PERIODIC REVIEW REPORT

Presented by: Morgan State University, Baltimore, Maryland

June 1, 2013

David Wilson, Ed.D., President

Decennial Evaluation Team Visit: April 6 - 9, 2008

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF ACCREDITATION STATUS ...............................................................iv

CERTIFICATION STATEMENT .................................................................................... viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1

Compliance with Accreditation-Relevant Federal Regulations ..................................... 2

SUMMARY OF MORGAN’S RESPONSE to 2008 RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 6

Morgan’s Response to Standard 1 Recommendation .................................................. 6

Morgan’s Response to Standard 7 Recommendation .................................................. 7

Morgan’s Response to Standard 11 Recommendation .............................................. 12

SUMMARY OF MORGAN’S RESPONSE TO SELF-STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS.. 14

Institutional Effectiveness under Standards 1 through 4 and 7 .................................. 14

Improvement in Student Learning Outcomes Standards 8 through 12 ...................... 16

NARRATIVE IDENTIFYING MORGAN’S MAJOR CHALLENGES AND/OR

OPPORTUNITIES ......................................................................................................... 18

ENROLLMENT AND FINANCE TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS .................................. 21

SUSTAINED PROCESSES TO ASSESS INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS and

STUDENT LEARNING .................................................................................................. 24

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 26

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 28

iii

LIST of FIGURES and TABLES

Figure 1: Organizational Structure of the University Assessment Committee ............... 10

Table 1: Completed Academic Program Reviews by Department and Year ................. 13

Table 2: Summary Morgan State University SWOT Analysis ....................................... 20

Table 3: Actual and Projected Headcount and Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment* ......... 25

iv

STATEMENT OF ACCREDITATION STATUS

v

vi

vii

viii

CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Morgan State University (Morgan) is fully accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) and by the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). Morgan currently enrolls approximately 8,000 students from throughout the United States and numerous foreign countries and is one of the nation’s premier historically black colleges or universities (HBCUs). Morgan offers a comprehensive range of academic programs including fifteen doctoral, thirty masters, and more than forty baccalaureate degree programs. Additionally, Morgan is approved by the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) to award three on-line degrees and an online certificate. The Academic Affairs Division of the University is organized around the College of Liberal Arts, the School of Architecture and Planning, the Earl Graves School of Business and Management, the School of Computer, Mathematical and Natural Sciences, the School of Community Health and Policy, the School of Education and Urban Studies, the School of Engineering, the School of Global Journalism and Communications, the School of Social Work, and the School of Graduate Studies. In 2005, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching elevated Morgan’s classification from a Master’s Comprehensive Institution to that of a Doctoral Research University (DRU) with a graduate instructional program that is doctoral, professional dominant (i.e., Doc/Prof). Morgan’s full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment as of Fall 2012 is 6,985 including 6,060 undergraduates and 925 graduate students which represents a slight decrease from the Fall 2011 FTE of 6,214 undergraduates and 918 graduate students. Morgan’s total Instructional budget as reported to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) in spring 2012 was $51,585,156 and the University’s overall budget including instruction was $180,043,119. Morgan’s Periodic Review Report (PRR) Steering Committee (the Steering Committee) is comprised of thirty members who are representative of the University community. The Steering Committee scheduled monthly meetings over a period of two years during which time it also worked with six subcommittees in order to prepare this PRR1. Several drafts of the PRR were shared with the University community and published on Morgan’s PRR web site at http://www.morgan.edu/middlestates. Additionally, public briefings were presented at the January 2013 Faculty Institute meeting, the March 2013, meeting of the University Council, the April 2013, meeting of the Academic Affairs Council, and at the May 2013, meeting of the Board of Regents. The Steering Committee invited input and comment on each draft from faculty, students, staff, alumni, and from all other interested constituents.

1 A list of the Steering Committee members and the members of the six subcommittees are included in Appendix 1.

2

Compliance with Accreditation-Relevant Federal Regulations As a member institution of MSCHE, Morgan fully complies with accreditation-relevant federal regulations (see 34 CFR §600.2, §602.16, §602.17, and §602.24; HEOA 2008) with regards to:

1. Student identity verification in distance and correspondence education 2. Title IV cohort default rate 3. Transfer of credit 4. Assignment of credit hours

Student Identity Verification. Morgan is approved by the Maryland Higher Education Commission to award three on-line degrees including: a doctorate (Ed.D) in Community College Leadership; a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering (MSEE); and, a 2+2 Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in Electrical Engineering for students transferring from a community college or from other four-year institutions. Morgan is also approved to award an online certificate in Project Management. The following student identity verification practices are currently in place in the largest and most established of Morgan’s three on-line degree programs, the Community College Leadership (Ed.D.) program:

1. All students are required to submit a recent photograph upon admission to the program. In addition, a writing sample submitted as part of the application package is used as the basis of an interview that is conducted before an admission decision is made. The writing sample, the photograph and interview notes are kept on record.

2. All on-line classes employ Blackboard to manage course materials. Adobe Connect is also used to deliver both video and audio capability.

3. A student cannot enroll in a course without using his/her Morgan student ID number.

4. All communication is done through the students’ Morgan email account While no one of the above provides incontrovertible proof of identity, taken together they provide a high level of verification. As in the case where students are enrolled in face-to-face classroom settings, verification of the identities of students enrolled in the online courses rests with the faculty. The Periodic Review Report (PRR) Steering Committee recommended that, after reviewing best practices of a number of other colleges and universities, the Vice President for Academic Outreach and Engagement consider convening a task force of appropriate faculty, staff, and students to develop a policy for strengthening student identity verification in the University’s online degree/course offerings. Cohort Default Rate. The Cohort Default Rate is the percentage of a school’s borrowers who enter repayment on certain Federal Family Education Loans (FFELs) and/or William D. Ford Federal Direct Loans (Direct Loans) during that fiscal year and who default (or fail to meet the other specified condition) within the cohort default period.

3

Cohort default rates are based on federal fiscal years. Federal fiscal years begin October 1st of a calendar year and end on September 30th of the following calendar year. Initially the Department of Education used a two year cohort default rate for schools, and Morgan’s default rate was 14.2%. The Department has since changed its regulation so that the cohort default rates are no longer figured for a two year period. Under the 3 year proposal, Morgan’s default rate is projected to rise to 16.6%. Proposals to base the federal default rate on three years are of particular concern to Morgan and other HBCUs which typically have higher default rates than larger, traditionally white institutions (TWIs). While Morgan remains well under the twenty-five (25%) percent default rate that would trigger federal sanctions, the University’s Financial Aid Office has implemented and/or supports a number of activities and programs to monitor and limit increases to Morgan’s federal default rate that include but are not limited to:

Mandatory exit counseling sessions for all graduating seniors

Financial aid outreach to borrowers during their matriculation

Campus financial literacy programs2

Life Skills program facilitated by USA Funds

Hard copy communication to loan borrowers Transfer of Credit. As outlined by MHEC, transfer of credit from community colleges in Maryland to four-year colleges and universities in the State is governed largely by the terms and provisions in ARTSYS3. ARTSYS is a computerized data information system which informs students and advisors at a community college about the transferability of each community college course. It indicates whether the course is transferable and, if so, indicates the four-year institution's equivalent course number. It also indicates the general education area(s), at both the sending and receiving institution, applicable to the course. It is a system, developed and maintained by the University System of Maryland (USM) (http://artweb.usmd.edu) and is presently in use at all Maryland public institutions, including Morgan, and many independent colleges and universities.

