8:30 – 10:30 a.m., Seymour Union, Room 220
Attendees
Voting Members
Jennifer Blood
Susan Butler
Denise Copelton
Frances Dearing
Scott Haines
Tim Henry
Tom Hernandez
Sara Kelly
Carl O’Connor
Heather Raczkowski
Robert Wyant
Non-Voting Members
Eileen Daniel
Keith Davis
Crystal Hallenbeck-McPhall
Ian Harper: Co-Chair
Mike Harrison
Rachael Killion
President Macpherson
Elliot Weininger: Co-Chair
Melissa Wight
Guests
Dave Bagley
Priya Banerjee
Don Bigelow
Amy Guptill
Brittany Narburgh
Oana Prajitura
Erin Rickman
Rey Sia
Regrets
Voting Members
Lorraine Acker
Mike Andriatch
Steve Barber
Monica Brasted
Jana Craft
Stephanie Learn
Theresa Martinez
Nautica Murray
Kathy Peterson
Logan Rath
Jamie Spiller
Elizabeth Thorpe
Non-Voting Members
Thomas Chew
The meeting was called to order at 8:31 a.m.
Announcements
Dr. Weininger announced the following:
- The next JPBC meeting will be on April 23, 2026. We will have presentations from BASC, BSG and DIFR.
- The Five-year Model will be presented at the April 30, 2026 meeting.
- The Budget Town Hall will be on Friday, May 1 at 11:00am.
AcMo Update
Ms. Rickman and Dr. Sia provided an update on AcMo. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:
- Appreciation was extended for the presentation.
- The question was raised regarding the students that are in the pilot and are they receiving additional support. It was stated that the Mike Dentino is making extra tutors available for the students, they just need to go to ASC because he does not know who the students are.
- The suggestion was made to tell the students that they were placed in MTH 112 instead of MTH 110, but we are trying to support you. These are the things we are asking of you as a result of doing that, and some intentionality built into that might help raise grades as well as the pass rate. It was stated that they may or may not have sought out tutoring or extra help, but it is available pretty widely to all students in MTH 112 and faculty who were teaching 112 also did not know who was in the pilot and who was not. So as far as experimental methods go, it was a double-blind study. But I agree, moving forward, if we are moving this out of the pilot stage into something that is worthwhile continuing, it would be useful to identify those students and offer extra support.
- It was stated that it parallels with what we used to do for Emerging Scholars. For a period of time we did not tell them they were Emerging Scholars and during that time a lot of them did not seek help and they did less well. Once we started to say to them that you are an Emerging Scholar and gave them extra support, they started to do better. It is really good that it was double blind, but I think that it would be good and helpful for us if we get that extra additional intentional support. It was added that I think too sharing with students that we are doing this for you so you don’t necessarily have to take two math classes, they might be more apt to say, I’ll do whatever you need, just get me through this one math course.
- The question was raised regarding whether there is any clarity on the overall timeframe for AcMo and how long it is going to last. It was stated that the 2026-27 cohort of students is the cohort that we are going to be tracking through four- and six-year graduation and that is what is going to be reported.
- The question was raised regarding whether it has been determined what happens if we do or do not make the benchmark. It was stated that they haven’t really gone down that route yet. I imagine if things start to go pear shape across the board, they might start implementing some different kind of measures. But as of right now, I would say a lightly funded mandate is better than an unfunded mandate and I would consider this a lightly funded mandate. It was added that we do not know what will happen if campuses do not meet these goals, but if it is anything like the enrollment targets that are set, if you do not meet some of those goals SUNY meets with you often. We are not on that list, we are in great shape, but I would imagine they would implement something similar. If you are not meeting the goals that they place, then they are going to be more involved. Again, that is a focus campus from a budget and enrollment standpoint. We don’t want to be on the list because the ones that are have more involvement.
- Clarification was requested on the metric slide regarding that the 100% is for the four years and 150% is for six years. It was stated that is correct.
