Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Working draft brtf3dot0
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
447
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
25
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform WORKING DRAFT 3.0[Type text] [Type text] [Type text]
  • 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter from the Chair ............................................................................................ 3 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 6 State University System Strengths and Weaknesses Summary ........................... 8 Recommendations …………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 Accountability Recommendations ............................................................ 10 Funding Recommendations ....................................................................... Governance Recommendations ................................................................ Appendices A. Executive Order ...................................................................................... B. Task Force Member Roster .................................................................... C. Historical Consolidation of Higher Ed Recommendations ..................... D. Forthcoming reports from Board of Governors Task Forces ................. E. Key Resources for Action (Provided as attached files in digital version.) (1) Complete College America: Common College Completion Metrics Technical Guide (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 3. LETTER FROM THE CHAIR I nnovation is driving Floridas future. Industrial clusters such as life sciences, information technology, aerospace and alternative energies show promise to join agriculture, tourism, development and defense as foundations to our states economy. The mix of industries and companies that call Florida home continues to diversify, yet one common element connects them all: the need for an educated and engaged workforce. If Florida is to be successful in evolving its economy while providing a bridge to prosperity for all its citizens, it is imperative that Floridas State University System, along with its sister institutions among the private and state college ranks, strengthen the critical role they play. New products and processes--and the leaders who will face the issues challenging future generations--must emerge from the classrooms and labs of our colleges and universities. In the wake of the Great Recession, the expectations placed on the State University System could hardly be more intense. Attention is increasingly focused not only on what colleges and universities do but also on how well they do it and how well they utilize state funding and tuition. Floridas 12 institutions must continue their long-standing contributions of knowledge creation and knowledge transfer while improving their standing on the world stage befitting a state whose economy ranks in the top 20 globally. Additionally, a "third stream" of output has emerged as our colleges and universities find themselves recognized for their contributions to economic development. Yet the research and development potential of research universities, in particular, represents both a virtuous and vicious cycle.1 Investments in knowledge-generating capabilities spawns the increase in scientists, engineer and technologies required to create and transfer new knowledge into prosperity- creating products and processes—and jobs. Such a virtuous cycle is paralleled by a vicious cycle which has the same starting point of attracting public funding, particularly from federal government stakeholders. In order to attract investments from the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation which start the virtuous cycle, research institutions must possess (or acquire) substantially heavy capital-intensive assets such as building, laboratories, equipment and highly qualified faculty and students. Putting this vicious cycle in business terms, you have to spend money to attract money.1 Feller, Irwin (2004) “Virtuous and Vicious Cycles in the Contributions of Public Research Universities to State EconomicDevelopment Objectives,” Economic Development Quarterly, 18, 2, 138-150.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 4. At this critical stage in Floridas economic transformation, Governor Rick Scott issued Executive Order 12-104 recognizing that "it is in the interest of Florida’s residents that a Blue Ribbon Task Force be created to assess recent progress and evaluate the remaining challenges and opportunities to be addressed in pursuit of the optimal State University System structure and performance." Six months of inquiry, research, analysis and deliberation revealed higher education to be as complex as it is vital to the states future. The Task Force heard the many views of those "One of our biggest committed to assisting its work. It is believed fair to problems in higher describe the six-month process as collaborative, education is that we indeed among the Task Force members themselves but even more so with the energetic involvement of take complicated the students, faculty and administrators who issues and try to fix participated in the Collaborative Workshop hosted by them by dumbing the Collaborative Labs at St. Petersburg College. (I do not mention them here to suggest accord with the them down. It just balance of this document, rather the gratitude for the doesnt work." representation of such important perspectives.) Yet, it --Allan Bense would also be fair to share the observation that the Former Florida House Speaker stakeholders involved in this complex discussion too often talk past each other, in part because the issues facing higher education are so complex and the other is confusion, or lack of standardization, in terms of the language used to describe the issues.2 In working to address the issues of higher education, those who care so much about it often do more harm than good. As Allan