Contents
Cal Poly Pomona

P&R Responses for recommendation 110

Recommendation 110
Department
Consensus Opinion 3 out of 3 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The Maximizing Engineering Potential (MEP) program supports the recommendation for all learning support services programs to work together as a Learning Coalition. Effective communication and coordination between as well as focused assessment and evaluation of learning support services programs is essential to achieving the student learning outcomes to which we are all committed. Nevertheless, to characterize the goals of the programs as deriving from perceived learning needs and historical precedence ignores the core realities of these programs and the documented (not perceived) learning needs of its student participants.
MEP is located in the College of Engineering to address the documented underrepresentation of Latino, Black and Native American students in the engineering profession, as well as in their enrollment and graduation in engineering schools. This represents a nationwide challenge, with global implications, which has persisted from the inception of the Cal Poly Pomona MEP in 1983 to the present, and is projected to continue for some time in the future. MEP continues to be a leader in a nationwide STEM initiative, strongly supported by its own industry advisory board and a network of companies and professional organizations seeking to address this challenge.
MEP introduces learning communities – a small cohort of students that takes a set of integrated courses and activities together – to incoming freshman students, who are mainly first-generation college students, in order to enhance their engagement in the learning process and have higher retention rates. Research has shown that Cal Poly Pomona MEP students who actively participate in its learning community program have higher retention and less attrition. MEP’s clustering, group study workshops and orientation classes form the basis of this learning community. Unless the entire Cal Poly Pomona campus offered this structure to all students, a means by which all students would be grouped into smaller cohorts and required to participate in learning communities, MEP’s effectiveness and support from its constituency would be severely affected.
An endeavor to coordinate educational equity programs, similar to MEP were attempted in the past at Cal Poly Pomona. The only college based equity program currently similar to MEP is the SEES (Science Educational Enhancement Services) in the College of Science.
The college-based educational equity programs provided support services to Cal Poly Pomona students who:
 declared a major and were first-generation college attendees,
 were underrepresented in the college or school,
 were in transition and are unfamiliar with the university environment.
Faculty, students and administration from each college or school, and student affairs professionals provided opportunities for students participants to strengthen their connection to the university and enhance their ability to succeed academically, thus forming a diverse community of learners within the chosen major.
The design of these programs was to collaboratively build a university experience best suited for students to promote their academic achievement, college persistence, satisfaction and improved graduation rates. The programs and other University services were designed to interact with one another to provide seamless support for the student's educational endeavor. Services offered by each program varied, included:
academic advisement encompassing course registration and graduation plans, specialized student orientations, instructional workshops, group study and computer support rooms, collaborative study groups with peer leaders, tutorial support, linkages with pre-professional student clubs and organizations, exploration of graduate schools and career opportunities, networking with industry professionals, financial aid and scholarship information, attendance at student leader institutes, cross-cultural programming, cluster registration in sections of difficult core courses with adjunct tutorial support, socials, newsletters, graduation and recognition celebrations.

There were eight College-Based Programs at Cal Poly Pomona. They were:

Agricultural Educational Enhancement Services (AGREES)
Business Educational Enhancement Services (BEES)
College of Arts Retention & Enhancement Services (CARES)
College of Environmental Design Education Enhancement Program (CEDEEP)
Hospitality Opportunity Program for Educational Enhancement (HOPE2)
Maximizing Engineering Program (MEP)
Science Educational Enhancement Services (SEES)
School of Education & Integrative Studies Enhancement Program (SEISEP)
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department
Consensus Opinion 3 out of 3 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The Maximizing Engineering Potential (MEP) program supports the recommendation for all learning support services programs to work together as a Learning Coalition. Effective communication and coordination between as well as focused assessment and evaluation of learning support services programs is essential to achieving the student learning outcomes to which we are all committed. Nevertheless, to characterize the goals of the programs as deriving from perceived learning needs and historical precedence ignores the core realities of these programs and the documented (not perceived) learning needs of its student participants.
MEP is located in the College of Engineering to address the documented underrepresentation of Latino, Black and Native American students in the engineering profession, as well as in their enrollment and graduation in engineering schools. This represents a nationwide challenge, with global implications, which has persisted from the inception of the Cal Poly Pomona MEP in 1983 to the present, and is projected to continue for some time in the future. MEP continues to be a leader in a nationwide STEM initiative, strongly supported by its own industry advisory board and a network of companies and professional organizations seeking to address this challenge.
MEP introduces learning communities – a small cohort of students that takes a set of integrated courses and activities together – to incoming freshman students, who are mainly first-generation college students, in order to enhance their engagement in the learning process and have higher retention rates. Research has shown that Cal Poly Pomona MEP students who actively participate in its learning community program have higher retention and less attrition. MEP’s clustering, group study workshops and orientation classes form the basis of this learning community. Unless the entire Cal Poly Pomona campus offered this structure to all students, a means by which all students would be grouped into smaller cohorts and required to participate in learning communities, MEP’s effectiveness and support from its constituency would be severely affected.
An endeavor to coordinate educational equity programs, similar to MEP were attempted in the past at Cal Poly Pomona. The only college based equity program currently similar to MEP is the SEES (Science Educational Enhancement Services) in the College of Science.
The college-based educational equity programs provided support services to Cal Poly Pomona students who:
 declared a major and were first-generation college attendees,
 were underrepresented in the college or school,
 were in transition and are unfamiliar with the university environment.
Faculty, students and administration from each college or school, and student affairs professionals provided opportunities for students participants to strengthen their connection to the university and enhance their ability to succeed academically, thus forming a diverse community of learners within the chosen major.
The design of these programs was to collaboratively build a university experience best suited for students to promote their academic achievement, college persistence, satisfaction and improved graduation rates. The programs and other University services were designed to interact with one another to provide seamless support for the student's educational endeavor. Services offered by each program varied, included:
academic advisement encompassing course registration and graduation plans, specialized student orientations, instructional workshops, group study and computer support rooms, collaborative study groups with peer leaders, tutorial support, linkages with pre-professional student clubs and organizations, exploration of graduate schools and career opportunities, networking with industry professionals, financial aid and scholarship information, attendance at student leader institutes, cross-cultural programming, cluster registration in sections of difficult core courses with adjunct tutorial support, socials, newsletters, graduation and recognition celebrations.

There were eight College-Based Programs at Cal Poly Pomona. They were:

Agricultural Educational Enhancement Services (AGREES)
Business Educational Enhancement Services (BEES)
College of Arts Retention & Enhancement Services (CARES)
College of Environmental Design Education Enhancement Program (CEDEEP)
Hospitality Opportunity Program for Educational Enhancement (HOPE2)
Maximizing Engineering Program (MEP)
Science Educational Enhancement Services (SEES)
School of Education & Integrative Studies Enhancement Program (SEISEP)
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department Admissions
Consensus Opinion 10 out of 10 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation “But there is significant redundancy across this cluster.” If the redundancy seen in these programs were of a needless repetition of services that is one thing. However, we do not necessarily think that independent programs that offer excellent services serving similar students, but not necessarily the same students with diverse needs is redundant. Possibly, there can be enhanced coordination and collaboration for some services while maintaining the unique aspects of the programs.

There are EOP students serviced by SSEP and the TRIO programs which have quite specific objectives and target student populations. RISE, for example, was born out of a need to design, develop and implement a unique program to increase underrepresented student enrollment and persistence on campus, particularly African American students and to assist them with connecting to the university and its programs and services. Additionally, it was designed to help foster better relationships with our external community constituents. It does not have a tutoring (math) component and seems a bit out of place in the list of programs.

However, we agree that a Learning Coalition has the potential to address needs of many students serviced by all of the various programs listed in the recommendation. To the extent that a Learning Coalition can foster increased collaboration and efficient service delivery (i.e. shared tutoring), that is appealing. There are real issues with funding as some programs are prohibited (federally or otherwise) from using funds to support students that are not in a specific program and who do not meet certain criteria to participate in that program.

