ࡱ> CEB -bjbj$$ .>F|F|%||,22222 .;O $"N[  [[22}}}[ 22}[}}:O,2@Me"{ s0R"""[[}[[[[[}[[[[[[["[[[[[[[[[| : 9iý޹˾ 9iý޹˾ exceeds its peers on all ten core performance indicators. Entering freshmen SAT scores in the 25th-75th percentile range are among the highest in the peer group (1070-1230 compared to peer group average of 969-1153). Salisburys percentages of minority and African American undergraduate students are 18.4 percent and 11 percent respectively and both exceed the peer averages. The second-year retention rate of 81 percent is 1.0 percentage point higher than the peer average. Salisburys overall six-year graduation rate of 67.4 percent is 7.7 percentage points above the peer average. Minority and African American graduation rates are 60.3 percent and 66.4 percent, respectively. Both rates remain above peer averages: 15 points higher for all minority students and 23.1 points for African American students. Salisburys pass rate on teacher licensure exams of 98 percent is 3 points above the peer average and the nursing licensing exam rate of 95.4 percent is 0.9 points higher than the peer average. Salisburys undergraduate alumni giving rate (15 percent) is 8 points above peers on this measure. Salisbury selected five institution-specific indicators and outperforms the peers on three of them. Salisbury is more selective than its peers with an acceptance rate of 53 percent compared to a peer average of 66 percent. The student-faculty ratio is 17 to 1, better than the 18.7 to 1 peer average. The average high school GPA for entering freshmen of 3.7 is 0.3 points higher than the average. Salisbury lags the peers in two metrics. Eighty-four percent of Salisbury faculty hold the terminal degree, 1.0 point below than the peer average, and the state appropriation per FTE level of $4,989 is $1,521 below the peer average. As in prior years, Commission staff commends Salisbury on achieving a high level of performance. The Commission would request that Salisbury comment on the two metrics where it is slightly below its peers and share what policies the university is using to perform so highly, especially in the retention and graduation of its students. Institutions Response: Retention and Graduation Initiatives SUs commitment to student success is a priority that is echoed throughout the Universitys Mission and Strategic Plan. Much of SUs success in retaining and graduating students can be attributed to the continued expansion of several effective retention initiatives. Some 644 freshmen (52% of the first-time student cohort) participated in Supplemental Instruction (SI) during 2012-13. SI classes were expanded from 47 in fall 2012 to 68 in fall 2013. Students who attended five or more SI sessions had significantly higher first-year grades than students who attended less than five SI sessions (3.11 vs. 3.00). SI students who attended five or more sessions had higher second-year retention rates than those who attended less than five sessions as well as the overall population (91% vs. 83% vs. 81%). A total of 100 SI course sections were available this academic year to more than 4,000 students. Mid-semester reporting meant that all first-time, first-year students with D or F grades at mid-semester were contacted by the Center for Student Achievement (CSA) and offered academic support or advising. Students that followed up with CSA achieved higher grades at the end of their first year (2.41) than those that did not follow up (2.30). Students that attended CSA after their poor mid-semester reporting also were retained into their second year at higher rates (72%) than those who did not seek the assistance of the CSA (64%). The CSA proved so successful that two additional sites were opened on campus and more students sought help after mid-semester poor reports in 2013-14 (41%) than had done so in 2012-13 (26%). A Global Living Community and one for Communication Arts majors were added to fall 2013 offerings to bring the total number of Living-Learning Communities (LLCs) to 19. A total of 388 