Bense, former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives and chair of the Florida Council of 100s Higher Education Committee, warned: "One of our biggest problems in higher education is that we take complicated issues and try to fix them by dumbing them down. It just doesnt work." Truer words were never spoken. It is hoped that the effort of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform avoided such a negative result. If there is any value resulting from our collective work, it is due to the dedication of those who selflessly contributed their time, energy and expertise to the effort. As a man proverbially traveling east in search of wisdom, I have benefited personally and2 Mumper, Michael and Melissa L. Freeman (2011), “The Continuing Paradox of Public College Tuition Inflation,” in The States ndand Public Higher Education Policy: Affordability, Access, and Accountability, Donald Heller, ed, 2 edition, p 37-60.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 5. professionally from every interaction with my fellow Task Force members during the past six months. Representative Bill Proctor inspired me with his breadth of knowledge and deep understanding that cut through the complexities of the subject matter. Representative Marlene OToole drove our progress with a unique brand of pragmatism that never allowed the group to forget that one size does not fit all. President John Delaney ensured our work was informed by the realities of the political and academic context we face. Dr. Frank Fuller grounded our deliberations in data and illustrated the power of thoughtful analysis. Joe Caruncho and Jeff Shuman guided the effort with an eye toward outcomes that gave voice to the employers who are among the ultimate consumers of the higher education product. We are all proud of the product submitted and look forward to the improvements and clarity that will come with continued discussions. Those shortcomings of this work, which will no doubt become apparent upon intense scrutiny, are solely my own and result from my shortcomings as chair. Finally, I am grateful to Governor Scott for the opportunity to serve his Administration, the Legislature, my fellow Task Force members and the citizens of Florida. Yours for the future of Florida, Dale A. Brill, Ph.D. ChairDRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 6. INTRODUCTION D espite the risk of oversimplifying the daunting complexity of higher education, it was nonetheless necessary to organize the work of the Task Force into three categories that seemed to naturally emerge from the directives articulated in the Executive Order: Accountability, Funding and Governance. Organizing was easy. Wading through the data and various perspectives in search of clear and universally palatable solutions proved hard work. As expected, there emerged no unidimensional or otherwise simplistic answer to meeting Governor Scotts call for accelerated excellence from our State University Three System as the issues are so intertwined. Funding cannot be addressed without connecting it to Organizing Concepts accountability, particularly with affordability as a  Accountability strategic imperative to ensuring accessibility.  Funding Accountability requires a governance system to make metrics meaningful through coordination and  Governance action. If there was any clarity at all, it emerged from the Executive Orders reminder that the Board of Governors is a constitutionally established entity with the authority "to operate, regulate, control, and be fully responsible for the management of the whole university system." From this starting point, the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform are presented in the context of honoring the public trust and expectation that investments be made in the State University System through its Board of Governors must return increasing value to the public whose tax contributions and private expenditures underwrite it. In reviewing these recommendations, it is hoped that the reader will find that the Task Force treated the State University System as, indeed, a system. Considerable effort was made to avoid getting mired in the tactical administration left more appropriately to the respective Boards of Trustees under the authority of the Board of Governors. Debating and compiling a list of tactical level recommendations, while necessary at some point, was deemed ultimately the responsibility of the Board of Governors and the Boards of Trustees at each college and university. The larger, and more fundamental question then is whether the State University System had the governance relationships, accountability elements and incentives in place to drive such innovation into practice.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 7. As a result, what follows is a set of actions designed to impact the system, rather than pretend to be able to manage years from now the behaviors of the individuals charged with the daily operations of the colleges and universities. Where detail was deemed necessary to provide clarity or flush out intended impact of a recommendation, we provided those specifics with a bias toward flexibility. To facilitate deeper dives into the complex issues addressed, each recommendation is accompanied by suggested "key references for action." In many cases, it is in these reference materials that the real gems may be found. In the context of a Twitter world that communicates in 140 characters or less, it may be beyond reasonable expectation, yet the intent is that the recommendations presented in this document be treated as inextricably linked in the debates they will surely instigate as they are in reality.