Therefore, we support the recommendation with modifications as to what the extent of control and oversight the Learning Coalition would have with respect to resource allocation as well as a clearer defining of the duties and responsibilities of the Learning Coalition (i.e. to ensure students get services needed).
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department ASI PRSM
Consensus Opinion 8 out of 8 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation We think this is a good idea because these campus resources can be better funded when consolidating efforts. We also like a central location for these resources to better serve the needs of students. Ample staffing should be considered with the implementation of this recommendation.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department AVP Student Services
Consensus Opinion 2 out of 2 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation It’s important to have an open, collaborative process to plan and implement. It is true that there are many different types of programs that all deal with support services and collaboration needs to be across all lines. (Not one division or department can decide how to best serve our students on all aspects of development (disability, mental health, physical health, etc.).)
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department Dean of Students
Consensus Opinion 4 out of 4 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation PRO WITH MODIFICATIONS

Explanation: We support collaborative and transparent methods of planning and development, and understand there is a need to consider the possibility of repetitive support programs within the University. At the same time, it is important to identify and acknowledge that different student backgrounds and circumstances warrant a specialized type of support with specifically trained personnel and resources.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department Disability Resource Center
Consensus Opinion 10 out of 14 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation We support the concept of a learning coalition that includes representatives from the impacted areas identified in the recommendation to explore the types of services provided by the programs, the budget sources and restrictions, the specific populations served, and if redundancies may exist. Many programs serve specific student populations and the learning coalition ought to explore how to connect with and serve the general student population. The development of a process to identify and share how and when it is appropriate for students to use different learning support resources would be beneficial.

The learning support areas being located in the same building may encourage further collaborations and students following through on referrals. However, learning support areas, such as ARCHES which is a federally funded TRIO grant, would need to remain separate and continue to serve its unique population.
Minority Opinion 4 out of 14 faculty/staff : Con
Minority Explanation We are in agreement of the above stated information. Additionally, learning support for students should also integrate technology into programs. Looking at systematic and applied technology for all learning support areas is important for the future success of our students. The exploration should also include the use of assistive technologies (such as Inspiration) that could be beneficial in the learning process for a wide variety of students.

Recommendation 110
Department Enrollment Services
Consensus Opinion 2 out of 2 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation While many of these programs provide excellent service to the students they serve, we agree that there is not a consistent, integrated level of service to students in general and support the concept of a learning coalition to make these services visible, campus-wide and cohesive. We also support the recommendation of a closer linkage to the curriculum and course instructors.

Several of the programs listed provide student development and student support services that are outside of the functions of learning support and enrollment support described in the recommendation. We support that learning support and enrollment support services would be the primary focus of this coalition.

We support the concept that this must be a cross-divisional effort and that Student Affairs and Academic Affairs take the lead in the planning and implementation of the coalition. Restricting this to one division would not realize the full synergies that would come with campus constituents from both divisions working collaboratively.

We would also recommend that RISE not be included in this recommendation at least in the early stages of the planning as this is a student development and transition program rather than a learning support or enrollment related service.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : With modifications
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department Learning Resource Center
Consensus Opinion 18 out of 18 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation LEARNING COALITION: LEARNING RESOURCE CENTER

The Learning Resource Center (LRC) serves as a model of a Learning Coalition (LC) where various programs at the state and federal level come together to create synergies, dialogue, and collaboration. These programs reduce redundancies, save resources, conduct research, and apply for grant funds. Each program functions autonomously with its own director or coordinator and its own budget. The LRC is invested in the student-learning experience and considers P & R recommendations from the students’ perspectives.

New synergies: The collaborative nature of the LRC creates synergies that enhance learning for students. The ASI Universitywide Tutoring Program collaborates with many of the programs identified in the LC as well as other programs on campus such as TRIO programs, English & Foreign Languages, DRC, EOP, Office of Financial Aid, CAPS, Early Start Program, and the Athletic Department.

The LRC state programs envision the LC to exist as a committee made up of representatives from each of the programs identified in the recommendation. Representatives would meet on a regular basis to discuss information that would enhance student learning. The LC meetings would allow each program to share information on the services offered and discuss the types of problems program participants encounter. The LC could also create an LC newsletter and maintain an LC Blackboard account that would include appropriate CPP students, staff, and faculty.