students participated in LLCs. Students enrolled in an LLC during 2012-13 had significantly higher first-year grades (3.15) than those that were not in LLCs (2.97). LLC participants also were retained into their second year at significantly higher rates than non-participants (85% vs. 81%). In addition to expanding the aforementioned initiatives, we have also launched the following to further improve student success, retention and graduation: SUs new sophomore residency requirement was implemented and the residence halls are full for fall 2014. We also implemented an accompanying Sophomore Year Experience academic program. Focus areas include career exploration, internships, study abroad and cultural experience enhancements. The campus underwent extensive examination of our current advising model. A long-term plan including three phases to be rolled out over time was created to enhance SUs advising experience and improve retention and graduation. SU worked with the Educational Advisory Board to implement the Student Success Collaborative. The Collaborative provides an early warning system for students to assist them in course selection, selection of major and early indicators of academic success. The Honors Program led a new initiative to develop more honors-to-honors articulation programs with OOS community colleges to provide a smoother transition to SU. Financial Aid identified 240 returning students who demonstrated at least $13,000 in need and had maintained at least a 3.0 GPA. Those students were awarded an additional $1200 as part of their aid package to reward consistent performance for the high-need population which is often vulnerable to attrition. Funding was secured (currently $30,000) and guidelines developed for the Daly Scholarship to be awarded to students with cumulative 3.2 GPA who have an unexpected financial hardship. This years senior class gift will establish an emergency needs fund to support students with immediate financial need. Financial Aid conducted extensive outreach to parents who had been initially denied for the PLUS loan after they were designated for reconsideration. Many families were unaware of that status and were able to secure PLUS loans after our call. State Funding It is through the hard work of the University that we have been able to exceed our peer averages on so many of the peer performance metrics. Unfortunately, SU often falls below our peers on indicators that are directly related to our funding. SU has historically met or fallen just below our peer average for the percentage of faculty holding terminal degrees. With 84% of faculty holding a terminal degree, SU has maintained its percentage since last years reporting of this indicator. Challenges in funding, clearly demonstrated by the large gap between SUs per FTES funding ($4,989) and the peer average ($6,227), undoubtedly impact the Universitys ability to hire tenured/tenure track faculty. The University often fills vacant faculty positions with doctoral candidates that have completed their coursework but have yet to complete their dissertation. These all but dissertation candidates allow the University to hire highly qualified faculty at lower salaries. Another cost savings effort has been to hire full-time, non-tenure track faculty. Over the past five years, full-time, non-tenure track faculty positions have increased from 20% of full-time faculty positions to nearly 24%. The trend of hiring contractual, non-tenure track faculty has been necessary as funds have not been substantial enough to hire permanent faculty. In fall 2012, SUs President reached out to MHEC for permission to review and revise its outdated list of funding peers. The review of this request was postponed as MHEC was performing its own examination and review of revised funding models. In April 2014, MHEC voted to adopt the Competitor State funding model. With growing doctoral enrollments, the funding peer group for SU should reflect the increased role of doctoral programs on campus. As such, the President