Trustees). Adding to this, the Constitution declares: “The deliberative process of consultation is therefore required. Meaningful consultation, from initial formulation through final determination of policies and procedures, consists of thoughtful deliberation and presentation of facts and opinions leading to consensus or agreement.”

The institutional capacity to be educationally effective is strengthened by the consultative process because faculty are empowered with voice and responsibility for matters within their domain – namely curriculum design, student learning, and teaching pedagogy.

Structure of Senate

While the full Academic Senate is the formal recommending body to the president of the university, the shaping of policy and procedures and the review of proposed programs (and evaluations thereof) occur within the elected standing committees and appointed subcommittees. Administrators (and in some instances students) serve ex-officio. Two and three levels of review by a subcommittee, its parent standing committee, and the Executive Committee (on which the provost and president sit) screen and refine documents before these are presented to the Academic Senate for action. The president makes the final decision.

The institutional capacity to be educationally effective has been structurally enhanced since the last accreditation review in 1993. The Program Review Subcommittee of the Academic Policy and Planning Committee was established in 1996 to provide greater attention to undergraduate program review, a function which had been a portion of the charge of the Undergraduate Curriculum Subcommittee. With the advent of student outcome assessment on the campus, the Program Review Subcommittee revised its governing document to provide integration of assessment into the review. In 1998, the General Education Subcommittee was converted to a standing committee. Coupled with the existing Undergraduate Curriculum Subcommittee, the Graduate Committee, and the Graduate Curriculum Subcommittee these changes strengthen institutional capacity to review student learning and program change.

Process of Policy Making

Policy initiatives originate from the faculty or the administration in response to needs. Typically, the latter presents proposals and renders data/information support to deliberations. Decisions to recommend policy to the next level of review are mostly reached by consensus. The consultative process at multiple levels of consideration builds understanding and trust that allows accommodation and compromise in most instances. Critical differences between faculty and administration arise infrequently; when they do, this can result in the president’s rejection of a senate recommendation.

The institutional capacity to be educationally effective has been demonstrated by the recent enactment of the “Policy on Student Outcomes Assessment Data and Information” [2000], the Procedures and Guidelines for Periodic Review of Academic Programs (inclusive of outcomes assessment) [2002], and a prospective document entitled “Procedures for Creating New Undergraduate Programs and Changing Existing Undergraduate Curricula” [2003]. These documents have been added to the Academic Policy Manual (APM). The Academic Senate also adopted an “Assessment Plan for General Education” [2001]. Included among the policies are the Statement on Academic Freedom and the related University Statement on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities.

The University Budget Committee produced a report on rebuilding the faculty in 2000, and the Academic Senate forwarded to the president "Senate Recommendations on Rebuilding the Faculty." In 2001 the president commended the committee for its extensive work on this complex and complicated matter and endorsed some recommendations while expressing willingness to engage in dialog about others. This forms the basis for constructive consultation as the university copes with the current budget crisis and plans for eventual recovery.

Finally, the University Budget Committee works closely with the administration in the development of the “Level A” allocation—the allocation of funds to the vice-presidents' and president’s offices; in the mid 1990s, the committee formulated a “Budget Allocation Model” that governs how state funds are distributed to the colleges and schools by the provost’s office. A product of the financial crisis confronting CSU in 1991-94, it serves to dampen sudden shifts in funding as budgets and enrollments fluctuate significantly—thus creating stability in the alignment and deployment of resources to programs in accord with priorities and goals.

Upon the advice of the Administrative Cabinet and Strategic Planning Steering Committee, the president also may make use of a “Strategic Priorities Fund” to help initiate and achieve university aims. Serving on the committee are faculty leaders, executive-level staffers, and the president and provost.

