Time & Location: 8:30 – 10:30 a.m., Virtual Meeting via Teams
Attendees
Voting Members
- Mike Andriatch
- Frances Dearing
- Kandie Gay
- Daniel Goebel
- Scott Haines
- Tom Hernandez
- Katy Heyning
- Sara Kelly
- Jose Maliekal
- Dave Mihalyov
- Kathy Peterson
- Summer Reiner
- Craig Ross
- Ed Ryan
- Katy Wilson
- Jim Zollweg
Non-Voting Members
- Crystal Hallenback
- Cathy Houston-Wilson
- President Macpherson
- Karen Riotto
- Jim Wall: Co-Chair
- Melissa Wight
Guests
- Lorraine Acker
- Bob Cushman
- Eileen Daniel
- Richard Dirmyer
- Kevin Rice
Regrets
Voting Members
- Sondra Aman
- James Cordeiro
- Meaghan Irving
- Elliot Weininger
Non-Voting Members
- Denise Copelton: Co-Chair (on sabbatical)
The meeting was called to order at 8:31am
Approval of the Minutes
Mr. Wall asked the committee to review the minutes from the February 13 and February 27 meetings. Mr. Haines motioned the minutes to be approved and all present voting members were in favor. Therefore, the minutes were approved.
Announcements
Mr. Wall Announced the following:
- We will continue to hold the JPBC meetings in Teams.
- Over the next four to six weeks, we will be looking at the impact on the budget in terms of
refunds to students for on campus housing, broad based fees and BASC. This information will be shared with the committee at a future meeting. - Ms. Riotto and her team will begin the 5-year model and revenue projections over the next few weeks.
Campus Based Fees: Discussion and Vote on Proposed Fee Increases
Ms. Riotto presented the report from the Campus Based Fee Review Committee regarding the proposed broad based fee budgets for 2020-21. Due to the virtual environment, it was determined that for voting purposes, a Mach Form would be utilized. An email will be sent to voting members and votes need to be submitted by 11:00am today.
Questions were raised regarding the overheard charge concerns and the impacts it has on Athletics. Ms. Riotto stated due to the complexity of the overhead charges and where the funding is dispersed to, it would not be a feasible time to review all overhead charges. President Macpherson stated that due to the funding nature of Athletics, Global Education and the Health Center and the sustainability concerns in relation to overhead charges, part of the zero based budget project is to review this and we are beginning with Athletics. This project is still in progress and we are not at the point of recommendations yet.
After reviewing the submitted entries on the Mach Form, the voting results for the endorsement of the 2020-21 Broad Based Fee Budgets were as follows:
- Endorse - 13
- Not Endorse - 1
- Abstain - 3
Presentation on Continuing Trends: Persistence & Graduation
Presented by Richard Dirmyer, Director of Institutional Effectiveness and Dr. Sara Kelly, Assistance Vice President of Planning, Assessment and Retention
Note: PowerPoint Presentation is available on Blackboard
Mr. Dirmyer and Dr. Kelly presented on the persistence and graduation trends. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred during the presentation:
- The question was raised regarding the percent in term five and if it is the percent from term three or the original percent from term one. Mr. Dirmyer stated it is the original percent.
- The question was raised if the percent from term three to term five had been calculated. Mr.
Dirmyer stated that it is just the observational difference between the two columns. We will
focus on that in a larger sense when we compare ourselves to our SUNY comprehensive peers. If there is any additional data of interest to JPBC or individual JPBC members we can provide that at a later date. - The question was raised regarding whether the SUNY schools all calculate their retention rates the same way. Mr. Dirmyer states that essentially all SUNY schools do, but with the special admit populations, their admit term may be different so it could change numbers at different times and if they are admitted in the summer, than they are not in the fall cohort.
- The question was raised regarding Cortland as historically we have been compared to them. In 2013, we were at a similar level retention wise, but Cortland has been able to maintain that level as Brockport has had a steady decline in retention. Is there anything Cortland is doing that we could replicate? Mr. Dirmyer stated he does not have the knowledge of what Cortland is doing, but will contact the Director of Institutional Research to see if there is anything unique to their programming and if there are any best practices we can implement.
- The question was raised how Cortland’s initial demographic breakdown compares to Brockport. Mr. Dirmyer stated that we do not know how Cortland’s initial demographic breakdown compares to ours but it can be researched. What was compared was first time and overall retention rates. He can also filter out SAT and ACT scores and overall average to see why Cortland has stayed level.
- The statement was made that around 2013 was about the time we strategically started recruiting downstate and is it possible the distance from home contributes to the decrease in retention. Mr. Dirmyer stated that he did not have that information but he was aware that Mr. Scheid had completed that sub analysis. Dr. Kelly added that was reviewed and it was not the case that we were losing students from downstate in the first year retention analysis. We were having problems retaining our students from the Rochester area and we can redistribute that information to the committee. Mr. Dirmyer added that he can filter down to high school so he can research each area to see if there are pockets of low retention.
- The suggestion was made that since SUNY Purchase appears to have increased their retention rate, might we can contact them to see what they are going in terms of benchmarking to retain more of their students. Dr. Kelly stated that we have we have been in contact with Purchase more so than Cortland around their early intervention efforts and it is one of the reasons we are working towards this mini bridge this summer as a pilot and looking at some of the things they have done to increase retention. She agrees we could work with Cortland and Purchase as a next step.