In addition to participating in the statewide USM ARTSYS transfer of credit programs, the Morgan State University Transfer Center4 assists any student who has attended a two or four-year school and applies for admission to Morgan State University with the transfer of credit process. In general, once admitted to the University, the Office of Admissions forwards transcripts to the Transfer Center where an initial evaluation of the transfer student’s general education coursework is completed. At the end of this initial evaluation, the remainder of the student’s coursework is recorded as free electives where upon the transcript is then forwarded to the Transfer Coordinator in the school or

2 An article entitled, Morgan State Promotes Financial Literacy, which outlines unique features of the University’s

financial literacy programs appears in the January 2, 2013, issue of DIVERSE Issues in Higher Education at http://diverseeducation.com/article/50441/. 3 http://mhec.maryland.gov/preparing/stuguide.asp#ARTSYS.

4 http://www.morgan.edu/administration/academic_affairs/university_transfer_center.html.

4

college in which the student’s major is located. The free electives are then compared against courses required in the major; the student’s transcript is then amended to reflect credit transferred for courses in the major. Additionally, the Transfer Center manages articulation agreements with as many as fourteen community colleges throughout Maryland and the region that govern transfer of credit into specific degree programs.

Assignment of Credit Hours. The Academic Affairs Policy on the Assignment of Credit Hours (the Policy) at Morgan State University is consistent with 13B.02.01.12 of the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR). In accordance with COMAR and the Policy, a one (1) credit hour is defined as one 50-minute period per week, or its equivalent, for one semester. Three (3) credit hours are defined as three 50-minute periods per week, or for two 75-minute periods per week, or for one 50-minute period and 110-minute period per week, or for any combination of these formats for one semester. In summary, at Morgan, a 3 credit course meets for 45 hours usually two to three times a week for a minimum of 15 weeks. Independent study classes require contact hours per week as the equivalent of one semester hour. Laboratory and studio classes require two (2) to four (4) hours in class per week as the equivalent of one semester hour. Internships and practicum courses require three or more contact hours per week as the equivalent of one semester hour. The Academic Affairs Policy on the Assignment of Credit Hours is published on the University’s web site(s) and in the University’s academic catalogs. Organizational Changes and Strategic Planning Since the last decennial visit to Morgan State University (Morgan) of a team from the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) in April 2008, Morgan has undergone significant personnel and organizational changes. Effective July 1, 2010, Dr. David Wilson, was appointed Morgan’s twelfth president. With his appointment, Morgan’s Board of Regents, its faculty, students and various University and community stakeholders engaged in a yearlong strategic planning process culminating in new mission and vision statements. The resulting ten (10) year strategic plan, approved by the Board of Regents in August 2011, is entitled, “Growing the Future, Leading the World: The Strategic Plan for Morgan State University, 2011 – 2021”5 (Strategic Plan). Consistent with the goals of the Strategic Plan, the President established two new administrative units, including the Division of Academic Outreach and Engagement and the Division of Research and Economic Development. In addition to the Board of Regents and the President, Morgan’s organizational structure includes seven administrative divisions each led by a vice president, including the divisions of Academic Affairs, Academic Outreach and Engagement, Finance and Management, Institutional Advancement, Planning and Information Technology, Research and Economic Development, and Student Affairs. See MSU Organizational Chart in appendix No. 4. 5 http://www.morgan.edu/Documents/ABOUT/StrategicPlan/StrategicPlan2011-21_Final.pdf.

5

Morgan’s new mission and vision, the Strategic Plan’s key goals, and the new organizational structure are all consistent with addressing the thirty-four (34) recommendations noted in Morgan’s Self-Study as well as the four recommendations made by MSCHE team following its visit to the University in 2008. See 2008 Self-Study and MSCHE Team Recommendations in appendix No. 5. Since completing the Self-Study and the conclusion of the MSCHE’s team visit, Morgan has been engaged in ongoing initiatives of continuous assessment and institutional improvement by addressing the recommendations identified in its Self-Study and by the MSCHE visiting team. This PRR reflects Morgan’s response to recommendations resulting from the previous evaluation, in particular, the current status of University processes in assessing institutional effectiveness (MSCHE Standard 7) and student learning outcomes (MSCHE Standard 14). Specifically, after concluding that Morgan had met each of the fourteen standards identified in Characteristics of Excellence, the MSCHE team recommended that Morgan: (1) widely distribute and publish the mission statement on the website, in the catalogue and in all public documents; (2) re-examine and rewrite the Comprehensive Assessment Plan (CAP) to include mission-based assessment goals for student learning, academic programs, services and administrative processes; (3) implement the revised CAP in timely fashion; and, (4) implement its periodic review of graduate and undergraduate programs using the policies and procedures developed by the Ad Hoc Task Force on the Periodic Review of Programs. Findings and analyses conducted by the Steering Committee and its several subcommittees reveal that Morgan fully satisfies the MSCHE’s team’s recommendations concerning Mission Goals, and Objectives (Standard 1) and Educational Offerings (Standard 11). The development of a new CAP is complete, including the adoption of several institutional dashboards and metrics to measure student learning outcomes. Morgan is also engaged in continuing efforts to measure both undergraduate and graduate student learning outcomes. For example, pursuant to the 2008 Visiting Team’s recommendations, the Periodic Program Review (PPR) policies and procedures have been implemented and a new Comprehensive Assessment Plan (CAP) has been developed and is currently being piloted. A team from Morgan that includes the Chair of the Board of Regents Academic and Student Affairs Committee is participating with eight other colleges and universities in the Association of Governing Boards/Teagle Foundation’s (AGB/Teagle) project designed to identify governing board level metrics to assess student learning outcomes. The AGB/Teagle Project Overview is found in appendix No. 6.

6

SUMMARY OF MORGAN’S RESPONSE to 2008 RECOMMENDATIONS

In the Ten-Year Accreditation Review of Morgan State University, the Visiting Team made four recommendations that Morgan should address in its 2013 Periodic Review Report. The Visiting Team’s recommendations and the standards to which the recommendations refer are:

Standard 1: Mission, Goals, and Objectives

Recommendation

The Mission Statement should be widely distributed and published on the website, in the catalogue and in all public documents. Standard 7: Institutional Assessment

Recommendations

The Team recommends that the institution re-examine and rewrite the Comprehensive Assessment Plan to include mission-based assessment goals for student learning, academic programs, services and administrative processes. The Team recommends that the institution implement the revised CAP in timely fashion. Standard 11: Educational Offerings

Recommendation

The institution should implement its periodic review of graduate and undergraduate programs using the policies and procedures developed by the Ad Hoc Task Force on the Periodic Review of Programs.

Morgan’s Response to Standard 1 Recommendation In August of 2010, Morgan’s new President, Dr. David Wilson, convened a Steering Committee to develop a ten-year strategic plan for the University to include new vision and mission statements and a list of core values. After a thorough discussion of Morgan’s historic mission as a HBCU, the importance of access to higher education for a broad cross section of students for whom affordability and/or academic preparation may be a challenge, and Morgan’s tradition of preparing excellent students for even greater success, the University community endorsed the following vision and mission statements found in “Growing the Future, Leading the World: The Strategic Plan for Morgan State University, 2011 – 2021.”