Campus Facilities

The university is sited on 1470 acres, 74 percent of which is devoted to agriculture—cropland, orchards, vineyards, farm animal facilities, and laboratory and research facilities. The Agricultural Foundation of California State University, Fresno leases an additional 4500 acres of grazing land from the United States Department of Agriculture, at the San Joaquin Experimental Range 22 miles north of the main campus. Athletic facilities, including the Save Mart Center currently under construction, occupy approximately 136 acres, or more than 9 percent of the total. The remaining 240 acres, bounded by Cedar, Barstow, Woodrow, and Shaw, includes the instructional and administrative core of the campus.

Recent construction in this core includes the Music Building, the Education Building, the Smittcamp Alumni House, and the Atrium and outside patio adjoining the Student Union and the bookstore. In an area north of the Science Building, the Downing Planetarium and the State Crime Lab constitute the first elements of the Fresno State Science Center. Pending construction in the Science Center are a planetarium-affiliated science museum and a major new classroom-office building, Science II. Further planned for this area are a number of other buildings, including a Science Partner’s building. With the construction of Science II, the last of six “temporary” buildings dating from 1968 will be removed, putting all academic instruction and offices in permanent facilities designed for such use.

The grounds of the university core have been designated an arboretum, and an arboretum committee, drawing on the expertise of both Buildings and Grounds staff and faculty from the Biology and Plant Science departments, watches over its progress. In addition, the campus features a Peace Garden, an allergy free garden, and a Rose Garden. The Friends of the Arboretum, Tree Fresno and the San Joaquin Valley Rose Society, local volunteer organizations, also assist in the design and care of the gardens and arboretum.

Classrooms and laboratories have undergone regular renovation and modification. These efforts include, in particular, modifications to better accommodate persons with disabilities and to incorporate new technological resources which bring state-of-the-art capabilities to instruction. These technological innovations are discussed in more detail in the evidentiary report Opportunity.

Institution and Program Accreditation

California State University, Fresno is fully accredited by the California State Board of Education and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. California State University, Fresno was first accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) along with five other CSU campuses whose accreditation was taken over from the Association of American Universities, North Central Association in 1949, and has been accredited ever since. The working relationship with the association has been excellent, as reflected by the fact that President John Welty and University Advisory Committee member Hugo Morales serve on the WASC Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities. The most recent full accreditation by WASC was in 1994.

Strategic Planning – Mission and Vision

• Plan for the 90’s (1993-1996)
• Vision for the 21st Century: A Plan for Excellence (1997-2000)
• Plan for Excellence II (2001-2006)

The history of strategic planning at California State University, Fresno and a description of the planning process and implementation/monitoring procedures form the text of the exemplar below which also features the interface of the most recent strategic planning exercise with the ongoing WASC Accreditation Self-Study.

EXEMPLAR:
Strategic Planning History and Process

EXEMPLAR:
Accreditation and Planning Interface

The Vision for the 21st Century plans included a systematic process for review of success in reaching the goals – the Milestones reports. Those reports are available for the first of these two strategic plans. The result of important goals contained in the earlier plans, such as emphasizing diversity, professional development, enhanced educational technology, honors programs, a new General Education Program, service-learning, and funding source diversification are reflected in the institutional changes discussed throughout the present essay.

In anticipation of the upcoming 10-year university accreditation, provision was made in 2000 for the chair of the WASC Accreditation Self-Study Steering Committee to be a member of the Strategic Planning Steering Committee in order to facilitate communication and coordination of the accreditation and strategic planning processes. Accreditation self-study findings and recommendations regarding institutional capacity and educational effectiveness will be submitted to the Strategic Planning Steering Committee for integration with the current plan during its review of Milestone reports in fall 2003 and for consideration in the establishment of academic priorities for the Comprehensive Campaign fund raising currently being organized.

Operational Review and Assessment

In response to the CSU Strategic Plan (Cornerstones), new WASC Standards, and a concern with improving the quality of instruction, considerable emphasis has been given to student learning outcomes assessment. Beginning in 1998, academic departments were encouraged to develop Student Learning Outcome Assessment Plans (SOAPs), and within three years all departments were participating. The details of that development are covered in the Thematic Features section under Opportunity.