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 8. SYSTEM STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES SUMMARY E xecutive Order 12-104 called for the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the State University System. The summary below captures the high-level characteristics revealed during the Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education’s review. The Board of Governors and the structure within which it works is deemed relatively young. To a great degree, judgment on its performance to date seems premature given the clarity issues that lingered following its creation. To wit, a 2010 agreement was needed between the Executive Branch, the Legislature and the Board of Governors to clarify the relationship, authority and limitations applied to each stakeholder in hopes of addressing lingering confusion. Nonetheless, the Board of Governors is positioned now to established to set a direction for the entire State University System. What follows represents characteristics to be expected from an organization in this position. Identifying strengths and weaknesses in a strategic evaluation tend to reveal opportunities. The following bullet points are not intended to be criticisms, rather summaries of the context in which the recommendations of this report are made. Florida is positioned to assert its place of leadership in a global role of prominence. The Board of Governors must transition from a transactional model to a guiding and transforming body enabling the success of its institutions. STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES/OPPORTUNITIES  Effective, efficient, professional staff  Need to increase predictive analytics capacity  Local control distributed to  Crisis of control resulting in move to individual institutions centralization  Organized to serve as transforming  Operating as transactional  Structured to merge multiple state  Operating under narrow range of variables variables  Operating with production matrix as  Organized to balance key metrics primary driver  Organized for vision/transformation  Working in turbulent field environment  Organized for high task/low (multiple expectations/limited resources) relationship  Operating as high relationship/low task  Young organization capable of  Reactionary posture blocking migration migrating to global prominence  Do not have a systematic approach resource  Have the constitutional authority to allocations realize the transformational role  Moving targets in terms of expectations placed on Board of Governors and institutionsDRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 9. RECOMMENDATIONS T he following pages [when completed and voted upon in the coming days will] represent the unanimous recommendations of the seven-member Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform. As articulated throughout this document, the individual actions prescribed are to be taken as a corpus of thinking, rather than excerpted and analyzed individually and out of this deliberate context. As argued throughout this document, the challenges facing Florida’s State University System are too complex to be resolved with unidimensional evaluation and solution development. The presentation of alternatives to be considered begin with the observation that a chasm of understanding exists between the system’s colleges and universities and those who must make the difficult decisions in appropriating scarce resources to sustain or expand it. Many in the academy deny or outright reject the expectations for increased efficiencies and productivity as precursors to demonstrating value that is presumed, to the detriment of the institutions and system, as self evident. In turn, the demands placed on those working in " ….the individual the unique context in which knowledge is created and actions prescribed are transferred, are not entirely understood by those outside the halls of academe—specifically, the paradox to be taken as a of a virtuous and vicious cycle of funding needs discussed corpus of thinking, earlier. In the absence of this mutual understanding, rather than excerpted faculty and staff are left to interpret the actions of the Governor and Legislature as interfering, if not punitive. and analyzed Likewise, there is frustration on the part of funding individually and out of stakeholders who see colleges and universities as this deliberate unresponsive to the calls for demonstrated operational innovation within the system itself, rather than context." exclusively focusing on producing innovation as an intellectual byproduct. If we approach the recommendations of this Task Force with a presumptive conclusion of who is to blame for the challenges facing Florida’s State University System, then the reactions to each will be quite predictable. As Mumper and Freeman articulate in the case of tuition inflation, “If policymakers see the price spiral as driven by inadequate state support, for example, they will develop quite different solutions than they would if they see the problem as[Type text] [Type text] [Type text]
  • 10. driven by wasteful spending by campus leaders.”3 In consideration of the above, the recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Task Force are presented with the hope of addressing the issues facing the State University System—and closing the gap in understanding—by recognizing the inextricable link between accountability, funding and governance. Accountability measures create the opportunity to communicate the outcomes desired and achieved, ranging from fiscal prudence to value creation that comes from the long-standing benefit of knowledge creation and transfer. Funding provisions respond to the reality of limited resources and the larger benefit of connecting difficult decisions to stated goals and priorities. Governance gives the locus of balanced management to the body already addressed by the people of Florida through its constitution.3 Mumper, Michael and Melissa L. Freeman (2011), “The Continuing Paradox of Public College Tuition Inflation,” in The States ndand Public Higher Education Policy: Affordability, Access, and Accountability, Donald Heller, ed, 2 edition, p 42.