Oct19 workingdraft brtf


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Oct19 workingdraft brtf

  1. 1. Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform WORKING DRAFT v.1Cross-Walk of Work-to-Date with Executive Order Directives1. Catalog and consolidate the recommendations of the various efforts addressing Florida’s higher education system with respect to the State University System. a. Commission on Access and Degree Attainment (Appendix Tab __) b. Facilities Task Force (Appendix Tab __) c. Government Efficiency Task Force (Appendix Tab __) d. HECC Final Report, December Final Report and 2012 Work Plan v003 (Appendix Tab __) e. Florida Council of 100--Closing The Talent Gap (Appendix Tab __) f. Other input sources: Collaborative Labs Workshop, Public Comment, etc.2. Assess strengths and weaknesses of the State University System’s governance model related to its Constitutional charge. Strengths: [Summary to be inserted.] Weaknesses: [Summary to be inserted.]3. Analyze the ability of state universities to contribute to the State University Systems 2012-2025 strategic plan. Reference: Commission on Access and Degree Attainment. [See appropriate Accountability, Funding and Governance Recommendations.]4. Recommend strategies, such as incentive systems and governance improvements, to encourage cooperation between institutions leading to reduced duplication and improved efficiencies. [See appropriate Accountability, Funding and Governance Recommendations.] 1
  2. 2. 5. Recommend amendments to statutes and Board of Governors regulations necessary to improve accountability and transparency on the part of state universities to the Board of Governors and the Board of Governors to the Legislature and Governor. [See appropriate Accountability, Funding and Governance Recommendations.]6. Conduct a review and analysis of efforts to achieve national preeminence and academic and research excellence by Florida universities, including elements that may be considered for future legislation to advance higher education. [See appropriate Accountability, Funding and Governance Recommendations.] 2
  3. 3. Accountability Recommendations1. The Board of Governors should continue to enhance its metrics-based accountability framework as a management and decision-making tool to ensure maximum return on investment for its students and the State of Florida. Specifically, data collection and reporting should focus on outcome-based performance metrics: a. Percentage of graduates employed or continuing education. b. Bachelors degrees in areas of strategic emphasis. c. Cost per graduate. d. Salary of graduates.2. The Board of Governors should articulate goals and expected contributions of each university toward overall system goals identified in its 2012-2025 Strategic Plan.3. Universities should align their annual and strategic plans with the Board of Governors 2012-2025 Strategic Plan. 3
  4. 4. Funding RecommendationsNOTE: This section is comprised of a summary of the October 17 teleconference dedicated to this topic. Text in black font below has been inserted by the Chair as a guide to focus further dialogue as well as clarification.1. The Governor’s strategic goals for the state universities should inform the specific metrics by which theuniversities are measured, held accountable and rewarded. These goals include: a. Increasing the bachelor’s degrees awarded in strategic areas of emphasis. b. Increasing the percentage of graduates who become employed upon graduation or who continue their education. c. For those seeking employment upon graduation, increasing the number of graduates who attain employment at higher salary rate. d. Continuing to identify and implement institutional efficiencies and strategies that lower the cost to graduateTuition and funding strategies need to address a variety of challenges and goals, which are often in conflict withrespect to the direction of tuition levels. The pressure to increase tuition comes from the desire to achieveinstitutional excellence and to increase national reputation, which in turn, increases the value of degrees to bothgraduates and their employers, translating to higher starting salaries for graduates. Pressure to increase tuitioncertainly results from significant reductions in base funding support from the state.The competing pressure to lower tuition results as universities strive to maintain access and affordability forFlorida taxpayers, and as a strategy to incentivize student choices and outcomes that will not only keep currentemployers fully staffed, but also to attract new business and industry to Florida with a talented and preparedworkforce. These objectives argue for differentiated tuition by degree or program, and perhaps even loweringtuition in certain strategic areas.To address the multiple tensions on tuition and funding, the following recommendations are put forward forconsideration by the full Task Force: 1. Student Funding Support. The State of Florida should be committed to moving toward the national average of funding per student for the state universities. In the absence of state support, the Legislature and Board of Governors, working together, should evaluate tuition strategies to compensate for state funding based on key performance metrics: a. Percentage of graduates employed or continuing education. b. Bachelors degrees in areas of strategic emphasis. c. Cost per graduate. d. Salary of graduates. 2. Differentiated Tuition Structure. The Legislature and Board of Governors should move away from uniform tuition rates among the universities and among all degree programs within a university. 4
  5. 5. a. Degree Programs in Strategic Areas of Emphasis (Fuller). A differentiated tuition model should be built on the establishment of specific degree programs identified jointly by the Legislature and Board of Governors as degrees in strategic areas of emphasis. Metrics for both identifying these programs and measuring their success (outcomes) would be jointly determined by the Legislature and the Board. When an established percentage (i.e. 25%) of a university’s total number of degree offerings (or percentage of total number of yearly graduates completing one of these programs?) is attained, that university may assign an annual differentiated tuition by program with the program in the strategic area of emphasis remaining at a level below the other (nonstrategic) programs. The assumption would be that state support will remain at a sufficient base level to allow for the tuition to remain lower by comparison. A university with more than 25% of its degree programs (or 25% of its total undergraduate degree recipients) in strategic areas of emphasis will be authorized to adopt a base tuition rate equal to the average base rate of the Association of American Universities. b. Degree Programs in Strategic Areas of Emphasis (Delaney). With the authority to differentiate tuition among degree programs, within specified limits and pursuant to meeting specific metrics, each university is in the best position to determine the tuition rates designed to produce outcomes consistent with the state’s goals. Note: Board of Governors’ Degree Programs in Strategic Areas of Emphasis: The Board of Governors has previously identified undergraduate degree programs in strategic areas of emphasis. This currently includes 111 programs in STEM, 28 programs in Globalization, 21 in Health Professions, 19 in Education-critical (math, science) and 9 programs in Security and Emergency Services. Currently, 37% of all SUS baccalaureate degrees are in one of these strategic areas, with a 21% increase in the last 4 years. Growth in STEM programs is outpacing the growth in non-STEM areas. The Board is using each university’s performance in this area as a basis for decisions on allocating additional funding, whether performance funding or differential tuition requests.3. Preeminent Universities. The Legislature and Board of Governors should work together to reward “Preeminent Universities” meeting specific metrics that support the state’s goals with tuition flexibility and decreased regulation. 5
  6. 6. Governance1. In order to demonstrate accountability, efficiencies and return on investment, the Board of Governors 2012-25 Strategic Plan should specify implications of achieving strategic outcomes, such as decreased regulation, recognition (e.g., national ranking) and tuition flexibility.2. Provide for expanded funding and/or budgetary control to the Board of Governors to tie university funding to the State University System 2012-2025 Strategic Plan as modified to reflect expected individual institutional contributions to system-wide targets. 6