A new General Education (GE) program was implemented effective with students entering fall 1998. While it was developed prior to the introduction of student outcomes assessment, the stated goals of each of the GE areas translated readily into learning outcomes. An outcomes assessment plan for general education was approved by the Academic Senate in 2001-2002, and assessment activities began in 2002.

Following the introduction of outcomes assessment in the academic areas, beginning in 1999 each administrative department was asked to prepare an outcomes assessment plan. These are reported to the president on a five-year cycle.

Fresno County and Its Neighbors—A Profile

While the university has national and international reach, the area primarily served by the campus is Fresno County and the four other San Joaquin counties near Fresno—Kings, Madera, Merced, and Tulare—a truly exceptional region that is home to two-thirds of our students.

The city of Fresno is now the sixth largest city in California; Fresno County ranks first among counties in the United States in number of farms, farms with sales over $100,000, amount of harvested cropland, farm production expenses, and market value of agricultural goods produced. The four other counties are also major contributors to California agriculture, with Tulare third and Merced sixth among the nation’s counties in the value of agricultural goods, and the other two counties within the top twenty-five.

The agricultural dominance of the region’s economy, unfortunately, is also associated with labor-intensive, relatively low-paying employment, largely of immigrant and migrant laborers, and is distinguished by its unemployment rate, typically two to three times that of the state; a teen birthrate nearly double that of California and the nation; and the highest poverty levels in the state. The region is also plagued with some of the worst air quality in the nation.

Student Characteristics

Approximately two-thirds of our students—freshmen and transfers—come to us from high schools and community colleges in the five counties, with 33 to 40 percent coming from schools inside Fresno and Clovis. Entering fall 2001 freshmen who indicated ethnicity on their application had an ethnic mix of 42 percent white, 32 percent Hispanic, 19 percent Asian, and 7 percent African-American. That distribution is itself a highly varied combination of regional sources: two-thirds of our Asian freshmen come from the Fresno/Clovis schools, while for the other ethnic categories that figure is closer to one-third. Over 40 percent of African-American freshmen come from outside the San Joaquin Valley, while for the other ethnic categories that fraction varies from 10 to 20 percent.

Figure 1 displays the ethnic mix of Fresno State freshmen and of native (students who entered as freshmen) baccalaureates, along with “source” distributions. Note the striking decline in share from population to qualified high school graduates, for Hispanics, reflecting the high drop-out rate of that group. Conversely, there is an increasing share for Asians from population through entering freshmen (8 percent to 19 percent). The drop in Asian baccalaureates reflects the rapid growth of this segment of the population—baccalaureates typically having entered the university five to six years earlier.

In the 2001 HERI Survey, while our entering freshman responses to most of the items were not unlike the national sample of four-year public colleges, their backgrounds were in several ways very different from that national sample.

• 46 percent indicated ethnic background as white/Caucasian, vs. 67 percent for the national sample.
• 31 percent indicated ethnic background as Mexican American/Chicano, vs. 8 percent nationally.
• 32 percent indicated family income < $25,000, vs. 17 percent nationally.
• 10 percent indicated Permanent resident status, vs. 3 percent nationally
• 27 percent indicated English not their native language, vs. 9 percent nationally
• 29 percent indicated that their father had not completed high school, vs. 11 percent nationally

In spite of these differences, their academic aspirations were quite similar to the national group in the percentage (65) who anticipated a post-baccalaureate degree.

Many local high schools rank rather low on the state Academic Performance Index (API), although there are some conspicuous exceptions. The assigned API scores show ranking of the schools by decile, and yet 38 percent of our entering freshmen come from schools rated in the bottom two categories.