Vision Statement

Morgan State University is the premier public urban research university in Maryland known for its excellence in teaching, intensive

7

research, effective public service, and community engagement. Morgan prepares diverse and competitive graduates for success in a global, interdependent society. Mission Statement

Morgan State University serves the community, region, state, nation, and world as an intellectual and creative resource by supporting, empowering and preparing high-quality, diverse graduates to lead the world. The University offers innovative, inclusive, and distinctive educational experiences to a broad cross section of the population in a comprehensive range of disciplines at the baccalaureate, master’s, doctoral, and professional degree levels. Through collaborative pursuits, scholarly research, creative endeavors, and dedicated public service, the University gives significant priority to addressing societal problems, particularly those prevalent in urban communities.

In addition to identifying a new mission and vision, the Strategic Plan outlines five key goals essential to the development of programs, services, and budgets designed to grow Morgan’s future over the next decade. The five key goals are:

Goal 1: Enhancing Student Success Goal 2: Enhancing Morgan’s Status as a Doctoral Research University Goal 3: Improving and Sustaining Morgan’s Infrastructure and Operational Processes Goal 4: Growing Morgan’s Resources Goal 5: Engaging with the Community

The new mission and vision statements, institutional core values, and key goals as well as the entire Strategic Plan are now widely disseminated, including under the About MSU link on Morgan’s web page at http://www.morgan.edu/Strategic_Plan.html. Additionally, the new mission, vision, and core values statements are accessible from a link on the University’s web home page. The mission statements published in graduate and undergraduate catalogs that are posted on the University’s web site have now been changed to reflect the current mission statements. Other University publications such as the 2013 BearFacts, a compilation of data and information about Morgan that is widely distributed to support marketing efforts, also contain the current mission, vision, and core values statements.

Morgan’s Response to Standard 7 Recommendation Since the 2008 Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) Self-Study and subsequent team visit, Morgan State University (Morgan) has demonstrated a strong commitment to systematic and sustainable assessment of its effectiveness, as required under the MSCHE Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education

8

accreditation standards, and under similar standards among the professional and discipline-based associations through which many of the University’s degree programs are currently accredited. Pursuant to the Visiting Team’s recommendation, Morgan has (re)written its Comprehensive Assessment Plan for Student Learning and Institutional Effectiveness (CAP) to reflect institutional assessment as a University-wide responsibility, involving all segments of the institution. Specifically, the revised CAP outlines Morgan’s ongoing, systematic and regular initiatives to assess how well the University is fulfilling its mission in all respects with particular emphasis on the assessment of student learning outcomes. See Comprehensive Assessment Plan for Student Learning and Institutional Effectiveness, appendix No. 7. Assessing Institutional Effectiveness

The CAP focuses on procedures, instruments, and schedules for assessing; (a) institutional effectiveness, and (b) student learning outcomes. The University uses four levels of planning and assessment to ensure institutional effectiveness. The levels include:

1. University-Wide Strategic Planning and Assessment Level: Planning and assessment at this level are conducted under the leadership of the board, president, provost, and vice presidents and focuses on measuring progress towards achieving the 5 goals of the Morgan 2011 – 2021 strategic plan. A dashboard of key indicators has been developed to measure ongoing progress towards achieving the plan’s goals

2. University Divisions/College/Institute and School Levels: Planning and

assessment at these levels are conducted under the leadership of the provost, deans, and directors. Strategic planning and assessment at this level responds to the schools/college’s strategic plan goals developed in conjunction with the mission, vision, and goals of the University’s 10 year strategic plan. A set of metrics has been developed for each of the schools/college which allows for the assessment of how well the schools/college are meeting their respective strategic plan goals.

3. Departmental/Program Levels: Planning and assessment is conducted under the

leadership of department chairs or directors of student support programs. Metrics as well as The Annual Report Guidelines, and the Annual Assessment Report Template (see Appendix A) are used to document planning and assessment activities (i.e., establishing and prioritizing programmatic goals, tracking student learning outcomes and key performance indicators, evaluating progress toward goals, using results to develop and implement action plans to make programmatic improvements, monitoring the effects of planning initiatives on the enhancement of student learning, and providing documentation of the continuous process of improvement).

9

4. Course/Unit Levels: Planning at these levels is the responsibility of faculty/instructors/lecturers that are performing the duties and tasks that fulfill the commitment of educating and serving undergraduate and graduate students. For academic programs, the assessment of learning outcomes is embedded in the coursework. A syllabus checklist offers guidelines for the basic course components or course design, e.g., statement of course purpose, expected learning outcomes, course requirements/assignments, required readings and other course materials, grading policy or measurement criteria such as a rubric used to assess student learning, expectations for student engagement, and class decorum.

Summary of CAP Institutional Effectiveness

In summary, assessment of institutional effectiveness at Morgan State University is an ongoing, integrated and systematic set of institutional processes that include planning, the evaluation of programs and services, the identification and measurement of learning outcomes in the context of the University’s mission and strategic goals, the use of data and assessment results for decision-making that results in improvements in programs, services and institutional quality. Each college/institute and school has its own strategic planning committee that oversees and monitors the strategic initiatives of the academic programs. The schools, college, library, and University offices/divisions prepare annual reports and assessment plans that detail the planning and assessment initiatives within their respective areas. Morgan’s CAP requires that all units and sub-units assess their effectiveness on an annual basis. All units and sub-units use assessment results to inform annual budget requests. At Morgan institutional effectiveness is a continuous quest for quality, efficiency, effectiveness and innovation. Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes

The assessment of student learning is at the core of the Comprehensive Assessment Plan because all that takes place at the University has some impact on student learning, student success, and the processes that make student learning possible. The University therefore has committed a large portion of its resources and of its efforts to the effective assessment of student learning as a major aspect of institutional effectiveness. The assessment of student learning under the CAP focuses on assessment within the major, and includes a separate track for assessing student competency in the core requirements as well as the impact of out of classroom learning on the student experience. The Office of the Assistant Vice President for Assessment and Operations (AVPAO) supports the assessment of student learning outcomes (and other strategic initiatives of Morgan State University) by directing the implementation of the Comprehensive Assessment Plan and overseeing the operation of the Center for Performance Assessment, the Office of General Education, and the University Assessment Committee. The Office of the AVPAO collaborates with all divisions at Morgan to collect, analyze, report on and use data related to accreditation; student success, satisfaction and retention; student learning, and to measure campus performance against key

10

benchmark indicators. Figure 1 below reflects the organizational structure to ensure the systematic ongoing assessment of student learning at Morgan.

Figure 1: Organizational Structure of the University Assessment Committee

Tools and Resources Used for Assessment

While third-party services and technical methods of collecting assessment data vary across academic and administrative divisions at Morgan, there are some commonalities. The following is a list of the more common resources identified in the CAP as being used by the University, schools/college, departments, divisional units, and programs in assessing institutional effectiveness and student learning outcomes. These collection, tracking, and analysis tools represent the current methods of collecting and maintaining a wide variety of data. The resources are regularly updated as new versions emerge, and, on occasion, may be replaced with competing services and/or software that improve collection, record-keeping, and analysis. Replacement decisions are always guided by opportunities to improve assessment and support the CAP with efficiency and effectiveness. The current array of assessment resources includes:

Banner serves as Morgan's official Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) database system and the source for most of the University's data and reporting needs. Student, human resources, and financial records are all integrated and maintained in one centralized database.