- The question was raised regarding looking at the 39.5% and wondering if we have identified all of the things that are keeping students. It would be concerning to see that percentage as a prospective student and potentially look into going to a different SUNY school. It was stated that the 40% roughly for the 2020 cohort, when you look at the four-year graduation rates nationally, it is not far off. The graduation rate now looks very different than it did 20 years ago. We are hoping to change that. So, if you are a student and you are looking across the board, you are not going to find another school far off of that.
- The was stated if you look at our percentage compared to SUNY as a whole, it is concerning. It was stated that data is the goal. The SUNY system wants to be up around 62%. The university/college goal is 53% and ours is 49%.
- The question was raised regarding whether it was known where the SUNY system currently is as a whole. It was stated that we do, the number is just not available at the time of the meeting and will be shared later. It was added that we know that SUNY was very aggressive in setting their goals. So, this is definitely 10 points higher than what it is currently at.
- The question was raised regarding whether we know what the national average is and how far SUNY has gone above that. It was stated that SUNY is looking for well above the national average, because the national average tends to be in the thirties and sometimes dips over into the low forties.
- Clarification was requested that SUNY set the bar high instead of keeping it as a reasonable expectation. It was stated that they are looking at other institutions like the California system, Louisiana system, and so they are following the lead of other systems, and they have set forward some campaigns like this. It was added that families and parents are evaluating if higher ed is worth it and they are seeing things like this. So, SUNY would want it to be much higher. They are trying to combat some of those issues and help students so after they put some investment in, they get to the finish line.
- The concern was stated that a lot of our students are first generation and it is unknown if parents are diving into this. Some non-first-generation parents may not even be looking at this. It was stated that some parents may not know the statistics, but there is still the national narrative around if college is worth it.
- The statement was made regarding MTH 112 and the concern regarding the average grade of a D. It was stated that if a student is in the STEM field, they need to get a higher grade than a D, but if you are in a discipline where you only have to get through the Gen Ed course to be able to graduate, students might look at it differently. It was added that the way the pilot was organized, these students are not majoring in the STEM field. These are students that are majoring in disciplines that do not require a math course. So, all they need to take math for is the Gen Ed so that is why they were placed in 112 as opposed to statistics or pre calc or any of the other ones that other disciplines may require. 112 is their gateway course, they do not need any additional math beyond this.
- The question was raised that we do not mandate a C or better in a gateway course and the concern that the D is an acceptable passing grade. It was stated that if you look at the data from the pilot, the mean grade and these are done in terms of quality points. So, one quality point is the difference between a C and a B or in other terms a letter grade. It may be helpful to know that the average or the mean quality points for students in the non-pilot was 2.6 and the pilot group was 1.67 so it’s one point lower. A C+ versus a D+. So, the students in the pilot are not doing a lot worse than the students who were normally placed into that math course. We would expect them to get a lower grade because they are the ones in the pilot, but they are still passing and their grade is not all that different. It was added that if we implement the strategy that President Macpherson suggested and they could seek out help and possibly do better.
- The question was raised regarding what the role of the fellow is. Is it something unique at SUNY Brockport or is this a standard? It was stated that this was something that was sought out through SUNY. They brought on 20 fellows. I think they met as a collective a couple of weeks ago and they may have more information, but Dr. Smith and I have not had a chance to connect. I do believe it is like a community of practice where they will be visiting with other campuses to share what best practices are available. It was added that they were specifically looking for some Math and English experts to fill certain gaps in their overall goal of individuals that can help across the campuses. So, Dr. Smith’s role will not be focused on Brockport. It is going to be about how do we do good things around math for all of the SUNY campuses. But it is great for us to have one of our own in that role. In addition, it was added that there is a community of practice for campuses that receive the grant and we have identified faculty and staff to serve on it.
- It was acknowledged after talking with colleagues at other institutions that Dr. Sia and Ms. Rickman have both done a great job of being transparent and consulting with people from across the institution, having these conversations because I think the timeline that was set forth made it hard for many individuals to do that. I know it was not easy for us to do it, but even just being able to be in this group, having the dialog, having the plans unfold with everyone’s input has been really important. I think it sets us up for success. It was stated that we need to thank the people that invited us to speak and there were a lot.