The LRC state programs see an advantage to housing many of the proposed LC units in the same building; some units, however, serve populations that may remain where they are, such as those linked to distinct colleges and departments such as SEES, MEP, Information Competency, and MaSH.

In relocating the LC units to one building, it would be important to retain each unit’s unique function and optimal special arrangement. The test proctoring area should be housed in a very quiet location with computer stations and an area for the proctor to monitor students through glass so as not to disturb test takers. The DRC has unique technological needs for students with disabilities. The tutoring programs need ample space for groups to gather in one-on-one and group sessions. Rather than lumping the units into the current home of the College of Business or Building 1, the unique needs of each program must be considered, and it may be necessary to construct a new facility for the LC.

Reduction in redundancies: The ASI Universitywide Tutoring Program provides the only tutorial service on campus that assists all students at Cal Poly Pomona (CPP). This program does not have the restrictions that limit TRIO and EOP programs. The ASI Universitywide Tutoring Program has a distinct mission to serve all students at CPP by providing tutors in any subject. Similarly, the LRC’s Test Proctoring Program provides the only proctoring service on campus available for any population.

Savings in resources: The ASI Universitywide Tutoring Program may produce savings related to training resources for LC tutors and staff. The LRC, for example, offers tutor training and certification to tutors and invites interested staff throughout campus to participate.

Increased opportunities for research: Research encourages faculty and staff to use theory to guide practice, articulate a clear professional identity, and compare oneself to other institutions. In order to facilitate comprehensive research, the LC would need more access to institutional data at CPP.

External funding opportunities: The LRC conducts research in the process of applying for external grants that are nationally competitive. This process requires more access to institutional data.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department LRC: TRIO Federally-Funded Programs
Consensus Opinion 17 out of 17 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation LEARNING COALITION: TRIO FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS

The Learning Resource Center (LRC) serves as a model of a Learning Coalition (LC) where various programs at the state and federal level come together to create synergies, dialogue, and collaboration. These programs reduce redundancies, save resources, conduct research, and apply for grant funds. Each program functions autonomously with its own director or coordinator and its own budget. The LRC is invested in the student-learning experience and considers P & R recommendations from the students’ perspectives.

New synergies: The collaborative nature of the LRC creates synergies that enhance learning for students. The College Reading Skills Program (CRSP) collaborates with many of the programs identified in the LC as well as other programs on campus. CRSP collaborates with the LRC, Upward Bound programs, McNair, ARCHES, DRC, EOP, Office of Financial Aid, CAPS, the Cultural Centers, Office of Student Life, Stop Violence Office, and the Early Start Program.

TRIO programs envision the LC to exist as a committee made up of representatives from each of the programs identified in the recommendation. Representatives would meet on a regular basis to discuss information that would enhance student learning. The LC meetings would allow each program to share information on the services offered and discuss the types of problems program participants encounter. The LC could also create an LC newsletter and maintain an LC Blackboard account that would include appropriate CPP students, staff, and faculty.

Because TRIO programs have stipulations regarding the population of students they can serve, it makes sense to house TRIO programs in close proximity to one another. Five of the six CPP TRIO programs are currently housed under the LRC and collaborate in serving students without the confusion of separating out non-eligible students or the commingling of budgets. A pipeline exists between these programs so that students can move from one program to the next. However, it is also possible for a student to be a participant in more than one of these programs at one time.

Reduction in redundancies: None of the TRIO programs at CPP duplicates services. CRSP reading tutorials are not available through any other office or program on campus. CRSP provides supplemental advising, which is not a duplication of services. Per TRIO regulations, CRSP cannot provide services to its eligible students if those services are available to all students. The Upward Bound programs and the McNair program also provide services that are not duplicated on campus.

Savings in resources: Because of strict TRIO regulations and guidelines, TRIO programs cannot share resources with non-TRIO programs. The programs would risk elimination if they did so.

Increased opportunities for research: In a learning-centered environment, faculty and staff collaborate in research. Research encourages faculty and staff to use theory to guide practice, articulate a clear professional identity, and compare oneself to other institutions. In order to facilitate comprehensive research, the LC would need more access to institutional data at CPP.