The California State University System requires all entering freshmen to either exempt from, on the basis of coursework or other tests, or take the English Placement Test (EPT) and the Entry Level Mathematics test (ELM). Those not achieving defined minimum test scores must successfully complete a remedial course during their first year in the CSU if they are to be allowed to enter their second year. Among our entering freshmen, 72 percent required some remediation: 28 percent in both math and English; 39 percent in math only; and 5 percent in English only.

A review of regional students is provided by the Central Valley Report Card of the Central Valley Higher Education Consortium.

Recent Campus Thrusts

Ten areas of new or renewed emphasis since our last WASC reaccreditation stand out in both importance and scope. They have been driven, in part, by strategic planning efforts. These areas are within thematic feature analyses.

Honors Programs

The university-wide Smittcamp Family Honors Program, now approaching its fifth year of operation, has been very successful, bringing many bright, stimulating students to campus on full scholarships. Not only has the program brought significant educational benefits to the selected students and exciting teaching experiences to the honors faculty, it has benefited all undergraduates by raising the quality of classroom interaction in many non-honors classes and by giving new importance and respect to campus student governance and participation in Academic Senate committees and various task forces. In addition to this university-wide program, the Craig School of Business and the Department of Psychology have developed honors programs in their disciplines, and a number of other colleges and departments are working on similar programs.

Faculty Transformation

The transformation of the faculty is reflected in much greater emphasis, in both hiring and personnel decisions, on faculty research and creative activity. With that has come a reformation of the Retention-Tenure-Promotion (RTP) process, including formal probationary plans and mentoring, along with increased start-up support, more assigned time for research, and greater support for grant proposal preparation. Grant funding quadrupled from 1996-97 to 2002-03, nearing $50 million.

Community-Campus Interaction

President Welty’s goal to make California State University, Fresno “a premier interactive university” has been widely embraced by the faculty. A large number of institutes and centers have been established to facilitate and foster interaction with both the public and private sectors, building on the long-standing success of the California Agriculture Technology Institute (CATI) and the University Business Center (UBC). Newer efforts include, among many others, the Fresno Area Regional Collaborative Initiative, Maddy Institute for Public Affairs, the Central California Health Policy Institute, the Children's Institute, Interdisciplinary Spatial Information Center, the Central Valley Business Incubator, and, for a different audience, the Downing Planetarium. In addition, this interaction is supported through the curriculum with the new Solutions Center, service-learning courses, and Students for Community Service.

New partnerships with the community include the Central Valley Higher Education Consortium, the International Center for Water Technology, and the University High School.

Assessment

As noted earlier, the push for student learning outcomes assessment has fostered assessment programs in every academic department and in the General Education Program. The periodic program review process has been modified to integrate assessment, utilizing existing structures to monitor and encourage assessment and the intelligent use of assessment results. Following on this effort, administrative departments are now also required to have and to report on outcomes assessment of their operations.

Diversity

While an emphasis on diversity is not new, it has been given added importance in recent years both in recruiting and retention, with the result that both our entering freshman cohorts and our graduating classes well reflect the diversity of our community. As an example, the Faculty Mentoring Program, which works with high-risk freshmen, has shown an eight-semester persistence rate—higher than that of all other entering freshmen (64 vs. 57 percent, as revealed in a study of special program effectiveness).

This diversity emphasis is also reflected in faculty hiring, with minorities comprising 25 percent of full-time faculty and 31 percent of part-time faculty. This compares to 1997 figures showing a 17 percent full-time and 18 percent part-time minority faculty makeup.

Academic Technology

Over the past several years, major efforts have been made in planning and implementing significant enhancements in educational technology. The Technology Strategic Plan Task Force completed a major review of the status of the university's educational technology, emerging with a set of recommendations that included smart classrooms, courseware development, faculty computing support and related professional development, complete student access to computing facilities and on-line administrative services, and appropriate infrastructure.

