The most comprehensive recently completed planning process was the development of the Academic Plan already mentioned in the context of several other Criteria. Section II of that gives a description of the planning process. Work in progress includes the new Long Range Development Plan (LRDP). Both of these have been done in response to the challenges and opportunities associated with the ongoing enrollment growth. Motivating the LRDP is the fact that the campus must accommodate many new students, faculty and staff in the coming years, with growth needs ranging from new academic buildings and support services to recreation fields and housing. What are the challenges and opportunities for addressing this growth? How can the campus change and improve? What are the most environmentally, socially and economically beneficial ways to grow?

The completed Academic Plan is the product of several years of intensive discussions, proposals, and priority setting, which included extensive collaboration between the faculty and administration. It includes detailed plans for the growth and priorities in each of the colleges.

The most pressing present planning is for the campus response to the budget cuts associated with recent economic problems in California.

In addition to these extraordinary efforts, there is routine planning that takes place in the regular meetings of administrative leaders. Our essay gives some examples. On the Senate side, the Committee on Academic Planning & Budget Review has, among its duties the following:

• To confer with and advise the Chief Campus Officer and Divisional administrative agencies regarding policy on academic planning, budget and resource allocations; to forward recommendations on staff allocations to the Committee on Academic Personnel for their review.
• To initiate and coordinate studies or reviews of existing and proposed academic programs as they relate to local matters of academic planning, budget and resource allocation, and to report thereon to the Chief Campus Officer and/or to the Representative Assembly as it may deem appropriate.

This is the most established process by which faculty participate in campus planning. However, in respecting the principle of shared governance, faculty Senate (and also Academic Federation, student, and staff) representatives are often included in key planning groups.

Among the most vital and inclusive planning events are the annual Chancellor's Fall Conferences. These are off-campus, two-day events with about 150 participants drawn from many campus constituencies. Each conference has a theme. As we have already noted, the 2001 topic was undergraduate education.

School of Education

On July 17, 2002, the Regents of the University of California approved (3.9) the formation of a new School of Education on the Davis campus. This act culminated several years of planning (4.1) on and off the UC Davis campus and can be used to spotlight several of the WASC criteria for review as well as demonstrate evidence for other issues raised in the essays prepared for this reaccreditation process. Throughout this essay we have included the relevant criteria for review in parentheses.

Background
While it is easy to identify the exact day the new school was approved, it is much more difficult to determine when the actual planning process started. Until 1995, the division of Education was affiliated with the College of Letters and Sciences. In that year, the campus restructured the College, dividing it into three academic units: Math and Physical Sciences; Humanities, Arts, and Cultural Studies, and Social Sciences. All of the departments housed within the College were assigned to one of these divisions. At that time, there were campus discussions about the appropriate academic home for Education. It should be noted that the Master Plan for Higher Education in California assigns the responsibility for teacher training to the California state colleges system. Thus while our Division of Education had a credential program, it was relatively small compared to the one offered at nearby Sacramento State University. In addition to the credential program, the Division of Education offered a Ph.D., as well as a joint doctorate (Ed.D.) with CSU Fresno program and housed the CRESS Center. There were approximately 11 FTE associated with the unit at that time.

This Division of the College of Letters and Science coincided with local, statewide and national discussions about the deterioration of K-12 education as well as with the initial indications that the first decade of the 21st century would witness a surge of K-16 enrollment in California. These factors influenced campus discussions not only about the placement of the Division of Education, but also about its overall size and the scope of its mission. (2.8)

Process Many of the conversations took place among the faculty within the school, as well as members of the Graduate Group. (4.7) The Academic Leadership and Planning Group (ALAP) began its discussions in June 1998 (1.3, 3.10, 4.1) Early in the ALAP discussions it became clear that if any change was going to be made, it would need to be a major one. Given the need for support for K-12, the infusion of a limited number of resources into the division would not have made a substantial difference. Further, the Education faculty had made it clear that with a major allocation of campus resources, the division would be better positioned to apply for major external research grants.

Since the campus has such a strong profile in the sciences, the campus leadership recognized the importance of campus-wide discussions about the possibility of making a major investment in education research and teaching. Beginning in the spring of 2000 and continuing into the 2000-2001 academic year, the Chancellor hosted a series of very visible forums on the state of K-12 education in the state and in the region. These forums and the dinners that followed them were very well attended both by members of the immediate campus community, as well as educators and policy makers throughout the region. During the fall of 2000, the Chancellor devoted his annual fall conference to the subject of K-12. (4.8)

The action plan that followed that conference advocated the continuing work of a committee to define areas of research for a new School of Education. The committee was chaired by Merna Villarejo, an emeriti professor of Biological Sciences. (3.11) Because she is so well respected by colleagues in the Division of Education, Professor Villarejo was an excellent choice as a leader of this effort. Moreover, because of her recent retirement, she was able to devote a great deal of time to this effort, probably much more than any faculty member who had other campus responsibilities. After developing a mission statement for the school, the committee identified broad priority areas for the school. The staff from Office of Resource Management and Planning (http://www.ormp.ucdavis.edu/) used the mission statement to identify appropriate financial and space resources for the plan. The Villarejo committee recommended the allocation of 24 new FTE so that by 2007-2008, the New School would be home to about 35 faculty. (3.4, 3.5, 3.6) ORMP identified space for this growth in offices that will become available when the Graduate School of Management moves into its new building. (3.5) Other components of the committee's recommendations include the development of a series of institutes focused in such areas as policy research and science/math education. The former was developed in response to current faculty interest, the needs of the state and UC Davis's close proximity to the state capital. The commitment to science and math education also builds on existing collaborations between the Education faculty and their colleagues in the campus's many science departments.

The committee then changed its focus and became a search committee charged with identifying the founding dean. (1.3) After a nation-wide search, Harold Levine (http://education.ucdavis.edu/welcome.html), a very well respected Professor of Education joined the faculty in fall 2001. Together with his faculty he prepared the proposal for the establishment of the new school. (4.4) This process can be a very lengthy one because it requires departmental approval and must be thoroughly reviewed by several academic senate committees on the campus as well as undergo review at the system-wide Academic Council as well as the California Postsecondary Education Commission. It is quite remarkable that this proposal was approved in less than a year. (3.8) The faculty have already applied for major grants and the process of recruiting for new positions is underway, with three new faculty hired in time for the 2002-03 academic year.