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 11. D ifficult fiscal conditions intensify the pressure on those making budget decisions to choose wisely in the allocation of funds among competing alternatives. Measures of performance and return on investment inform the necessary deliberations at all levels of higher education management. Faculty, staff, administrators and boards must respond to the increasing demand from funding stakeholders who seek to understand how resources are being used to progress toward goals leveraging the creation and transfer of knowledge to the publics benefit. When clearly articulated, goals communicate priorities and guide the development and evaluation of policy decisions. The connection between goals set at a system level and the outcomes achieved at the institutional level is of critical importance as Florida moves from using data for reporting to decision-making. The former may be done with the best of intentions under the flag of transparency, but the real power of transforming the system will be realized when fundamental questions of how institutional missions are tied program decisions or how to reallocated state subsidies to institutions are all based on data-driven analysis. Important distinctions are made between inputs and outcomes in the call for the use of expanded measures as an area of focus for improving the State University System, particularly when the observation can be made that Florida’s collection of metrics is currently a comparative advantage over other states. Since the 1950s, increasing access to higher education was a national priority. Accountability measures therefore reflected inputs, such as number of students enrolled, their qualifications and the amount of revenue per student.4 A shift to an outcomes orientation puts effectiveness and efficiency measures in the forefront of policy makers thinking. The set of common metrics developed by Compete to Complete reflect this changing emphasis with measures including success in remedial education programs, credit accumulation, retention rates, degrees awarded and graduation rates.5 Research also reveals an important distinction between efficiencies and productivity gains which also serve to preserve affordability as a competitive advantage.6 Executive Order 12-104 calls for recommendations to improve accountability and transparency between the respective stakeholders, connecting measurement to collaboration as a path to accelerating the success of State University System.4 Reindl, Travis Ryan Reyna, (July 2011), Compete to Complete. From Information to Action: Revamping HIgher Education AccountabiliitySystems, National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices.5 Ibid.6 Massy, W. "Metrics for Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education: Completing the Completion Agenda," State Higher EducationExecutive Officers (SHEEO).DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 12. RECOMMENDATION 1: 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 consistent with Governor Scotts emphasis bulleted below, as well as those developed by Complete College America and embraced by the National Governors Association (See Key Resources below): a. Percentage of graduates employed or continuing education. b. Bachelors degrees in areas of strategic emphasis. c. Cost per graduate and cost to graduates. d. Salary of graduates. BUSINESS CASE: Here is where the business case is made for the need/problem the recommendation seeks to address and how it will do it. Footnotes can be used to give appropriate attribution to the source(s) supporting the argumentation. The rest of this is text is place holder for bulleted rationale supporting the recommendation.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 13. Accountability Recommendation 1 (continued) The business case text is expected to spill over to one or two pages as necessary to communicate the essence of the recommendation. This text is a placeholder to reserve space for now. RESOURCES FOR ACTION: [Insert URLs/citations here.] Appendix E(1): Complete College America: Common College Completion Metrics Technical Guide http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28697036/Metrics-Technical-Guide-2-3-2012.pdf Appendix E(_): Improving Measurement of Productivity in Higher Education http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13417 Appendix E(_): Compete to Complete. From Information to Action: Revamping HIgher Education Accountabiliity Systems, National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices. Appendix E(_):DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 14. RECOMMENDATION 2: The Board of Governors should develop and articulate goals—mindful of the need for a sustainable long-term vision and established in collaboration with the Governor and Legislature—as expected contributions of each university, consistent with its unique mission, toward overall system goals identified in its 2012-2025 Strategic Plan. BUSINESS CASE: Here is where the business case is made for the need/problem the recommendation seeks to address and how it will do it. Footnotes can be used to give appropriate attribution to the source(s) supporting the argumentation. The rest of this is text is place holder for bulleted rationale supporting the recommendation.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 15. Accountability Recommendation 2 (continued) The business case text is expected to spill over to one or two pages as necessary to communicate the essence of the recommendation. This text is a placeholder to reserve space for now. KEY RESOURCES FOR ACTION: [Insert URLs/citations here.] Appendix E(_): Appendix E(_): Appendix E(_):DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 16. RECOMMENDATION 3: Universities should align their annual and strategic plans with the Board of Governors 2012-2025 Strategic Plan and report individual progress annually or more frequently through its normal reporting cadence. In return, the BOG should remain committed to a system that allows the individual institutions to innovate, evolve and respond to their unique missions. BUSINESS CASE: Here is where the business case is made for the need/problem the recommendation seeks to address and how it will do it. Footnotes can be used to give appropriate attribution to the source(s) supporting the argumentation. The rest of this is text is place holder for bulleted rationale supporting the recommendation.