External funding opportunities: TRIO programs must conduct research in the process of applying for external grants that are nationally competitive. Better access to institutional data would enhance the writing of grants and create opportunities to assist other programs to consider, identify, and apply for external funding.


Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department Mathematics and Statistics
Consensus Opinion 32 out of 32 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The Department of Mathematics & Statistics offers the following reasons for objecting to the recommendation to place all tutoring support services under the umbrella of the Learning Coalition.

1. Most of the programs listed serve specialized groups on campus, or the methods of tutoring offered differ from program to program. If these various programs were housed under one roof the same differences would still need to be maintained, which would require different staffs. The resulting cost would be roughly the same.
2. Again, the various programs serve different student bodies. The tendency would be to force a homogeneity on the programs once they were placed under one roof. This would defeat the purpose of having specialized programs for different populations.
3. In particular, studies show programs such as MaSH function best when housed in the departments that offer those courses. One director could not hope to understand all of the nuances that come with every possible subject. Quality would suffer without the direct oversight of experts in those fields.
4. Also, tutors should be selected by the departments whose courses they serve. Only those familiar with the subject can judge best who is qualified to tutor that subject. This leaves operational matters in the hands of the departments and programs, thus eliminating the extra overhead of a single umbrella organization.
5. Housing all tutoring services in one building, be that the new Business building or Building 1, takes the tutoring services away from those who use it. Students needing tutoring in Science and Math are in Buildings 1, 4, and 8, and MaSH is in Building 8. This makes sense, and it allows students the ability to spend time in the tutoring center until classes start. It also promotes a culture of learning as students are encouraged to spend time in the building, working on homework and interacting with other students.
6. Programs like MEP and SEES work. They have the data to show it. These programs would be destroyed, or at best subsumed under a different agenda. To lose these programs would be to eliminate something that already works. The Learning Coalition was not proposed to harm working programs, but it will harm programs like MEP and SEES.

The Department of Mathematics & Statistics understands the committee’s desire to increase efficiency and communication among differing tutoring services on campus, but placing them all under the same roof would do more harm than good.

Computer Science teaches much more about algorithms and programming, while the ECE and CIS are more about the hardware or using computer software.


Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department Office of Student Life & Cultural Centers
Consensus Opinion 9 out of 12 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation Certain student populations need their specialized and focused support and services. Any action toward streamlining advising and tutoring should consider special needs of student populations such as first-generation, low-income, foster youth status, disability needs, etc.
Minority Opinion 2 out of 12 faculty/staff : With modifications
Minority Explanation Coordinated services may enhance the utilization of resources, as long as it considers the needs of special populations.

Recommendation 110
Department Orientation Services
Consensus Opinion 3 out of 3 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation The department feels that this recommendation shoud be for subject matter & curriculum support only. Target groups will continue to have specialized needs that are best served with trained staff in the respective area (i.e. disabled students, etc.).

Specialized populations such as undeclared students should be a stand-alone unit and could be expanded to serve as the home (or resource) for students interested in changing majors.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department ReEntry & WoMen's Resource Center
Consensus Opinion 2 out of 2 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation The International Center plays a critical role in all our students’ lives. There is a very significant developmental aspect that Student Affairs seems to be the better home base, offering numerous potential partnerships.

Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department ReEntry & WoMen's Resource Center
Consensus Opinion 2 out of 2 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation Based on student comments and experiences with our target populations, we agree academic advising needs to be improved, and cooperative/collaborative initiatives should be encouraged. As to collaboration on student recruiting, our ReEntry target population would appreciate and benefit from age-appropriate outreach efforts, and incorporation of photos/examples of students, 25 years (and older) featured. Training as to unique needs and expectations of transfer population would be beneficial to all parties.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department ReEntry & WoMen's Resource Center
Consensus Opinion 2 out of 2 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation Support a concerned and uniform effort to strengthen learning support programs, particularly as it relates to advising, tutoring and mentoring. Such coordination should allow for targeted services and response to students outside the traditional student population (ie ReEntry students, transfer students with break in attendance). A combined/joined learning coalition provides much needed continuity.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department Registrar's Office
Consensus Opinion 10 out of 10 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation There is agreement that housing the current learning support programs as a Learning Coalition in the same location would be convenient and more accessible for students, but there is a lack of clarity as to what these programs include. To determine that this is truly beneficial, the specific learning support programs would need to be identified.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department Renaissance Scholars
Consensus Opinion 2 out of 2 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation We support the idea of a learning coalition and the development of a leadership entity that will provide direction for this group. Here are some of our recommendations for your consideration:

