1. Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force
on State Higher Education Reform
WORKING DRAFT v.1.3
[updated as a result of Oct. 19 webinar]
Cross‐Walk of Work‐to‐Date with Executive Order Directives
1. 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. [FRANK FULLER—DRAFTING]
Strengths: [Summary to be inserted.]
Weaknesses: [Summary to be inserted.]
3. Analyze the ability of state universities to contribute to the State University System's 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.
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. Accountability Recommendations
1. The Board of Governor's 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. Bachelor's degrees in areas of strategic emphasis.
c. Cost per graduate.
d. Salary of graduates.
2. The Board of Governor's should articulate goals and expected contributions of each university,
consistent with its unique mission, toward overall system goals identified in its 2012‐2025 Strategic
Plan.
3. Universities should align their annual and strategic plans with the Board of Governor's 2012‐2025
Strategic Plan and report progress annually or more frequently through its normal reporting
cadence.
4(?). [Fuller]: For the next 3 years (a time period associated with expected national and state economic
stability), no tuition increases for high‐skill, high‐demand (market demand) or‐high‐wage bachelor and
master's degrees with the state buying down the tuition difference between the Board of Governor's
approved tuition increase for the university and the fixed tuition of the high‐skill, high‐demand, high‐
wage degrees (market determined). [Moved to 2a—Funding.]
3

4. Funding Recommendations
NOTE: This section is comprised of a summary of the October 17 teleconference dedicated to this
topic, summarized by President Delaney. Text in black type 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 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 following recommendations are put forward for
consideration 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. Bachelor's 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. 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.
For the next 3 years (a time period associated with expected national and state economic
stability), no tuition increases for high‐skill, high‐demand (market demand) or‐high‐wage
bachelor and master's degrees with the state buying down the tuition difference between the
Board of Governor's approved tuition increase for the university and the fixed tuition of the
high‐skill, high‐demand, high‐wage degrees (market determined).
ADDITION: 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 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 as articulated in the Board of Governors
performance measures with flexibility in tuition and decreased regulation. These metrics shall include
cost efficiencies and strategic alignment as articulated elsewhere.
5

6. Governance
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.
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.
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.
4. Board of Governor’s have substantial involvement in the appointment or re‐appointment of
university presidents. [TABLED for Wednesday’s discussion; review other state best practices.]
6

7. PROPOSED REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Letter of Submission from the Chair (and/or Introduction)
II. Pre‐Amble…[Rep. Proctor—due Tuesday, 9 a.m.]
III. State University System Strengths and Weaknesses Summary [EO Directives 2 and 3]
III. Governance Recommendations
IV. Accountability Recommendations
V. Funding Recommendations
VI. Appendices:
A. Executive Order
B. Task Force Member Roster
C. Bibliography and Historical Consolidation of Higher Ed Recommendations [EO Directive 1]
D. Acknowledge with DRAFT or available reports from BOG Task Force’s.
E. Bibliography of Task Force Presentations
7