11

Oracle Application Express (APEX) which is Morgan's official reporting tool uses data from Banner to provide faculty and staff with a myriad of student, financial, and personnel data files and reports.

Campus Labs is an on-line survey tool for collecting information from students, faculty, and staff that is used to assess the impact of institutional programs and services. Blackboard, Morgan's Learning Management System, provides teaching and learning solutions that support the needs of students, faculty, and staff. EAC Outcomes provides students access to online course evaluations and the capacity to fill out their online evaluations from within Blackboard. Faculty, chairs, deans, and their respective designated staff can view student responses as well as the data on students participating in any courses via Blackboard. Smarthinking is an online tutoring service whereby Morgan students can connect and interact with a tutor via a live chat or students may submit papers for feedback from a Smarthinking specialist. ACCUPLACER provides useful information about students' academic skills in mathematics, English, and reading to the Office of Student Success and Retention which uses test results to appropriately place new students in freshman courses consistent with their level of preparation and skill. Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) is a nationally-normed examination that provides colleges and universities with information about their students' ability to think critically, reason analytically, solve realistic problems and write clearly. Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP) integrates general education skills by assessing four core skill areas: critical thinking, reading, writing and mathematics and is used to assess student learning at the institutional level.

Summary of CAP Student Learning

The assessment of student learning is at the core of CAP because all that takes place at the University has some impact on student learning, student success, and the processes that make student learning possible. The assessment of student learning under the CAP focuses on assessment within the major, and includes a separate track for assessing student competency in the core requirements. To facilitate the effective and efficient working of CAP for student learning and institutional effectiveness, the University implemented, in 2008, an administrative structure and services charged with

12

coordinating the process. Leadership of assessment on campus rests with the Office of the Assistant Vice President for Assessment and Operations in partnership with the Center for Performance Assessment (CPA) directed by the General Education Assessment Coordinator and with the University Assessment Committee (UAC), a University-wide advisory group that provides guidance in the direction and scope of assessment across campus as well as feedback on the annual assessment reports that all units must submit. Finally, Morgan’s Comprehensive Assessment Plan is purposely aligned with the Middle States Framework of Student Learning Assessment.

Morgan’s Response to Standard 11 Recommendation In February, 2006, an Ad Hoc Task Force on the Review of Graduate Programs was appointed by the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies to develop policies and procedures for the periodic review of the doctoral and master’s programs offered at Morgan. By April, 2007, the Ad Hoc Task Force had essentially completed its draft of the policies and procedures which included: a specific review schedule; concrete standards against which a program is to be evaluated; defined procedures for collecting and organizing data for assessing strengths and weaknesses, for converting recommendations into feasible action plans; and an implementation scheme. Upon review of the Ad Hoc Task Force’s draft, the Provost and the Academic Affairs Council of College and School Deans requested that the Ad Hoc Task Force redraft the graduate plan into a single, university-wide instrument, capable of being applied to any one of the several schools and/or college. In April 2008, the Visiting Team reviewed the copy of the Periodic Review of Programs: Policies and Procedures that had been approved by the Provost and Council of Deans for implementation across the inventory of Morgan’s undergraduate and graduate programs and recommended the implementation of the Morgan State University Periodic Review of Programs: Policies and Procedures. Pursuant to the Visiting Team’s recommendation, Morgan developed a MSU Periodic Program Review Schedule (appendix No. 8) to systematically monitor the program review process. The PRR Steering Committee’s Educational Offerings Subcommittee has confirmed that consistent with the schedule for program reviews, eighteen (18) degree programs have completed an academic program review. The degree programs that have completed a program review and the year in which the review was completed are reflected in Table 1 below. At the March 6, 2012, meeting of the Educational Offerings Subcommittee, the Dean of the Earl Graves School of Business and Management discussed the implementation of Morgan’s periodic program review process in conjunction with the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) review which occurred in 2011. The Educational Offerings Subcommittee also reviewed the final program review reports for Bio-Environmental Sciences, Bio-Informatics, Computer Science, World Languages, and International Studies.

13

Table 1: Completed Academic Program Reviews by Department and Year

DEPARTMENT YEAR

Accounting (BS) 2011

Architecture (MA) 2011 Business Administration (BS) Business Administration (MBA) 2011

Business Administration (PhD) 2011

Finance (BS) 2011

Hospitality Management (BS) 2011

Human Resource Management (BS) 2011

Information Science and Systems (BS) 2011

Management (BS) 2011

Marketing (BS) 2011

Project Management (MS) 2011

Bio-Environmental Sciences (PhD) 2012

Bioinformatics (MS) 2012

Biology (BS) 2012

Computer Science (BS) 2012

World Languages (BA) 2012

International Studies (MA) 2012

Military Science 2012

Economics (BA) 2012

Economics (MA) 2012

Communication Studies (BA) 2012

Consistent with the MSU Periodic Program Review schedule, the School of Education and Urban Studies has a number of degree programs undergoing review in 2013 including;

Health Education (BS),

Mathematics Education (EdD),

Family and Consumer Science (BS),

Higher Education Administration (MS), and,

Higher Education Administration (PhD) A number of degree programs within the School will undergo periodic review in 2015 in conjunction with their scheduled review by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Other degree programs at the University undergoing periodic program review in 2013 include the bachelor’s (BA) and Master of Arts (MA) programs in Music, the bachelor’s (BA) and Masters of Arts (MA) in Mathematics, and

14

the Bachelor of Science (BS) in Actuarial Science. The School of Social Work completed its program reviews in conjunction with its successful reaccreditation by the Council of Social Work Education (CSWE) in 2013 of the Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) programs.

SUMMARY OF MORGAN’S RESPONSE TO SELF-STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

While the primary focus of this PRR is to outline initiatives made by Morgan to implement the four recommendations made by the Visiting Team in 2008, the University has also taken steps to implement thirty-four (34) additional recommendations reflected in its Self Study. Seventeen (17) Self-Study Recommendations were made regarding continuous improvement in institutional effectiveness under Standards 1 through 4 and Standard 7. And, seventeen (17) Self-Study Recommendations were made regarding continuous improvement in student learning outcomes under Standards 8 through 12. Institutional Effectiveness under Standards 1 through 4 and 7 The University has been engaged in a number of initiatives as part of its ongoing efforts at continuous improvement of its institutional effectiveness. Chief among the initiatives begun since the 2008 Self-Study and MSCHE Team visit are efforts to: improve the delivery of administrative and student services; study operational efficiencies for delivering administrative services; strengthen the management of grants and contracts; and, enhance the incentives for faculty and staff to pursue external funding. Developing a Service Culture. A Manager of Customer Service Training and Professional Development has been hired to facilitate the goal of improving the delivery of administrative and student services. A consulting firm, Customer Service Experts, worked with the Manager of Customer Service to implement a University-wide training program in the Everything DISC Management system for all supervisors and managers.6 This training, which was completed in November 2012, enabled University supervisors and managers to learn about their strengths and challenges and identify ways to adapt their skills to meet the needs of colleagues they are supervising. A second phase of the University-wide training to improve administrative and student services was begun in March 2013, for all office personnel. Among the initial group in this second phase to take the three-hour professional development training sessions offered were all administrative and office personnel - regardless of department or division. This initial group is to be followed by staff in the offices of Financial Aid, Admissions, Student Activities, and the Bursar. The requirement is that all 1,600 plus University employees have been exposed to the training program. Additionally, the University has established University-wide service principles which include standards

6 A copy of the Manager Development: Supporting a Service Culture handouts and modules may be found in

appendix 9.