1.Students should be able to provide input to the leadership group in areas of innovation and essential services the coalition will provide.

2.We want existing program to continue to serve our specific population and our unique function within the university to be recognized. Having a “one size fits all” approach would depersonalize various groups of students. Many former foster youth have benefited from the support Renaissance Scholars provides and the evidence is in the 67% retention rate among this student group. Foster youth face higher rates of challenges in navigating through the complex systems within higher education and they require additional support to meet their cognitive and emotional development. Without this unique function for learning provided by the Renaissance Scholars, this diverse group of students will be left without adequate resources to support their transition through college.

Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department Student Outreach & Visitor Services
Consensus Opinion 8 out of 8 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation All staff agree with this recommendation about the need to assess existing programs to ensure that duplication is not an issue. The Learning Coalition is a good idea, but the programs do not need to be housed in the same location. Each program services a unique population and has its own focus. The staff advises the coalition to consider populations that may not be served if certain programs like RISE are not offered. There does need to be better communication and collaboration amongst the programs, and perhaps shared cost.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department Student Support & Equity Programs
Consensus Opinion 16 out of 18 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation While we agree in concept to a comprehensive learning support system to serve the diverse needs of all students at the university, it is essential that the implementation of such a system not dilute services for student groups currently receiving services from the existing learning support programs. In order to ensure that services for students from unique populations (i.e. low-income, first generation, disabled, etc.) continue even as various options to serve a wider group of students are explored, we suggest that the P&R steering committee consider the following points:

•The proposed Learning Coalition should consist of representatives from each of the programs listed in this recommendation and that the Coalition play a lead role in shaping the purpose, organizational structure, and location(s) of the proposed comprehensive learning support system.

•Clarification should be provided on the criteria used to identify the 15 programs under this recommendation. This should address why certain programs were included on this list and others were not.

•A stronger understanding of the diverse functionalities of the learning support programs by the steering committee is needed since each program offers support services unique to their student populations. For example, one comment in the recommendation suggests that students who access the services are referred to these services in an “ad hoc manner.” This does not address the fact that many students access programs like the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) by way of formal admissions processes. The recommendation also states that there are few examples of collaboration by programs across the divisions when in fact collaborations do occur between programs, albeit not always formal.

•Given the various funding streams of the learning support programs, the steering committee should reconsider how the financial resources will be deployed to fund a comprehensive support system. For example, federal TRIO dollars cannot be used to serve students other than those identified for those programs. Likewise, grant monies earmarked for disabled learning assistance is intended solely for this group. Thus, a comprehensive learning support system model that includes these programs may not necessarily provide financial resources to serve additional students. However, there are opportunities to share methodologies and practices among the program practitioners.

•This recommendation refers to a common location to be identified in the future for the programs listed. While this may be favorable for some programs, college-based programs thrive for being located within their colleges. Moving these programs from their college buildings may be a disservice to students rather than an opportunity for improvement.