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 17. Accountability Recommendation 3 (continued) The business case text is expected to spill over to one or two pages as necessary to communicate the essence of the recommendation. This text is a placeholder to reserve space for now. KEY RESOURCES FOR ACTION: [Insert URLs/citations here.] Appendix E(_): Appendix E(_): Appendix E(_):DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 18. G overnor Scotts strategic goals for the state universities should inform the specific metrics by which the universities 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 graduate. Tuition and funding strategies need to address a variety of challenges and goals, which are often in conflict with respect to the direction of tuition levels. The pressure to increase tuition comes from the desire to achieve institutional excellence and to increase national reputation, which in turn, increases the value of degrees to both graduates and their employers, translating to higher starting salaries for graduates. Pressure to increase tuition certainly 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 for Florida taxpayers, and as a strategy to incentivize student choices and outcomes that will not only keep current employers fully staffed, but also to attract new business and industry to Florida with a talented and prepared workforce. These objectives argue for differentiated tuition by degree or program, and perhaps even lowering tuition in certain strategic areas. To address the multiple tensions on tuition and funding, the ____ recommendations are put forward for consideration by the full Task Force.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 19. RECOMMENDATION 1: The State of Florida should be committed to funding the institutions at a level comparable to the expectations place on them through a system tied to initiating and sustaining progress toward or achievement of clear goals tailored to the respective missions of each institution. Specifically, the recommended metrics include those articulated by Governor Scott, as well as the published set developed by Complete College America and embraced by the National Governors Association (See Accountability section above and Appendix E1). 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 the same performance metrics. BUSINESS CASE: Here is where the business case is made for the need/problem the recommendation seeks to address and how it will do it. Footnotes can be used to give appropriate attribution to the source(s) supporting the argumentation. The rest of this is text is place holder for bulleted rationale supporting the recommendation.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 20. Funding Recommendation 1 (continued) BUSINESS CASE: [250 - 1,250 words]: Here is where the business case is made for the need/problem the recommendation seeks to address and how it will do it. Footnotes can be used to give appropriate attribution to the source(s) supporting the argumentation. The rest of this is text is place holder for .... KEY RESOURCES FOR ACTION: [Insert URLs/citations here.] Appendix E(_): Complete College America: Performance Funding: From Idea to Action http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28697036/Performance%20Funding%20Think%20This.pdf Appendix E(_): Appendix E(_):DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 21. RECOMMENDATION 2: Implement differentiated tuition structure to support degree programs in strategic areas of emphasis. The Legislature and Board of Governors should move away from uniform tuition rates among the universities and among all degree programs within a university. A differentiated tuition model should be built on the establishment of specific degree programs identified by the Legislature as degrees in strategic areas of emphasis. Measuring their progress (outcomes) would be jointly determined by the Board of Governors. For the next 3 years (or a project unemployment percentage), no tuition increases for high-skill, high-demand (market demand) or-high-wage bachelor and masters degrees with the state buying down the tuition difference between the Board of Governors approved tuition increase for the university and the fixed tuition of the high-skill, high- demand, high-wage degrees (market determined). If the state cannot provide the necessary support for the programs identified as strategic programs, the universities may pursue differentiated tuition subject to Board of Governor’s approval. When an established percentage, as determined by the Board of Governors, of a university’s total number of degree offerings (or an alternative measure, such as 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. The BOG should determine which institutions are to be designated as preeminent institutions and how that designation is to be defined.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 22. Funding Recommendation 2 (continued) BUSINESS CASE: [250 - 1,250 words]: 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. 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.