In fulfillment of this planning process has come wireless connectivity for the library and the central mall area of the campus, a new office providing faculty support for Web-based and Web-supported coursework (Digital Campus), the introduction of Blackboard, and leased laptop computers for full-time faculty. While the transition from a number of legacy programs for financials, human resources, and student administration has not been without snags, the new PeopleSoft Student Administration system has been very successful in implementing on-line registration, grading, and queries, and works well with recently implemented PeopleSoft Human Resources and Financial Systems.

Doctoral Degrees

In 1991, California State University, Fresno admitted their first students to the Joint Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership, administered jointly with the University of California at Davis. As of May 2003, there have been 80 graduates of the program. Under the California Master Plan for Higher Education, campuses of the California State University are allowed to offer doctoral degrees only jointly with other higher education institutions offering the doctorate. The expansion of the educational doctorate, including offering two tracks (one for K-12, one for college level), and doctoral degrees in criminal justice sciences, speech-language pathology, science and mathematics education, physical therapy, and a JD/MBA are currently in discussion and planning.

Decentralization

College-level autonomy has been substantially increased over recent years, facilitated by formula-based, lump-sum budgeting from the provost’s office and the development of college-based fund raising. After the Chancellor’s Office moved away from line-item budgeting, the university began to extend to colleges greater and greater freedom in governing how their funds were allocated, making a gradual transition from department- and category-specific funding to a single, lump-sum allocation beginning in 1998.

There is no question that such increased autonomy has fostered greater creativity and entrepreneurial activity by the schools and colleges. The rapid development of institutes and centers and major college-specific donations noted above denotes just some of the results of this change.

New Focus on Athletics

This period saw important changes in the university’s athletic programs, including revisions in the sports represented in response to Cal-NOW and Title IX, a new Student Athlete Code of Conduct, a new Student Athlete Recruitment Code, the establishment of an Athletics Advisory Council, and a new academic emphasis in athletics including the Academic Gameplan for football. Athletic academic advising is being moved to the Office of the Provost in fall 2003. The strengthening of women’s athletics included the addition of women’s soccer and women’s equestrian teams; the construction of Bulldog Diamond, the finest on-campus softball stadium in the country; and, in 1998, an NCAA championship in softball. The conduct codes, the advisory council, and the greater emphasis on academics arose in part from institutional control issues with basketball and, to a lesser extent, football. The new policies noted above reflect the increased involvement of the Academic Senate and academic affairs. A Milestone Report documents progress resulting from these changes.

Non-state Support

A major effort over the past decade has been to increase substantially the level of non-state funding of the university through alumni giving, and corporate and community support. While the system-wide goal for such giving is 10 percent of overall budget, Fresno State has notably surpassed this mark, achieving a level of giving at or near 30 percent of overall budget, and a growth in addressable alumni from 81,000 to 140,000 over the past five years. For the 2001-02 college year, with contributions totaling over $23 million, Fresno State was fourth among the 23 campuses of the system in voluntary donations after San Luis Obispo, San Diego State, and Long Beach State. In Grants and Contracts, Fresno State showed just under $47 million in 2002-03, a steady and significant increase over a six-year period.

The university has received significant and substantial gifts in recent years, including funding for the Craig School of Business, the Kremen School of Education and Human Development, the Smittcamp Family Honors College, the Smittcamp Alumni House, the Downing Planetarium, and a number of industry gifts in support of the agriculture program, particularly its increasingly renowned viticulture and enology program. In addition to these gifts in support of the academic and community outreach operations of the university, contributions in support of athletic programs have given the university highly competitive teams in many sports as well as state-of-the-arts facilities for football, baseball, softball, and, with the anticipated completion of the $103 million Save Mart Center, basketball. The Save Mart Center, the largest privately funded facility in the California State University system, will also house a wide variety of university and entertainment events. Student recreational facilities and a center for innovation and entrepreneurship will be added, adjunct to the facility, in 2005.

EXEMPLAR:
Support of the University