Based on various statements in this recommendation, one may conclude that the P&R sub committee’s assessment of the 15 learning support programs was based on limited information accessible to the members. A closer look at the programs shows that collaborations between programs do exist and services are being provided based on current student needs, not simply due to “the history of each program.” The committee should not assume that the historical stipulations are the primary reasons why certain programs continue to exist. It is important for the P&R steering committee to continue with their assessment of these programs based on a more realistic timeline which allows for a clear line of communication between the committee and representatives of these programs before any kind of implementation takes place.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department Test Center
Consensus Opinion 3 out of 3 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation Learning Coalition

Learning support programs are scattered throughout the university, and integrating them as a Learning Coalition holds promise for making student learning more effective and efficient. Care would have to be taken, however, to ensure that the strengths of current programs such as the University Writing Center are not diluted. As the administrator of the CSU English Placement Test, CSU Entry-Level Mathematics Test, and the Cal Poly Pomona Graduation Writing Test, the Test Center could provide essential links to the Learning Coalition. Being housed in the same facility would be inconvenient to students, however. It is essential that the Test Center be close to Admissions and Outreach, the Registrar’s Office, and the Cashier’s Office.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : Pro
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department Undergraduate Studies
Consensus Opinion 10 out of 10 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation Recommendation 110 – Learning Coalition

We have as many questions as opinions. It is hard to disagree that a learning-centered campus should have a more visible learning support system, one in which each of its components is aware and supportive of the others, and one that assesses its performance and uses the information to enhance its offerings. The recommendation uses the phrase “learning support” as well as “other functions” offered by the listed programs. Is it so simple to differentiate these? The mission of this coalition will need to be clearly defined as well as its proposed audience.

It is not clear that a single “Learning Coalition” will achieve the goal of better meeting the needs of all students. The programs listed in this recommendation serve a wide range of students, and it is not clear that students in all of these groups would feel comfortable seeking services from, or be best served by a central “learning center”. Will (should) discipline-based services be included? Writing lends itself to a central location, but would some disciplines be better served with “satellite” locations closer to their classrooms?

Will it be a joint program of Student Affairs and Academic Affairs? We are somewhat doubtful that this is a workable plan.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department University Housing Services
Consensus Opinion 28 out of 28 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation Consensus is supportive of the recommendation in that there seems to be an overlap in services in the various departments listed in the recommendation. However, there is a difference between academic advising and advising that occurs in the departments housed under Student Affairs. It is recommended that the divisions create their own separate coalitions as they provide service on different topics.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department University Library
Consensus Opinion 14 out of 14 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation REVISED - change # of faculty/staff from 13 out of 13, to 14 out of 14.

The Library supports the general principle of a Learning Coalition. Improving coordination and collaboration among the 15 listed programs would certainly enhance student learning. The Library would benefit if personnel in other student support programs were more familiar with our services and could make more effective referrals.

We have concerns, however, with some parts of the recommended implementation process: 1) the implied suggestion to pool funding and 2) housing the 15 programs together in a single location. These proposals would severely impact our ability to continue the Library’s Information Competency (IC) program.

• IC is completely integrated with other Library functions, especially Reference and Collection Management. Neither funding nor personnel for IC can easily be separated from that of other Library functions. Most librarians are involved with IC but it is only one part of their multi-faceted assignments. In addition to IC, these librarians provide general and subject-specific reference service, create tutorials and guides, and are involved with various Library committees and teams. They also have collection management and department liaison responsibilities. IC and Reference are especially intertwined as a great deal of instruction occurs during Reference transactions.

• Our IC program is Library based. We use the physical collection housed in the Library as well as electronic resources selected by librarians and linked on our webpages. Our print collection is still an important part of our IC program. It would be difficult to offer our program from outside the Library.

• The Support Programs Committee is concerned with redundancy, especially relating to mathematics support. We do not believe that our IC program has any significant overlap with the other programs. We are not involved with tutoring, advising, or counseling – major activities of the other programs. IC is based within the profession of librarianship with standards and guidelines developed by our professional organizations.

• We already have a history of collaborating with the UWC. When the building is finished in 2008, both the UWC and LRC will be located in the Library. Dean Schleifer is currently laying the groundwork for enhanced collaboration with these programs.

We believe the intent of the recommendation can be accomplished without actually merging the programs. Collaboration and reduction of redundancies could be accomplished by creating a council with representatives from each program. This group could facilitate the communication and collaboration needed to improve student access to the services of all the programs. The Library would be an enthusiastic participant in such a coalition.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department University Library
Consensus Opinion 13 out of 13 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation The Library supports the general principle of a Learning Coalition. Improving coordination and collaboration among the 15 listed programs would certainly enhance student learning. The Library would benefit if personnel in other student support programs were more familiar with our services and could make more effective referrals.