has proposed a funding peer group inclusive of universities within both the Masters Large and Doctoral/Research Carnegie classifications. In addition, the University has, for many years, requested that the University System of Maryland office (USMO) bring its state appropriation per FTES in line with that of other USM and peer institutions. When the USM implemented the Commissions funding guideline in 1999, there was hope that SUs state appropriation per FTES would improve. The USMO did permit SU to increase its tuition rate 3% above that of other USM institutions for four consecutive years, the last of which is FY2015. While that has improved SUs overall funding guideline attainment, it has not addressed the inequity in state funds per FTES within the USM or as compared with SUs peers. The USMO has held the position that state funds per FTES is not a good measure of equity in funding. Instead of being used to level the playing field, the funding guideline was, and still is, an after-the-fact calculation. As recently as spring 2013, the University developed a target for state appropriation per FTES that would require a number of years to achieve. The President and members of her staff met several times with the Chancellor, and/or his staff to develop a plan that both the USMO and SU could support. There were some minor concessions made by the USMO but, overall, little progress was made. DE[\]^5Je۸m\K\K\K\K\=\h CJOJPJQJaJ hli,hlCJOJPJQJaJ hli,h}CJOJPJQJaJ)hl hU56CJOJPJQJ\aJ h5CJOJPJQJ\aJ hU5CJOJPJQJ\aJ&hh5CJOJPJQJ\aJ hWh5CJOJPJQJ\aJ#hhCJH*OJPJQJaJ hhCJOJPJQJaJ&hh5CJOJPJQJ\aJ| } CD]^  ^ dgd9u dgdli,$$d@&a$gdU $d@&gd dgd $da$gdew+?pz{ !f޿͎̀͠ra͎UEU9hK:CJOJQJaJh|jh9u5CJOJQJaJh9uCJOJQJaJ hli,h#CJOJPJQJaJh#CJOJPJQJaJh CJOJPJQJaJ#hli,hli,5CJOJPJQJaJhtnCJOJPJQJaJ hli,h9uCJOJPJQJaJh}CJOJPJQJaJ hli,hli,CJOJPJQJaJ hli,h}CJOJPJQJaJ hli,hlCJOJPJQJaJ #C^_h38^ _ l m ȹwr]H)hl h&z56CJOJPJQJ\aJ)hl hU56CJOJPJQJ\aJ hU6hK:CJOJQJaJh#CJOJQJaJh1Wh}CJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJh9uh9uCJOJQJaJh9uh}CJOJQJaJh}CJOJQJaJ h}5CJOJPJQJ\aJh"h9uCJOJQJaJh9uCJOJQJaJ^_dc:i^ _ m +#,#%%((-^gdX $d@&gd< $d@&gdU$$d@&a$gdU$a$gdU & Fdgd} & Fdgd9u dgd}m !*!Z!""##*#,###<$W$$$$%%%% &:&;&|&&&&&&&')'ᴥôÇÇxxxfT#h< h dCJOJPJQJ\aJ#h< hHoCJOJPJQJ\aJhl CJOJPJQJ\aJhHoCJOJPJQJ\aJhTCJOJPJQJ\aJhg~CJOJPJQJ\aJhlCJOJPJQJ\aJh9CJOJPJQJ\aJh08CJOJPJQJ\aJh]VCJOJPJQJ\aJhUCJOJPJQJ\aJ )'v'z''''''' ( (((++--ۺx#hUhXCJOJPJQJ\aJhnoaCJOJPJQJ\aJ#hXhXCJOJPJQJ\aJh9CJOJPJQJ\aJh'CJOJPJQJ\aJ#h< h'CJOJPJQJ\aJ#h< h dCJOJPJQJ\aJ#h< hHoCJOJPJQJ\aJ-- $d@&gdU,1h/ =!"#$% b 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~PJ_HmH nH sH tH J`J Normal dOJQJ_HmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List L@L Wh List Paragraph ^m$CJaJR@R K:0 Balloon Text dCJOJQJ^JaJNoN K:0Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭V$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3N)cbJ uV4(Tn 7_?m-ٛ{UBwznʜ"Z xJZp; {/<P;,)''KQk5qpN8KGbe Sd̛\17 pa>SR! 3K4'+rzQ TTIIvt]Kc⫲K#v5+|D~O@%\w_nN[L9KqgVhn R!y+Un;*&/HrT >>\ t=.Tġ S; Z~!P9giCڧ!# B,;X=ۻ,I2UWV9$lk=Aj;{AP79|s*Y;̠[MCۿhf]o{oY=1kyVV5E8Vk+֜\80X4D)!!?*|fv u"xA@T_q64)kڬuV7 t '%;i9s9x,ڎ-45xd8?ǘd/Y|t &LILJ`& -Gt/PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!0C)theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] %>em )'-^--8@0(  B S  ? OLE_LINK3 OLE_LINK4??%%%T`%33TT``  F J + , > ? p z { { ::MM38  *GG|z  ""%%E&EnvޑVaVaց ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o P^P`OJQJo(h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohP^P`OJQJo(hHVaVE&E                  !l< l 2|li,08]Vnoa dlHo9uaHw4&z5'tnT ;}#K: U<WhX9g~%%@$$$$%@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial7.@Calibri5. .[`)Tahoma?= *Cx Courier New;WingdingsA$BCambria Math"h7+&&g@CCq20$$KqHP  $P2!xx  kosiegert kosiegert  Oh+'0`   ( 4@HPX kosiegert Normal.dotm kosiegert6Microsoft Office Word@@4ހ@D՜.+,0 hp  9iý޹˾C$  Title !"#$%&'()*+,-./013456789;<=>?@ADRoot Entry F.F1Table "WordDocument.>SummaryInformation(2DocumentSummaryInformation8:CompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q