• Executive Summary
 
1.    Cal Poly Plan Purposes and Goals

2.    Planning and Consultation Processes

3.    Cal Poly Plan Recommendations, Winter 1996

4.    Outline of Comprehensive Multi-Year Plan and Funding Strategy

• Attachments

Appendix A. Combined Top Ranking from 1995 Cal Poly Plan Surveys
 

Appendix B. Cal Poly Plan Principles and Choices, Winter 1996

Purposes and Goals

The Cal Poly Plan is a multi-year initiative to reinforce educational quality at Cal Poly in the face of significant State budget reductions that began in 1990-91. The Plan's purposes are:

• Renewal and enhancement of educational quality;

• Increased student learning and timely progress to degree completion;

• Improvement in Institutional productivity; and

• Development of accountability and assessment measures and procedures.
 

Planning and Consultation Process

The Cal Poly Plan is emerging through a process that integrates campus Consultation with the management processes of the University. Key roles are played by:

• The deans and vice-presidents who consider University wide issues as well as implications for their colleges or divisions

• A Steering Committee that represents organized campus constituency groups:

Principles

The Steering Committee developed a set of principles including continued broad consultation, modest enrollment growth, and accountability for investments and outcomes. Financial support for the Cal Poly Plan derives from a partnership involving additional State funding, redirection of State tax revenues and operational efficiencies by the University, contributions from Cal Poly's friends and patrons, and fees from students. Thus, in considering a campus-based fee to support the Cal Poly Plan, the Committee emphasized that revenues from this source be supplementary to other sources and that they be invested to benefit student education directly and visibly.

The Steering Committee calls upon the creativity of the Cal Poly community in finding ways to meet the purposes of the Plan, particularly through fiscal flexibility, curricular revision, and the use of information technology.
 

Recommendations

Steering Committee recommendations for 1996-97 include the following:

• That Cal Poly grow by approximately 200 additional Full Time Equivalent Students (FTES) during the next academic year, with support to be provided by additional State funds.

• That new investments be financed by a campus-based fee, and supported by University fundraising, redirection of State tax revenues, and exploration of operational efficiencies.

• That a Request for Proposal (RFP) process be used to allocate revenues from the campus-based fee to ensure that investments meet the purposes and goals of the Cal Poly Plan and to encourage the best thinking campus-wide about educational quality, student progress, institutional productivity, and accountability and assessment.

• That future fee increases be phased in, up to a level not to exceed one-third of the State University Fee, with the following tentative schedule:

• That priorities for future years build on the first year, expand financial aid, and add funding for faculty and for career services

• Instructional technology and equipment to ensure student access to laboratory equipment and information technology to prepare them for life and work in the twenty-first century -investment beginning in 1996-97

• Instructional programs and academic advising, including curricular revisions, that enable students to succeed academically and advance toward their degree goals -- investment beginning in 1996-97

• Tentative target of approximately 30 tenure-track faculty Positions o support student progress to degree completion, contribute to teaching and learning productivity, assist in implementing curricular revisions, and/or apply new teaching and learning models or instructional technologies -- investment beginning in 1997-98 and expanded in 1998-99

• Career services -- investment beginning in 1997-98; an

• Financial aid -- investment beginning in 1996-97 and expanded -in 1997-98 and 1998-99

• That confirmation of tentative fee increases and investments for future years be based on progress in attaining demonstrable results consistent with Cal Poly Plan purposes and goals.

This report summarizes the work of the Cal Poly Plan Steering Committee from summer 1995 through winter 1996. Following campus review, the University will revise and submit the report to the California State University Board of Trustees. After briefly discussing the purposes of the Cal Poly Plan, the report addresses the campus planning and consultation process, recommendations regarding the initial year of implementation, and the elements of a multi-year plan and funding strategy.

The Cal Poly Plan is a focused multiyear plan and funding strategy to enable the University to build upon its traditions of excellence and service to the people of California, and to meet the public's expectations for continued access, quality, and increased accountability. Four linked terms express the purposes of the Plan: (1) renewal and enhancement of educational quality, (2) increased student learning and timely progress to degree completion, (3) improvement in institutional productivity, and (4) development of accountability and assessment measures and procedures. This initiative is a means toward achieving the promise of the University's Strategic Plan, adopted in 1994.
 