15

and behaviors which will undergird all employees’ practices, attitudes, and day-to-day interactions with Morgan’s constituent groups including students, parents, alumni, community, and colleagues. Study Operational Efficiencies. Following the completion of Growing the Future, Leading the World: The Strategic Plan for Morgan State University, 2011 – 2021, ATTAIN (http://www.attain.com/) was hired to study operational efficiencies for delivering administrative and other support services at Morgan7. Specifically, ATTAIN is working with all of the academic and administrative divisions at Morgan to identify:

services unnecessarily expensive or under-resourced

duplications in functions across campus

cost effective organizational design changes

opportunities for reducing the number of organizational layers

functions and processes that do not conform to best practices and can be delivered more efficiently and effectively

ATTAIN is reviewing the organizational structure for each of the organizational units in this study beginning with the “As-Is” processes and procedures for each study area by examining performance metrics, five (5) years of the most recent financial reports, budgets for each organizational unit in the study, and by interviewing key constituents, senior leaders, process owners, and the user community. Grants and Contracts. One of the University’s strategic goals, Enhancing Morgan’s Status as a Doctoral Research University, gives priority to increasing the value of grants and contracts received by the University. For the federal fiscal year ending September 30, 2012 the total value of grants and contracts received by Morgan was $33.2M, an historical high for the campus. The FY2012 total of awards received was $5.0M higher (18%), than for FY2011. The FY2012 total was $6.1M higher (23%) than two years earlier. The largest single award to Morgan is a contract with NASA for the GESTAR project - $5.8M in FY2012. FY 2012 was the first year for the award, which accounted for the increase between FY2011 and FY2012. While the growth in grants and contracts is encouraging, the campus faces a number of challenges in continuing its recent momentum. Faculty teaching loads are high (an average of 3.8 courses per semester), a factor that severely limits the time available to faculty for writing proposals. The campus also has a high percentage of contractual faculty – 39% of FTE faculty. These individuals are not eligible to apply for most grants and contracts. In addition contractual personnel typically do not have advising or service responsibilities, which further increases the workload of regular faculty. Until these factors are addressed, the campus will continue to find it difficult to reach its potential for obtaining external awards.

7 A copy of ATTAIN’s scope of work as outlined at the January 2013 Kickoff Meeting and Discussion may be found in

appendix 10.

16

Allocation of Indirect Costs. Historically, the University has not distributed the indirect costs received from grants and contracts back to faculty or their academic departments. This resulted in a lack of incentives for faculty members, who typically have higher-than-desirable teaching loads, to develop proposals for external funding. Likewise, there was little incentive for academic departments to grant faculty release time to prepare proposals. The University appointed an Indirect Cost Committee to study the existing arrangement and recommend changes it deemed necessary. In September 2012 the President notified the Provost that he had accepted the recommendations of the Committee.8 The new policy, which is effective for the current year, will distribute thirty-five (35%) of indirect cost revenue exceeding $2.8 million to the Office of the Provost to support principal investigators, schools and departments of the principal investigators, and to provide start-up funding for new faculty. Improvement in Student Learning Outcomes Standards 8 through 12 Association of Governing Boards (AGB)/Teagle Foundation Project. A recent AGB study found that 62% of boards report they do not spend enough time in board meetings on student learning outcomes. In 2012, the AGB launched a demonstration project to encourage governing boards to spend more time in their deliberations focusing on student learning outcomes and on educational quality. Morgan State University is one of nine (9) diverse institutions, state systems and their boards that the AGB, with the support of the Teagle Foundation, has engaged in an 18-month effort to identify appropriate board-level metrics9. A team from Morgan that included the Chair of the Academic and Student Affairs Committee of the Board of Regents, the (former and current) Chair of the PRR Steering Committee, and the Director of Management and Performance Analysis for the Office of Planning and Information Technology attended AGB’s opening meetings on improving board oversight of educational quality on September 24 through 25, 2012, at the Westin Hotel Georgetown. The team(s) were guided through a review of metrics related to student learning, educational quality, and effective governance practices by AGB staff and consultants. Over the course of the next 12 months, AGB will provide Morgan and the other institutions’ teams with additional periodic consultation as the teams work to identify effective metrics and strategies for board engagement. As a result of Morgan’s participation in the AGB/Teagle project, Morgan has moved to develop a set of metrics for use by the schools/college and for easy review by Morgan’s Board of Regents that focus specifically on student learning outcomes.

8 Memorandum from David Wilson to T. Joan Robinson dated September 28, 2012: Recommendation from the

Indirect Cost Committee (appendix No. 11). 9 The 9 institutions included Morgan State University, Rochester Institute, Rhodes, Valparaiso, Drake, Metro State,

Virginia Tech, St. Olaf, and Salem State.

17

AGB/Teagle and Morgan’s Schools’/College Metrics. Metrics have been developed to facilitate the reporting of data on student learning outcomes for each of the University’s schools and college. The data will provide these academic units with information about their student body size and demographic composition, recruitment statistics, and graduation and retention rates. All of the data will be derived from Banner, i.e., the University’s database. Given its ease of use and accessibility, APEX has been selected as the main tool to present these data. Considering the varying comfort levels of the academic leaders when it comes to technology and data analysis, data will be presented in both graphical and in detailed formats. The metrics that were developed include data on:

1. Enrollment

Total enrollment count for each school

Breakdown by major (by degree & program for GR students)

Breakdown by FAFSA status

2. Undergraduate Retention

Total Retention rate

Breakdown by major

3. Graduate Retention

Total Retention rate

Breakdown by degree and by program

4. Graduation Statistics

Overall graduation rate (with detailed, drill-down report)

Total number of degree applicants vs. degree recipients

Total number of degree recipients broken down by major (by degree and program for graduate students)

5. Recruitment Statistics

Total number of applications vs. admits vs. enrollment (with detailed, drill-down report)

Breakdown by major (by degree & program for GR students)

Breakdown by county for Maryland residents only

6. Time to Degree

4-year time to degree numbers

6-year time to degree numbers

7. Quality Education

Speech proficiency pass/fail rates by department

Writing proficiency pass/fail rates by department

18

In summary, the metrics were developed as a result of Morgan’s participation in the

AGB/Teagle project to facilitate its Board of Regents’ focus and understanding of

student learning outcomes. The metrics are also designed to assist the deans, chairs,

and faculty in assessing progress towards achieving the goals identified in the schools’

and college’s strategic plans.