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 23. Funding Recommendation 2 (continued) The business case text is expected to spill over to one or two pages as necessary to communicate the essence of the recommendation. This text is a placeholder to reserve space for now. KEY RESOURCES FOR ACTION: [Insert URLs/citations here.] Appendix E(_): Appendix E(_): Appendix E(_):DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 24. RECOMMENDATION 3: Create a funding structure that supports the creation and success of Preeminent Universities. The Legislature and Board of Governors should work together to reward Preeminent Universities meeting specific goals tailored for preeminence among the metrics identified in an expanded set of performance measures established by the Board of Governors (See Accountability section) by incentivizing alignment and performance through flexibility in tuition and decreased regulation. These metrics shall include cost efficiencies and strategic alignment as articulated elsewhere in this report. BUSINESS CASE: Here is where the business case is made for the need/problem the recommendation seeks to address and how it will do it. Footnotes can be used to give appropriate attribution to the source(s) supporting the argumentation. The rest of this is text is place holder for bulleted rationale supporting the recommendation.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 25. Funding Recommendation 3 (continued) The business case text is expected to spill over to one or two pages as necessary to communicate the essence of the recommendation. This text is a placeholder to reserve space for now. KEY RESOURCES FOR ACTION: [Insert URLs/citations here.] Appendix E(_): Appendix E(_): Appendix E(_):DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 26. P revious sections of this report addressed the relationship between accountability and funding as necessary to improve the ability of stakeholders at every level of the Florida State University System to contribute to its accelerated rate of achievement. The Governor and Legislature will be better positioned to evaluate investments in higher education with an expanded set of performance metrics providing the expectations and means to measure and reward improved return on investment, efficiencies and productivity. Faculty, staff and administrators are to strengthen the connection between knowledge creation and knowledge transfer to the economic goals that have emerged as the "Third Stream" of societal benefit derived from public investments in higher education. What remains is an examination of strategies to encourage cooperation between institutions leading to reduced duplication and improved efficiencies as directed by Governor Scotts Executive Order 12-104. The recommendations below seek to address the implementation of incentive systems and governance improvements to encourage long-term and systematic adjustments.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 27. RECOMMENDATION 1: 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. BUSINESS CASE: Here is where the business case is made for the need/problem the recommendation seeks to address and how it will do it. Footnotes can be used to give appropriate attribution to the source(s) supporting the argumentation. The rest of this is text is place holder for bulleted rationale supporting the recommendation. Governance Recommendation 1 (continued) The business case text is expected to spill over to one or two pages as necessary to communicate the essence of the recommendation. This text is a placeholder to reserve space for now.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 28. KEY RESOURCES FOR ACTION: [Insert URLs/citations here.] Appendix E(_): Appendix E(_): Appendix E(_):DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 29. RECOMMENDATION 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. BUSINESS CASE: Here is where the business case is made for the need/problem the recommendation seeks to address and how it will do it. Footnotes can be used to give appropriate attribution to the source(s) supporting the argumentation. The rest of this is text is place holder for bulleted rationale supporting the recommendation.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 30. Governance Recommendation 2 (continued) The business case text is expected to spill over to one or two pages as necessary to communicate the essence of the recommendation. This text is a placeholder to reserve space for now. KEY RESOURCES FOR ACTION: [Insert URLs/citations here.] Appendix E(_): Appendix E(_): Appendix E(_):DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 31. RECOMMENDATION 3: Refinement in mission statements must be emphasized to derive clarity in each institution’s roles and responsibilities as contributors to system-wide goals and implemented through funding and accountability recommendations stated elsewhere. BUSINESS CASE: Here is where the business case is made for the need/problem the recommendation seeks to address and how it will do it. Footnotes can be used to give appropriate attribution to the source(s) supporting the argumentation. The rest of this is text is place holder for bulleted rationale supporting the recommendation.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 32. Governance Recommendation 3 (continued) The business case text is expected to spill over to one or two pages as necessary to communicate the essence of the recommendation. This text is a placeholder to reserve space for now. KEY RESOURCES FOR ACTION: [Insert URLs/citations here.] Appendix E(_): Appendix E(_): Appendix E(_):DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 33. RECOMMENDATION 4: Ensure that the Board of Governors has direct involvement in the search and appointment of university presidents. BUSINESS CASE: Here is where the business case is made for the need/problem the recommendation seeks to address and how it will do it. Footnotes can be used to give appropriate attribution to the source(s) supporting the argumentation. The rest of this is text is place holder for bulleted rationale supporting the recommendation.DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT
  • 34. Governance Recommendation 4 (continued) The business case text is expected to spill over to one or two pages as necessary to communicate the essence of the recommendation. This text is a placeholder to reserve space for now. KEY RESOURCES FOR ACTION: [Insert URLs/citations here.] Appendix E(_): Appendix E(_): Appendix E(_):DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

×