 

Educational Quality Goals

• Renewal and enhancement of educational programs in the face of significant reductions in State funding that began in 1990-91;
• Reinforcement of the polytechnic mission of the University and its "learn by doing" approach to education emphasizing laboratory activities, projects, and field experience;
• Preparation of graduates with state-of-the-art knowledge and competencies needed for life and work in the twenty-first century

• Improvements in access to classes, academic advising, and other measures to assure academic success and timely progress to degree completion;
• Moderate increase in enrollment during the academic year, consistent with the Cal Poly mission and the University's physical resources.

• Promotion of greater productivity in learning, teaching, support, and administrative services;
• Greater efficiency in the use of physical resources and fixed costs, including the potential for expanded summer enrollment as the University explores a year-round calendar.

• Development of measures of accountability and procedures for assessment that demonstrate the stewardship of the University to both internal and external constituents.

The Need for a Cal Poly Plan

When Cal Poly experienced budget reductions during the early 1990s, the University deliberately reduced enrollment to minimize the effects on educational quality. Nevertheless, the campus had to undertake measures that could affect quality in the long-term, such as reductions in faculty and staff, delays in equipment replacement, cuts in operating budgets, and deferral of facility maintenance.

In the future, the campus will continue to depend on the State tax revenues as its primary source of operating revenues. However, the Cal Poly Plan recognizes that these revenues alone are not likely to be sufficient to maintain the quality of education upon which the campus reputation is based nor to enable students to complete their degrees on schedule. The basis for the allocation of additional State funds does not recognize the investment required to sustain Cal Poly's polytechnic mission and "learn by doing" approach to education. With over 70 percent of the undergraduates pursuing degrees in programs that emphasize a rich combination of theory and practice in the curriculum through laboratories and projects, the University needs both to supplement State funding and to improve its productivity to assure every student of timely progress through a quality program.

The investment and finance strategies of the Cal Poly Plan emphasize the theme of partnership and shared responsibility, connecting the following:

• The State through funding for higher education from tax revenues;
• The University through the allocation of State tax revenues and State University Fees and through operational efficiencies;
• Friends and patrons of Cal Poly through private contributions; and
• Students and their families through a campus-based fee.

Linkage with Earlier Initiatives and Concurrent Planning Activities

The Cal Poly Plan process builds on the Strategic Plan adopted in 1994 and the "charter university" committee reports prepared during 1994-95. In addition, the process incorporates a number of recent and concurrent studies in different divisions: e.g., "Visionary Pragmatism," general education, student throughput, program review, educational equity, and quality improvement.

Steering Committee

President Warren Baker formed the Cal Poly Plan Steering Committee during Summer 1995 to help formulate the issues to be addressed, to provide communication to and from their constituencies, and to develop a consensus on the principles the Cal Poly Plan would apply. The Steering Committee draws together representatives of organized University constituency groups including the Academic Senate, Associated Students (ASI), Staff Council, and Labor Council.¹ In addition, the President asked the deans and vice-presidents to contribute to the development of the Plan, considering University wide issues as well as implications for their colleges or divisions. Thus, through these groups and individuals the Cal Poly Plan integrates a campus consultation and the management processes of the University.

Campus Information and Constituency Involvement

President Baker introduced the campus to the need for a Cal Poly Plan during Spring 1995 with a short Outlook publication and a series of meetings with student, faculty, and staff groups. "Keeping Cal Poly's Promise" became the theme for the 1996 Fall Conference opening session, with President Baker's remarks distributed campus-wide.

Steering Committee members have provided information and promoted understanding of the Plan among their constituencies. During Fall 1995 the faculty, staff and students sponsored focus groups and the college deans held forums to discuss issues associated with the Plan. In addition, coverage by the Mustang Daily, Update, and Cal Poly Report has kept the community informed. Further, the email account polyplan@oboe was established for inquiries and suggestions about the Plan.

On November 28, 1995, the Academic Senate adopted a resolution encouraging the University to continue work on the Plan, subject to some important conditions regarding protection of the University's base budget and State support for enrollment growth, and campus control over the expenditure of all new revenues generated by the Plan. On January 25, 1996, the Academic Senate Executive Committee adopted another resolution, urging assessment of how the expenditure of fee revenues associated with the Cal Poly Plan meets its goals.