NARRATIVE IDENTIFYING MORGAN’S MAJOR CHALLENGES AND/OR

OPPORTUNITIES

Morgan enjoys a number of institutional strengths and can profit from a variety of opportunities as it pursues its strategic plan’s goals. In order to be successful in realizing the vision and mission as reflected in the goals, Morgan must also overcome significant internal weaknesses and external threats. In an effort to identify Morgan’s major challenges and opportunities, the Strategic Plan Steering Committee, in conjunction with the Board of Regents, conducted a thorough assessment of the University’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT). Strengths. Among the strengths identified by the SWOT analysis are: a

well‐credentialed faculty with eighty (80%) percent of the tenured and tenure-track

faculty holding a terminal degree in their respective disciplines; classification by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as a Doctoral Research University; specialized accreditation of many of its academic programs by national professional organizations, more than most universities its size; regional and national leader in the number of students receiving Fulbright scholarships and the number who enter graduate and professional schools; success in graduating students whose family income and secondary academic preparation places them at risk in completing a baccalaureate degree; established partnerships with federal agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), U.S. Department of Transportation, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as well as with State agencies and private corporations; and, a Board of Regents independent of the University System of Maryland that serves as a strong advocate for the University’s unique vision, mission and interests. Weaknesses. Among the weaknesses identified by the SWOT analysis are: lack of sufficient financial resources to fully support or to finance the vision and mission as outlined in the new strategic plan; inadequate facilities to support current student enrollment which poses a challenge to the goal of increased student enrollment; insufficient dedicated funding for graduate facilities, faculty, student stipends, or for strengthening its research base; poor (perceived as well as actual) customer service; institutional policies and procedures reminiscent of a time when Morgan was classified as a Master’s Comprehensive Institution with less of a focus on research than is consistent with its current classification as a Doctoral research University or with its vision as a premiere urban research university; and, weaknesses in the management of

19

areas that support the successful application for external grants as well as potential weaknesses in the areas of grant compliance and grant accounting once funds are awarded to the University. Opportunities. The SWOT analysis revealed that notwithstanding weaknesses or threats, Morgan has a number of opportunities for growth and development in order to be successful in its pursuit of continuous improvement. Among the most promising opportunities are: Morgan’s mission of “preparing high-quality, diverse graduates to lead the world” is a particularly good fit with national and state degree completion goals. Specifically, short-term as well as long-term demographic trends in Maryland underscore the importance of Morgan’s role as an historically black college and university (HBCU) in determining whether the State will achieve its degree completion goal of at least 55% of Marylanders ages 25 to 64 holding associate’s or bachelor’s degrees by 2025. Other opportunities that exist which support Morgan’s mission include the potential for receipt of resources consistent with the recommendations from The Panel on the Comparability and Competitiveness of Historically Black Institutions in Maryland (“HBI Panel) published in a November 2008 Report to the Maryland Commission to Develop the Maryland Model for Funding Higher Education calling for “substantial additional resources” to be invested in HBIs to overcome the competitive disadvantages caused by the State’s prior discriminatory treatment; postsecondary educational needs, particularly master’s and doctoral programs in engineering, science, and business, of military personnel, contractors, and their families immigrating to Maryland as a result of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process; and Morgan’s $28.5-million share of a $95.8-million, five-year grant from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, to conduct research in support of NASA's strategic Earth and space science objectives. Threats. Morgan recognizes that there are several major external threats that have direct implications for the University’s capacity to realize its vision and mission outlined in its strategic plan. Chief among these threats are: the national and local economies and the State’s policies as they relate to higher education in general, but, in particular, those policies that specifically impact the family income of students attending Morgan whose median income is below the national average; a downturn in the State’s economy that threatens the Governor’s and/or the legislature’s capacity or inclination to fund Morgan’s vision to grow into a world class doctoral research university; State policies that adversely impact higher education in general, Morgan and the State’s other HBCUs in particular, such as legislation mandating that the Maryland Higher Education Commission establish fees related to academic program review; legislative funding and performance assessment policies that fail to take into account the mission-driven characteristics of HBCU operations that set them apart and require distinct consideration different from that of the State’s other public institutions; and, whether the State fails to enact recommendations of the HBI Panel that specifically address enhanced funding to improve Morgan’s instructional platform particularly as it impacts

20

Table 2: Summary Morgan State University SWOT Analysis STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

1. credentialed diverse faculty 2. Carnegie classification as a doctoral research

university 3. specialized accreditation of its academic

programs 4. national brand name and reputation 5. number and variety of doctoral programs 6. MEAC basketball championships and

appearances in NCAA national basketball tournaments

7. Fulbright scholars 8. graduation rate among under-prepared

students 9. moderate campus size 10. partnerships with federal agencies and with

private corporations 11. Estuarine Research Center 12. independent Board of Regents.

1. insufficient financial resources to fully support its current mission thereby posing serious implications for Morgan to support the new vision and mission outlined in this strategic plan

2. lack of adequate facilities to serve current student enrollment and therefore a problem for increased enrollment goals

3. expense relative to the ability of its student body to pay for college

4. the relative expense of its professional programs and doctoral instructional platform

5. perception by students and faculty of poor customer service in certain administrative areas

6. belief that policies and procedures, drafted when Morgan was primarily an undergraduate teaching institution, do not support the vision of an expanded contracts and research agenda, including further doctoral program expansion as feasible

7. inadequate technological infrastructure to support a doctoral research instructional platform

8. professional culture that encourages discipline specific rather than interdisciplinary teaching and research.

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

1. national and state degree completion goals 2. the Panel on the Comparability and

Competitiveness of Historically Black Institutions in Maryland (HBI Panel) recommendations to the Maryland Commission to Develop the Maryland Model for Funding Higher Education

3. long term demographic trends in Maryland reflecting an increase in the percentages of minorities, particularly African Americans and Hispanics, who reside in Maryland

4. BRAC programs to service postsecondary educational needs of military personnel impacted by the base realignment and closing process

5. Morgan’s partnerships with the Universities Space Research Association (USRA), the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Bernard Osher Foundation.

1. condition of the national, State, and local economies as they impact family incomes of potential and enrolled out-of-state as well as residential students

2. condition of the national, State, and local economies as they impact the State’s funding, or lack thereof, to higher education in general, and to Morgan or HBCUs in particular

3. policies adopted by, rejected by, or ignored by the State as it relates to higher education in general, to HBCUs in general, or to Morgan in particular.

21

doctoral programs and the capacity to conduct sponsored research. A summary of the findings of the SWOT analysis is depicted in Table 2.

ENROLLMENT AND FINANCE TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS

Current University Budget10 Morgan’s budget for the current fiscal year (2013) is $226,907,320. The State’s General Fund Revenue totaled $73,001,828, or thirty-two (32.2%) percent of the University’s current year budget. The University has had to reduce its state support base operating budget by $3.9 million to $135,176,372 as a result of increased state mandated health and retirement benefits, transfers to State agencies, and a reduction of out-of-state student enrollment. The reduction will not require any major reductions in the delivery of instructional services but will require adjustments to the budgets for information technology, marketing, facility renewal, and equipment. As outlined in Attachment II, to date, the University has billed and/or collected $86.4 million of revenue realizing 63.9 percent of the budget. The University is expected to attain its adjusted revenue projections. And, as outlined in Attachment III, the University has expended $69.3 million or 51.3 percent of the working budget. Considering the inclusion of some encumbrances for annual contracts, the University’s expenditure level is in line with its projection. Due to the enrollment decrease, revenue for athletics and the student union operation is projected to decline by approximately $250,000. Also, athletic guarantees are under budget by approximately $200,000. Overall, auxiliary enterprises revenue will exceed expenses by approximately $700,000 which will be transferred to the University reserve. Thus far, auxiliary enterprises have realized $33.1 million of revenue or 82.5 percent of the budget and expended $20.8 million or 51.7 percent of the budget. Spending from grants and contracts for the period ending December 31, 2012 totaled $13.6 million. For fiscal year 2013, the University is working diligently to maintain the current level of revenue derived from grants and contracts. In summary, the Auxiliary Enterprise Program is expected to break-even and grants and contracts are projected to remain at $33 million, the same as Fiscal Year 2012. Budget Process Morgan’s Vice President for Finance and Management is responsible for the University’s efforts to effectively plan, manage, and disburse the necessary operating and capital resources to achieve the wider mission as well as the specific goals of the University’s Strategic Plan. Additionally, the Division of Finance and Management provides a variety of administrative, business and financial support services to assist

10

Budget tables (i.e., Attachment II and III) as well as Fiscal Year 2013 Revenues, Expenses, and Possible Reduction are reflected in appendix No. 12.