- The question was raised if the retention rate data includes students who are on a leave of
absence. Mr. Dirmyer stated that a student on a leave of absence would still be included in the cohort but if they were not present at the time point of data capturing, they would be considered an attriter. If they were later to return in a different term they would be counted as someone we retained. - The question was raised regarding what analysis has been done in terms of GPAs and persistence and academic support usage and persistence. Mr. Dirmyer stated that some of the analyses that he has reviewed has some evidence that the GPA and other academic indicators are significant but once you account for the bio-demo data, there are some sort of deviation that is happening between these variables. SAT and ACT are not showing as significant predicators of persistence both to the second and third year and to graduation. Term one GPA, mid-term GPA, cumulative GPA in the first year, looking at the variation to explain why students persist and why they don’t this accounts for the bulk of why. Dr. Kelly stated that ASC has a lot of data they are trying to evaluate and they are trying to understand the impact. It is also challenging as tutoring isn’t always used by students who are at academic risk. The other information that they have is related to the probation program and they have a lot of good information indicating that if students participate in the program they are more likely to be retained and get back into good standing.
- The question was raised regarding whether we have used placement test results in relation to an individual’s use of the English language as a predictor. Mr. Dirmyer stated that it has not been examined but can be followed up on.
- The question was raised regarding NCAA requirements and how many years of eligibility do Athletes have to play their sport. If it is five, it will have a real impact on the five year versus four year graduation rate. Dr. Houston-Wilson stated that the requirement is four years. There are so many programs they might need an extra semester, so they would bump into the fifth year. They won’t necessarily be done in four years. Sometimes you can red shirt for a year and still have four years of eligibility and some students do that. So, there are many variables that you could consider.
- Clarification was requested regarding unmet need and whether it was per year or total. Mr.
Dirmyer stated that the unmet need is upon entry. The assumption that is made with this data is that the unmet need may not have changed on an annual basis with subsequent FASFA filing. - The question was raised regarding the four, five and six year graduation rate and if the data has ever been broken down based on how many of those students who graduate in five or six years have multiple degrees, majors and/or minors. Mr. Dirmyer stated that it an excellent question and should be added to the conversation of what is an appropriate measure of completion.
- A concern was shared regarding that in 2015, our one year retention rate was pretty good and it was after that we have experienced a greater decline in our one year retention rate. When the consequences of that decline catches up with us, we may look as good as we are currently looking. Mr. Dirmyer stated that he shares that concern. In the fall of 2020, we will have the term five persistence or retention for the fall 2018 incoming cohort. That is where we started to level of at the 73% retention rate. The fall 2017 cohort persisted at a rate of 74% and the fall 2018 cohort at pretty much the same rate. Once we see the persistence rate of the fall 2019 cohort, we will be able to determine if this is the new normal. Both for on campus and nationally. We are noticing that the other SUNY comprehensives are experiencing declines. He would like to review one more term of complete data to indicate if we are losing students earlier in the first and second year and then it seems to taper off and still have the potential to experience the four year graduation rate of the high 40%.
- The comment was made that when we push the four year graduation rate, it hurts us in terms of the success of our students. When we moved to Excelsior and Seamless Transfer it has had a terrible impact on our students. The perception that they can’t be here for one extra semester. Not being able to have them take fewer credits and explore other opportunities has been detrimental. Students are not feeling successful. President Macpherson stated that the four year time line is being driven partly by Excelsior and the governor’s perspective is the students that stay on track are more likely to graduate and with less debt. This is what the governor is most interested in. There are some programs that cannot be done in four years and we are aware of that. What we need to do is work on what we can control. If we have opportunities to help students be successful by planning a pathway forward for them for four years, we should do everything we can to help map out their four year progress and part of that is really good advising about what they do in their first semester. How to take a balanced course load versus four different labs at the same time, as an example. There are policy items that we don’t have control over, but the graduation timeframe is a discussion point at national higher education conferences. Many community colleges are questioning why we are defining success as a certain time measure.
- The question was raised regarding how our rates compare to the rates of 10 and 15 years ago. There is a feeling among faculty that students are not coming as prepared for college as they once were. Mr. Dirmyer stated that he could provide a 10 year snapshot, anything beyond that may be more difficult as Banner was implemented and it may be difficult to get information out of Eagle.
- The comment was made that we are comparing our data to other schools that have students that are as equally prepared or underprepared and who have been financed by the same mechanisms as our students. If these other schools are being successful with the same group of students, we have to ask ourselves what they are doing that we are not. President Macpherson stated that it is a good point but we need to remember with Systems when you compare internally, you are still comparing apples and oranges at times. In her experience, there are some schools where there are wealthier students. This can lead to higher graduation rates as those students are not experiencing the same stresses as other students. Even though the incoming data can be the same as to the preparedness level and GPAs, the wealth factor was really significant and it is something we need to be aware of.
- The question was raised if the data looks at the first generation college students and if that plays a role in retention as it is much more difficult for them to maneuver through all the aspects of college. Dr. Kelly stated that this was reviewed in the first year retention and didn’t see much difference across the board. Mr. Dirmyer stated that it regards to the rest of the data, he would have to follow-up with this information.
Other Items from the Committee
None at this time.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 a.m.
Next Meeting: April 23, 2020; 8:30-10:30 a.m.
JW/mw