Survey Research

To complement group discussion of issues associated with the Cal Poly Plan, the campus sponsored a series of systematic surveys to assess opinion on the quality of education at Cal Poly and priorities for investments. The Steering Committee also had access to earlier studies, such as the "Student Throughput Study," and "Student Needs and Priorities Survey." The Cal Poly Plan surveys during Fall 1995 included a few questions posed to students during Fall and Winter CAPTURE registration and a more extensive questionnaire from a cluster sample of classes; an Academic Senate survey of all faculty and professional consultative services staff; a Human Resources survey of all State funded, Foundation and ASI employees; and surveys by the Student Affairs Assessment and Testing Office
 

of a sample of parents, honored alumni, and members of advisory groups. Appendix A contains a summary of investment priorities emerging from these surveys.²

Cal Poly Plan Principles

To guide their deliberations the Steering Committee, deans, and vice-presidents developed a set of guiding principles for the Cal Poly Plan as fall discussions progressed. Appendix B summarizes these planning and decision-making principles and choices. Critical principles include the following:

• That planning is based on joint governance and constituency consultation;
• That modest enrollment growth will be consistent with the Cal Poly Strategic Plan;
• That revenues from a new campus-based fee will be supplementary to other revenue sources (and augmented by State funds and private contributions, and by operational efficiencies);
• That investment of such fee revenues will be of direct, visible benefit to students;
• That the University will establish measures of accountability to mark progress toward meeting Cal Poly Plan purposes; and
• That results of the Cal Poly Plan can serve as models for transferable quality and productivity improvements.

Integration of Year One (1996-97) as part of multiyear Plan and Funding Strategy

During Winter 1996 the Steering Committee faced the need to make recommendations regarding the initial year of implementation of the Cal Poly Plan while at the same time addressing long-term issues. The next section of this report contains those recommendations. Mindful that agreements about the initial year might be too narrowly focused and/or that they might set precedents that would be too binding or restrictive for future years, the Steering Committee determined that a multi-year plan and funding strategy to meet Cal Poly Plan purposes must be part of the initial agreements.

In making detailed recommendations about a campus-based fee and identifying investment priorities for 1996-97, the Steering Committee recognized that it must also adopt a process for reaching decisions about investments, resources, financial aid, and fee increases for subsequent years. Thus, the multi-year funding strategy includes the assumption of future campus-based fee increases up to a level not to exceed one-third of the State University Fee.³ Fee increases are to be phased in based on needs established by the multiyear plan and progress attained in reaching its goals, and through constituency consultation, particularly with the students. The multiyear funding strategy also assumes that a greater portion of fee revenues will have to be dedicated to meeting financial aid as the level of the campus-based fee increases. The last section of this report outlines the multiyear plan and the first steps toward accomplishing it.
 

3 This cap assumes a stable or gradually increasing State University Fee, and would be subject to review following the first four years of the Cal Poly Plan, or if the State University Fee were to change significantly.

The Cal Poly Plan Steering Committee has reached the following recommendations for 1996-97 and future years:

• That the State (CSU) support enrollment growth of 275 college year full-time equivalent students (CY FTES) -- with approximately 75 additional CY FTES during summer 1996 and 200 additional FTES during the academic year. The State will provide additional resources to support this enrollment growth from State funds and State University Fee revenues.

• That Cal Poly begin to charge a differential campus-based fee for academic year 1996-97 with the following assumptions: The Steering Committee will move forward on a comprehensive plan to address issues and priorities identified through the Cal Poly Plan process and a multi-year funding strategy, which integrates 1996-97 investments with future years. In addition, the University will initiate a focused effort to raise scholarship funds to supplement financial aid to assure that the University's financial aid program provides adequate support for needy students. Further, the University will explore no cost and low cost strategies and operational efficiencies to achieve Cal Poly Plan purposes and goals.

• That the multi-year funding strategy include the consideration of future fee increases up to a level not to exceed one-third of the State University Fee (currently $1584 for the academic year), to be phased in based on needs established by the multi-year plan and progress attained in reaching its goals, and through constituency consultation, particularly with the students. This cap assumes a stable or gradually increasing State University Fee, and would be subject to review following the first four years of the Cal Poly Plan, or if the State University Fee were to change significantly.

• That the campus-based fee for Year One be implemented in Fall 1996 as a flat fee of $45/quarter per student. (The Steering Committee acknowledges that fee levels in future years may require a different fee structure, and a larger proportion for financial aid.)

• That, for 1996-97, Cal Poly provide for additional financial needs as follows: $5 of the $45/quarter campus-based fee will be devoted to supplementary financial aid for the neediest students; The University will solicit matching scholarship support from private sources, including annual giving; and Some investments of campus-based fee revenues to meet priorities listed below will involve student employment, e.g., as teaching, grading, and lab assistants.