22

faculty and staff in the delivery of the best living/learning environment possible for students. Morgan utilizes a participatory budget process to maintain communications and an understanding of the finances among relevant segments of the University. Each vice president is asked to present his or her resource needs to the President’s Budget Advisory Committee (BAC).

Budget Advisory Committee

As a means of helping to ensure that funding is distributed consistent with the campus plan as well as other priorities, the University has formed a Budget Advisory Committee comprised of 8 members including four faculty members, the President of the University Council, a school Dean, an administrative staff member and a member of the non-exempt staff. This group is provided with briefings on a wide variety of pertinent topics in order to ensure its deliberations are well informed. The group then holds budget request hearings with each vice president to discuss his or her needs and performance outcomes. The BAC assembles, deliberates the requests and makes recommendations to the President for consideration. Because for several years state funding has been flat, the impact of the BAC, which has been operational for two budget cycles, has been relatively modest. The Governor also imposed a tuition freeze during this period and mandated that certain expenditures and fees formerly incurred by the State be absorbed by campuses to offset State shortages. While the tuition freeze has now been removed, given the socioeconomic status of the majority of the student body, Morgan has responded with only small increases in tuition. Hence, the Budget Advisory Committee to date has had very little opportunity to recommend budgetary support for major initiatives. However, the University considers BAC to be valuable in contributing to the University’s wider discourse about budgetary priorities, operational needs, and resources to support student learning. A practical example of the BAC’s participation in the budget process is reflected in adjustments made to the Morgan’s fiscal year 2013 budget. The University’s state supported operation was adjusted to compensate for the unanticipated decline in out-of-state students enrollment. The President and Vice Presidents in consultation with the Budget Advisory Committee made the necessary budget adjustments to ensure the University operates within available resources while minimizing any negative impact on instructional and academic-support services. Enrollment Projections

Led largely by growth in enrollment in the School of Graduate Studies, Morgan has enjoyed a sustained increase in student enrollment over the past decade. Over the past three years, fall semester enrollments, including undergraduate and graduate, have hovered above or near 8,000 students. The Maryland Higher Education Commission has prepared enrollment projections for public colleges and universities in the State through the year 202111. There are headcount projections for each higher education

11

http://mhec.maryland.gov/publications/research/AnnualReports/2012-21EnrollProjections.pdf.

23

institution, including Morgan, with separate analyses for full-time and part-time undergraduates and, as applicable, full-time and part-time graduate/professional students. Table 3 shows Actual and Projected Headcount Enrollment for Morgan from fall 2010 through fall 2021. Table 3 reveals that student enrollment exceeded 8,000 students for the first time in Morgan’s 146 year history in the fall semester 2011. The challenge for Morgan in both sustaining overall enrollment growth and in meeting long term projected growth rests on its success in increasing undergraduate enrollment. Morgan’s focus on undergraduate enrollment includes first-time full-time freshmen, transfers from both 2-year and 4-year institutions, returning (i.e., retained) students, and continuing students. In the past, most of the resources expended to recruit students have focused on the traditional undergraduate student population of first-time full-time freshmen between the ages of 18 and 24 who matriculate in the fall semester. Current undergraduate recruitment resources and initiatives are increasingly focused on transfer students, older and continuing students, and at efforts to improve retention. For example, since the submission of its 2008 Self-Study, Morgan has established a memorandum of understanding (MOU) and a Partnership with the Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC) to establish the Network for Excellence and Undergraduate Success (NEXUS) Program in order to facilitate the transfer of students from CCBC to Morgan upon successful completion of academic qualifications necessary to meet the criteria for regular admission to the University. In 2011, The Bernard Osher Foundation provided a $1 million dollar endowed gift to ensure sustained funding for the Osher Re-entry Scholarship Program to support students returning to the University after an absence of 5 or more years who are pursuing a bachelor's degree and who are between the ages of 25-50. In order to sustain overall enrollment growth, address the sluggishness of undergraduate enrollment growth, and meet the enrollment goals set forth in the Strategic Plan, in 2012 the President re-envisioned responsibilities of the personnel in the Office of the Provost and appointed the former Assistant Provost to Associate Provost for Enrollment Management and Student Academic Support Services (EMSASS). Among the Associate Provost’s first responsibilities was to work with EMSASS staff in the development of the Enrollment Management and Student Academic Support Services Unit Strategic Plan (EMSASS Plan) to increase overall enrollment at Morgan to 10,000 students (appendix No. 13). The mission of the EMSASS Plan is to work collaboratively with the University community to increase the retention and graduation rates of undergraduate students by identifying and addressing academic, financial, and social challenges that serve as barriers to retention and degree completion; by enhancing programs and practices at Morgan that are successful retention strategies; and by identifying and implementing best practices to improve retention and graduation among undergraduate students. Consistent with the University Strategic Plan, the 10-year goals set forth in the EMSASS Plan are to:

24

1. Increase undergraduate enrollment by 45.5%, from 6,711 in AY 2011-2012 to 9,765 students by AY 2020-2021;

2. Increase the first to second-year retention rate by 10 percentage points from 72.9% (Fall 2010 cohort) to 83% by 2020-2021 (Fall 2019 cohort); and,

3. Increase the 6-year graduation rate by 21 percentage points from 28.8% (Fall 2005 cohort) to 50% by 2020-2021 (Fall 2015 cohort).

SUSTAINED PROCESSES TO ASSESS INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS and

STUDENT LEARNING

Since the Visiting Team’s 2008 report, in addition to rewriting the CAP, Morgan has initiated several new initiatives to implement sustainable processes to assess institutional effectiveness and student learning.

Institutional Effectiveness. Morgan has been engaged in several other initiatives to develop systematic measures of institutional effectiveness. For example, the Performance Accountability Report (PAR) (appendix No. 14) submitted annually to the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) has been revised to measure progress toward the new Strategic Plan’s 5 goals. Each school/college at Morgan has developed a strategic plan that includes metrics to assess school/college strategic plan goals. Led by the Vice President for Planning and Institutional Research, the University community developed a dashboard that benchmarks key performance indicators (KPIs) that correspond to the five goals of the Strategic Plan12. As an interactive dashboard which can be accessed via the University’s web page, University personnel are able to monitor up to five years of trend data concerning each KPI. To the extent that comparable performance data are available, eight aspirational peers13 have been identified as a basis for comparison. The dashboard became operational as a device for monitoring the implementation of the Strategic Plan following its review by the Board of Regents at its November 2012 meeting.