We have concerns, however, with some parts of the recommended implementation process: 1) the implied suggestion to pool funding and 2) housing the 15 programs together in a single location. These proposals would severely impact our ability to continue the Library’s Information Competency (IC) program.

•IC is completely integrated with other Library functions, especially Reference and Collection Management. Neither funding nor personnel for IC can easily be separated from that of other Library functions. Most librarians are involved with IC but it is only one part of their multi-faceted assignments. In addition to IC, these librarians provide general and subject-specific reference service, create tutorials and guides, and are involved with various Library committees and teams. They also have collection management and department liaison responsibilities. IC and Reference are especially intertwined as a great deal of instruction occurs during Reference transactions.

•Our IC program is Library based. We use the physical collection housed in the Library as well as electronic resources selected by librarians and linked on our webpages. Our print collection is still an important part of our IC program. It would be difficult to offer our program from outside the Library.

•The Support Programs Committee is concerned with redundancy, especially relating to mathematics support. We do not believe that our IC program has any significant overlap with the other programs. We are not involved with tutoring, advising, or counseling – major activities of the other programs. IC is based within the profession of librarianship with standards and guidelines developed by our professional organizations.

•We already have a history of collaborating with the UWC. When the building is finished in 2008, both the UWC and LRC will be located in the Library. Dean Schleifer is currently laying the groundwork for enhanced collaboration with these programs.

We believe the intent of the recommendation can be accomplished without actually merging the programs. Collaboration and reduction of redundancies could be accomplished by creating a council with representatives from each program. This group could facilitate the communication and collaboration needed to improve student access to the services of all the programs. The Library would be an enthusiastic participant in such a coalition.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 110
Department University Writing Center
Consensus Opinion 3 out of 3 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The recommendation appears to have been made without consideration of the different service models, pedagogies, funding sources and target populations of the listed programs. What these programs have in common is that they hire and train students to help students. To argue that because of this superficial similarity they should be combined is akin to arguing that because all departments hire faculty to teach classes they should all be combined into one mega department.

These programs already consult, collaborate and refer students to each other informally. When we met to discuss this, there were no strangers among us. However, the UWC believes that the existing plan to move both UWC and LRC back into the library adjacent to one another on the second floor is superior in every way to the recommendation. The UWC strongly believes that writing issues on campus need to be dealt with simultaneously on both the student and faculty sides, and that being housed in a student learning center will significantly diminish our faculty role. To maintain our engagement with faculty, we collaborate regularly with the Faculty Center for Professional Development, offering workshops on designing assignments, responding to student writing, even a “Professional Writing Institute.” We also work closely with the writing programs in EFL, and by fall 2008 we will be an essential part of the department’s restructuring of the developmental program. We believe that many CPP students are weak in critical reading, writing and researching skills, and we have worked closely with the library in designing services to address these needs. We look forward to enhancing these collaborations when we return to library space. Our GWT services are based on long experience with grading and designing such exams, and we hope in the near future to offer a GWT course, which has already been piloted. The UWC has many connections with faculty, academic departments, and campus-wide programs. We feel that enclosing the UWC in a Comprehensive Learning Center would diminish rather than enhance these existing synergies.

We also see little advantage to the UWC or the other units in combining our programs. We train our tutors through an online 2-unit course, English 209, designed by the Director. This course gives each tutor a strong grounding in writing center pedagogy as well as a thorough review of grammatical terms and concepts. It would not, as currently offered, be appropriate for the other services. In a typical fall we see over 1,000 students in over 5,000 student contacts, and we are booked up two days in advance. Would a clerical receptionist be able to handle all of this, plus other program traffic as well?

The UWC believes that P&R Recommendation 110 would create a large, unwieldy, less-nimble and less efficient unit that would make the UWC less effective in dealing with writing issues at Cal Poly Pomona.

Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendations not submitted through the forms are available in this folder. They mainly consist of Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat documents. If none were submitted for this recommendation, the folder will be empty.