• That, during 1996-97, Cal Poly invest campus-based fee revenues to improve student progress, and enhance educational quality and productivity through these initial priorities:

• That the University use a Request for Proposals (RFP) process to allocate Year One revenues to projects or activities in the two investment categories that meet Cal Poly Plan purposes. The Steering Committee will provide oversight for the process by establishing the guidelines for the RFP, particularly the outcomes sought in each of the investment categories. Proposals will be reviewed through the management processes of the University. The Steering Committee will provide final comment and advice to the President after reviewing the analysis and recommendations provided by the deans and vice-presidents.

• That the University redirect State tax revenues to begin to restore library services in 1996-97.

• That the Steering Committee consider a plan to promote student academic success and progress to degree, in part through curriculum revision and academic advising, as the first element in the multi-year plan and funding strategy.

• That the investment and funding strategy for future years be flexible to allow the University to anticipate and respond to changing circumstances.

• That the University seek to retain all revenues currently subject to system-wide pooling for State University Grants, and develop outcome-based policies for distribution of financial aid grants at Cal Poly.

• That the campus-based fee be increased during Year Two and Year Three, and then not changed .in Year Four. The Steering Committee proposes the following as the total Cal Poly Plan campus-based fee per student per quarter for successive years:

• That Cal Poly invest campus-based fee revenues to improve student progress, and enhance educational quality and productivity through these accumulating priorities: ⁴

• Instructional technology and equipment:
          Investment beginning in Year One

• Instructional programs and academic advising, especially to support student progress and
          curriculum revision:
          Investment beginning in Year One.

• Faculty positions that enhance educational quality (especially student learning), support student progress to degree completion, contribute to teaching and learning productivity, assist in implementing curricular revisions, and/or apply new teaching and learning models or instructional technologies:
          Investment beginning in Year Two, expanded in Year Three (Target: approximately 30 new
          tenure-track faculty, with 15-20 to be hired for 1997-98).

• Career services:
          Investment beginning in Year Two

• Financial aid:
          Investment beginning in Year One, expanded in Year Two and Year Three as campus-based
          fees increase, assuming supplementary University fund raising to help meet need.

• That the tentative fee increases and associated investments for future years be confirmed based on progress in attaining demonstrable outcomes each year toward the achievement of Cal Poly Plan goals and purposes.

(Each section of the multi-year plan will include specific objectives to be accomplished; different ways to achieve the objectives; and a schedule.)

Student Learning and Progress

• Curriculum revision
• Faculty augmentation/access to classes
• Academic advising and support
• Investments in technology
• Faculty and staff support for instruction
• Enrollment management
• Year-round operations

• Teaching effectiveness
• Laboratory equipment (instructional)
• Investments in technology
• Faculty and staff support for instruction
• Student support services
• No cost/low cost operational efficiencies

• Definitions and measures
• RFP

The process will be reviewed at the end of 1996-97.

• Steering committee
• RFP

The plan will show the contribution from each partner.

• State General Fund budget, including redirection of present revenues and no cost/low cost operational efficiencies
• Private fund-raising
• Student fee revenues
• Financial aid

Planning Process Principles for Cal Poly Plan: Build on prior committees and planning efforts, particularly the University's Strategic Plan; Consult with those whom Cal Poly serves: Media announcements and presentations, Surveys, Focus groups, Forums; Refine joint governance process that is clear, fair, consistent, and consensual, further developing the Steering Committee members' understanding of and effectiveness with the process; Develop an integrated multi-year plan to address the issues and priorities identified through the Cal Poly Plan process in a comprehensive manner, including a multiyear funding strategy; Continue Steering Committee and involvement of vice-presidents and Deans to monitor progress regarding student progress to degree, quality, enrollment growth, funding, investments, and improvements in efficiency and productivity; Develop an analytical base to support deliberations about priorities, to enable future monitoring and assessment of success, and to facilitate transferability.

Enrollment Enrollment Principles for Cal Poly Plan: Return to 15,000 full-time equivalent students (FTES) for the academic year (Cal Poly's Master Plan level) over the next three to five years (approximately 17,000 students); Rebuild summer enrollment; Consider Master Plan improvements to accommodate future enrollment growth to 17,400 AY FTES. Distribution of future enrollment growth by level and program, applying the following: *Cal Poly's mission with respect to the program mix, *Diversity/representation, * Student and applicant quality, Demand for graduates, Needs of the State of California, Facilities & equipment -- quality & capacity, Academic program/Teaching capacity, Staff/Service capacity, Community and environmental impacts.