12

The dashboard of key performance indicators was requested by the Board of Regents and was reviewed and enhanced following meetings with the President and the University’s vice presidents and senior cabinet officials. See appendix No. 15 13 Hunter College, Jackson State University, University of Maryland Baltimore County, North Carolina A & T State

University, Portland State University, SUNY Plattsburgh University, George Mason University, Howard University

25

Table 3: Actual and Projected Headcount and Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment*

Morgan State University: 2010 - 2021

Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected

FALL 10 FALL 11 FALL 12 FALL 13 FALL 14 FALL 15 FALL 16 FALL 17 FALL 18 FALL 19 FALL 20 FALL 21

Undergraduate

full-time 5901 5965 5794 6110 6187 6297 6429 6478 6610 6785 6945 7155

part-time 721 746 797 820 853 887 908 938 965 993 1021 1045 Total Undergrads 6622 6711 6591 6930 7040 7184 7337 7416 7575 7778 7966 8200

Graduate

full-time 623 723 707 836 892 950 1009 1070 1129 1185 1232 1269

part-time 560 584 654 675 720 767 815 864 912 957 996 1025 Total Graduates 1183 1307 1361 1511 1612 1717 1824 1934 2041 2142 2228 2294

Total Headcount 7805 8018 7952 8441 8652 8901 9161 9350 9616 9920 10194 10494

FTE** 6951 7132 6985 7508 7668 7865 8081 8218 8436 8694 8925 9192

* Source: Actual enrollment MSU Institutional Research

http://www.morgan.edu/administration/planning_and_information_technology/planning_institutional_research_and_assessment/institutional_research/enrollment_data.html

Projected Enrollment MHEC Enrollment Projections 2012-2021

http://www.mhec.state.md.us/publications/research/AnnualReports/2012-2021EnrollProjections.pdf

** Actual FTE based on full-time headcount enrollment plus one-third of the part-time enrollment

26

Student Learning Outcomes. Since the 2008 Self-Study and MSCHE Team Visit, the Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs has re-organized the Division of Academic Affairs14 to improve and better assess student learning outcomes. The Provost hired an Assistant Vice President for Assessment and Program Review (AVPAPR). The former AVPAPR15, led the initial efforts to revise the CAP, schedule and monitor academic program reviews, organize the PRR Steering Committee and related subcommittees, and coordinated the Morgan team’s engagement with the AGB/Teagle initiative on governing board metrics of student learning outcomes. The Office of the Associate Provost for Enrollment Management and Academic Support Services created the Network for Excellence and Undergraduate Success (NEXUS) program to ensure that all students are provided with access to a quality college education. The NEXUS program is a partnership between Morgan State University (MSU) and the Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC). NEXUS provides an alternative for students whose grade point average and standardized test scores fail to reflect their drive and potential to succeed in college. Participation in the program is by exclusive invitation following a full assessment of the students’ admissions application and academic records. Nexus program participants, while officially CCBC students, begin their academic journey in residence at Morgan (at their choice), taking their (CCBC) courses at Morgan, and with access to Morgan’s facilities and academic support services. Morgan and CCBC have bonded to provide a network of services and opportunities to benefit students and help improve their learning outcomes.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Morgan fully complies with accreditation-relevant federal regulations with regards to student identity verification in distance and correspondence education, transfer of credit, its title IV cohort default rate, and assignment of credit hours. Although verifying student identities for its three online degree programs currently rests solely with the faculty teaching the courses, the Vice-President for Outreach and Engagement is to convene a University taskforce to develop a policy based on industry/educational best practices for strengthening student identity verification in Morgan’s online degree/course offerings. With its two-year cohort default rate of 14.2%, Morgan remains well under the twenty-five (25%) percent default rate that would trigger federal sanctions. Even under new proposed regulations regarding three-year cohorts, Morgan’s default rate is projected to rise to only 16.6%. The University’s Financial Aid Office has also implemented and supports a number of activities and programs to monitor and limit increases to Morgan’s federal cohort default rate. Morgan participates in the statewide University System of Maryland ARTSYS transfer of credit program which facilitates the transfer of students’ credits from the State’s community colleges to four-year colleges and universities in Maryland. Morgan’s Transfer Center also assists students applying from in-state or out-

14

See Division of Academic Affairs Organizational Chart – appendix No. 16. 15

A search is underway to hire a new AVPARR

27

of-state institutions to Morgan with the transfer of credit process. Morgan complies with the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) definition of one semester credit hour as a minimum of 15 hours of 50 minutes each of actual class time, exclusive of registration, study days, and holidays. The MSCHE team that evaluated Morgan in 2008 offered four recommendations:

1. widely distribute and publish the mission statement on the website, in the catalogue and in all public documents;

2. re-examine and rewrite the Comprehensive Assessment Plan (CAP) to include mission-based assessment goals for student learning, academic programs, services and administrative processes;

3. implement the revised CAP in timely fashion; and, 4. implement its periodic review of graduate and undergraduate programs using the

policies and procedures developed by the Ad Hoc Task Force on the Periodic Review of Programs.

Findings and analyses conducted by the PRR Steering Committee and its several subcommittees reveal that Morgan fully satisfies the MSCHE’s team’s recommendations concerning Mission Goals, and Objectives (Standard 1), the revision and implementation of a new Comprehensive Assessment Plan (CAP), and the implementation of its Periodic Program Review policy and procedures (Educational Offerings - Standard 11). Morgan’s new mission and vision statements, institutional core values, and key goals as reflected in the ten-year strategic plan, “Growing the Future, Leading the World: The Strategic Plan for Morgan State University, 2011 – 2021, are widely disseminated and are accessible from a link on the University’s web home page. Pursuant to the Visiting Team’s recommendation, Morgan has (re)written its Comprehensive Assessment Plan for Student Learning and Institutional Effectiveness (CAP) to focus on procedures, instruments, and schedules for assessing institutional effectiveness, and student learning outcomes. Finally, consistent with the MSCHE Team’s recommendation, Morgan is following the MSU Periodic Program Review Schedule to systematically monitor the program review process. To-date, eighteen (18) degree programs have completed an academic program review.

28

APPENDICES

1. Steering Committee and Sub-Committee membership list

2. DIVERSE Magazine article, “Morgan State Promotes Financial Literacy.”

3. Student Guide to Transfer Among Maryland Colleges and Universities

4. MSU Senior Administration Organizational Chart

5. 2008 Self Study and MSCHE Team Visit Recommendations

6. Association of Governing Boards/Teagle Foundation’s (AGB/Teagle) Project

7. Comprehensive Assessment Plan for Student Learning and Institutional

Effectiveness

8. MSU Periodic Program Review Schedule

9. Manager Development: Supporting a Service Culture Handouts and Modules

10. ATTAIN’s Scope of Work for a Study on Operational Efficiencies for Delivering Administrative and Other Support Services

11. Indirect Cost Memorandum

12. Budget Tables – Attachment II and Attachment III

13. Enrollment Management and Student Academic Support Services Unit Strategic

Plan

14. Performance Accountability Report

15. Strategic Plan Dashboard with Key Performance Indicators

16. Division of Academic Affairs Organizational Chart.

17. Financial Plan for Period Covered by Current Strategic Plan

18. Audited Financial Statements and Management Letters: 2010 - 2012

19. IPEDs Financials: 2010 - 2012