Enrollment Update
Dr. Kelly provided an update on enrollment. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:
- The question was raised regarding whether May 1 had any significance anymore for students to commit. It was stated that during the month of April, notifications do go out regarding three weeks left, two weeks left, one week left. It matters more in the larger universities. We are not going to shut off enrolling individuals; we just use it as a sense of urgency tool. High schools, especially in New York City, do decision days. So, it does still have some significance, but for most of us, we aren’t going to shut the door on that date.
- The question was raised regarding whether we should anticipate seeing a spike in enrollment around May 1. It was stated that we should and we track it daily where you can see the fluctuations one way or another. We have seen it for the last couple of years, and I anticipate we will again this year. I imagine we will see it probably a week out and the day of.
- The question was raised regarding whether we have identified the maximum number of students we can hold on campus and support. It was stated that it is unknown if we have identified a number for that. I think we have always been trying to get back to 8,000. We have had conversations in Cabinet that there is always not necessarily the right mix of resources. Some areas have gotten bigger and some have gotten smaller. That’s always the challenge we’re going to deal with. We have done a couple of pilots to try and increase our out-of-state students for the fall and those have been working. We have seen double the number of out-of-state students deposited so far. Normally around the time of year, we would have about 20 and I think we have around 44 incoming out-of-state students and they are not all athletes, which is a big goal for us. That means these other efforts are working and it is not just student athlete recruitment. It was added that we tried a new direct admit pilot. We buy names every year. If you have students in high school and you are getting random emails from schools you never heard of, that means they bought your student’s name. We usually have around 80,000 and that is what we have this year. We identified about 30,000 with self-reporting grades that have a B+ or higher that we offer direct admission to. We had about 60 students fill in on the last day. We are going through those as last-minute applicants. I have seen a few that are coming from New York City schools that are 99 GPAs, which is fascinating to see that they are applying on April 9. In addition, it was stated that we are always looking at how we continue to grow and improve our likelihood of hitting our targets. Kudos to the Admissions team and everyone who has had that mentality. The big piece with students choosing us is those efforts that are beyond just Admissions. So when you meet with a student or we are at Accepted Student Day and the energy there and the support, it makes a huge difference because when the recruiters are out there saying here is what Brockport has to offer, here is what you are going to experience, here is the support you are going to get. Then they come to campus and they are like, “wow, that actually matches”. So that makes a huge difference, and we are really grateful for all the partnerships that we have seen across the university, the ideas that have come forward within Admissions and beyond to help us continue to hit our targets. It was added that we are projecting close to 400 if not more students for Accepted Student Day so 1,000 people. That is huge and we thank everyone that is a part of that.
- The question was raised regarding whether the scholarship spend and offer rate will remain flat since the freshman target rates are flat going forward. It was stated I would say so. We are constantly evaluating how to be more competitive. For example, with the out-of-state group, is that an opportunity for us because we still have some room to grow there. I think generally, in our model, we have made it a stable spend.
- The question was raised regarding whether we have to think about or are there conversations about trying to boost the use of scholarships as a way of enticing students away from our competitors. It was stated that we do communicate that we are hard to beat in terms of affordability right now, in terms of our scholarship program and we want to try and remain in that position where, when comparing us to one of our peers, we are the more affordable and value filled option. We evaluate our scholarship offers at least every semester. At least every semester we get students telling us that they got a better offer from another school, and we ask if we can see it. So, we are trying to understand how we can stay competitive in that sense. We are always going to look at remaining competitive while trying not to break the bank.
Enrollment Update
Members reviewed the course fee recommendations put forward by the Campus Based Fee Review Committee (CBFRC). There were no questions or discussion points that occurred. The following are the results of the present voting members to endorse the course fee recommendations of the CBFRC:
Endorse – 10 Not Endorse – 0 Abstain – 1
Additional Items from the Committee
Dr. Weininger reminded members of the following:
- Our next meeting will be on April 23, and we will have presentations from DIFR, BSG and BASC.
- Our following meeting will be on April 30 where we will review the newest iteration of the Five-year model.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:31 a.m.