Finance and Investments Finance and Investment Principles for Cal Poly Plan: Recognize Board of Trustees' policy that the State University Fee will not increase to more than one-third of the cost of a student's education; Continue State support for enrollment growth; Recognize quality and costs associated with Cal Poly mission, as stated in the campus Strategic Plan ("learn by doing" -- what makes Cal Poly unique); Affordability -- assure financial aid sufficient to provide at least the same level of support as at present; Assure access for an increasingly diverse student population; Regard any new campus-based fee as supplementary to other sources of revenue in the General Fund operating budget, with revenues to remain on campus, and not used to supplant current budgets; Derive the level of any new campus-based fee from the level of investment necessary to make a demonstrable difference toward student progress and educational quality; Invest revenues from any new campus-based fee solely in visible (identifiable) quality and productivity enhancements (including student progress toward degree completion); Invest all revenues from any new campus-based fee to directly benefit students, their teaching and learning; Match new campus-based student fee revenues with State funds and private contributions, to maximize Cal Poly Plan investments; Develop fiscal flexibility; Address some priorities without financial investments, through no-cost and low-cost efforts as well as operational efficiencies. Priorities for Allocation of Campus-Based Differential Fee, considering the following: Ability to achieve Cal Poly Plan purposes and goals rather than pro rata allocation based on a unit's historic proportion of the campus budget; Findings from surveys of students, faculty, staff, parents, alumni, and advisory groups, and other forms of constituency consultation; Assessment of needs by divisions and colleges.   Additional Investment Considerations: Incentives and support sufficient to encourage faculty and staff experimentation, and innovations in student learning,  Potential as a model for transferability, or broader applicability or benefit, beyond the unit initiating a proposal, Contribution to Cal Poly's Strategic Plan goal of achieving a pluralistic campus with a diverse student, faculty and staff population, Immediate impact as well as long-term value of investments, Ongoing obligations as well as fixed-term investments, Direct support costs associated with selected investments, Sequencing of investments in initial and future years. Remaining Finance and Investment Choices: Future campus-based fee structure and phasing; Future financial aid structure, pending Board of Trustees' approval.

Process for Defining and Building Quality, Productivity, and Accountability Principles Regarding Process for Quality, Productivity and Accountability: Involvement of campus constituents in defining and measuring quality and productivity; Accountability at institutional and program levels; Linkage between planning, resource allocation, and performance; Continuing investments in quality and productivity: Student productivity -- More effective student learning; retention and progress toward degree goals; curricular flexibility, Institutional productivity -- More effective use of fixed resources; Individual faculty and staff productivity -- Capitalization of faculty; innovation in meeting responsibilities. Remaining Choices Regarding Process for Quality, Productivity and Accountability: Structure and schedule for continuing dialog to define quality and productivity, to develop accountability measures for both, and to create internal links between performance an resource allocation.

Mutual Understandings between Cal Poly and CSU Core themes established during summer 1995: Cal Poly Plan as a unified whole whose parts are inter-related and should not be unilaterally altered; Enrollment decisions about student mix based on sound academic reasons and the Cal Poly Strategic Plan goals (including diversity and affordability); State appropriations and State University Fees allocated for enrollment growth or quality enhancement not to fall below system-wide averages as a result of the Cal Poly Plan. Long-term financial arrangements to assure that Cal Poly can maintain the resources to preserve its polytechnic mission; Chancellors Off ice to work with Cal Poly regarding financial aid policies and their impact on student access and campus revenues; Cal Poly and the Chancellors Office to work together to develop definitions of costs, baselines, and timelines for assessing the fiscal impact of the Cal Poly Plan. In addition, Cal Poly was encouraged to pursue the following: Fiscal flexibility, including the pursuit of other revenue sources and control the expenditure of new revenues generated through the Cal Poly Plan; Employee relations with respect to supplemental collective bargaining agreements; Initiatives to enhance institutional, student and faculty/staff quality and productivity; Process assessment to improve the quality and effectiveness of campus services; Curricular issues, including general education, articulation, and degree approval; and Capital improvements to accommodate future enrollment beyond 15,000 AY FTES.