Blue ribbonworkshopjuly26realtimerecord

*The Collaborative Labs is a venture by St Petersburg College

presents

Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force On State Higher Education Reform

Collaborative Workshop

July 26, 2012

Real-Time Record

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

http://www.spcollege.edu/central/collaborative/12/Blue_Ribbon/Blue_Ribbon_RTR.doc

http://www.spcollege.edu/central/collaborative/12/Blue_Ribbon/Blue_Ribbon_RTR.doc

Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force July 26, 2012

www.collaborativelabs.com (727) 341-3139 2 [email protected]

Welcome and Opening Remarks



Dr. Dale A. Brill, Chair, Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force: Welcome, everyone. My name is Dale Brill and I serve as the Chair of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform. I am the person who has bombarded you with emails over the past several weeks. Before we do introductions, I want to extend a general thank you. The Collaborative Labs experience is unique and I hope you are overwhelmed with the collaborative work from today. Different perspectives help us find common ground. The key

here is to listen first, borrowing from Stephen Covey. As you go through this process, the apprehension about what you’ve gotten yourself into will gradually leave you. We are with the best facilitation group I know. they will help us listen, seek to understand each other and find win-win solutions. There are more advanced degrees in the room than anyone could hope to imagine. I’d like us to get a feel for who is in the room today. Let me introduce my fellow Task Force members: Jeff Shuman, Representative Bill Proctor, Representative Marlene O’Toole, Joseph Caruncho and John Delaney. I regret that Frank Fuller is unable to be with us as he is fighting walking pneumonia. Please stand as I recognize the group you represent today: The Board of Governors is here. The Higher Education Coordinating Council is here. Students and/or parents. From the Administration side of the University system, Presidents, Provosts. Faculty. Faculty get the award for the most phone calls and emails about the topics so far. The business community. The Legislative Process – those who are in the legislature or serve as staff in the process. There are also members of the Boards of Trustees of the universities. In just a few minutes, I’ll be turning this over to Andrea Henning. But first, we have the privilege of being the guest of Dr. Bill Law, President of St. Petersburg College. When I asked if we could use this location and he said, “Of, course.” By the end of the afternoon, other university presidents will be asking for Collaborative Labs of their own. Dr. Bill Law: Welcome to St. Petersburg College. We’ve hosted a number of events with Dale here at the Collaborative Labs. We started with the Six Pillars Caucus System who have met here twice now. Both were highly successful. When DEO asked to put together a strategic plan for the state, we helped do that here. You are very welcome to be here. Higher education is a different kind of environment. Frank Brogan and I have been friends for years. I asked him why some people just hate you immediately as a college president. He said, “In your case, it saves time.” What happens here today is that you get a chance to put your vision together and move it forward. I also represent the Florida college system. St. Petersburg College was the first out of the box to offer baccalaureate degrees. Last year, we awarded 1,000 baccalaureate degrees. Only a small percentage were under 22 years old. Twenty-five percent were 40 years or older. Ninety-five percent went at least one summer. Two-thirds went every summer. We have a public policy; it’s highly supportive of the kinds of things we’re trying to achieve. We stand together to improve the lives of Floridians. We are honored to have you here today. Dr. Brill: I want to draw your attention to the agenda. I understand that some of you will be bouncing in and out of the activities. I appreciate your being here. What happens today happens so fast that it’s easy to lose track of what has gone on in your absence. You are coming to this workshop with the question of focus being how we improve and advance the higher education system from our different perspectives. So, I’m asking you to listen and understand what others are saying. This is meant to cast as wide a net as possible to hear your input. You are not being asked to become the Task Force yourself. That’s why I introduced the Task Force first. We will be listening and learning from you and with you today. We are at the mid-point of the



Task Force. When we’re done today, we’ll be on the “back nine," to use a golf analogy, and will move from input to analysis. We'll certainly be analyzing what comes out today. If there is something you want to share with the Task Force after today, just send it to me and I’ll send it along or post it on the website. We are desperately seeking to understand how you see the world as input to our recommendations to the Governor. You will break out into “buckets” today. We’ll be talking about issues of governance, accountability and funding as detailed in the Governor's Executive Order. In addition, we’ll surely look at system-wide issues. If you find yourself in an area that doesn’t fit your expertise, just wait, because during the process you'll move a lot between different work groups.

We will leverage technology that will allow the smaller groups to see what the other groups are doing. Smaller groups tend to have more conversation. I’m going to ask you to listen first and avoid the temptation to be the smartest person in the group. Let’s talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room. I mentioned that we are here to change the status quo. The Board of Governors has published a strategic plan that is visionary. We are not here to re-write it wholesale – we’re here to accelerate, support and perhaps

improve it. The Task Force is not trying to usurp their work. The three boxes that we’re discussing are different from different strategic buckets than other task force initiatives that the BOG has announced. While the way we’ve been doing things has to change, I want to resist change just for the sake of change. Defensive postures that we may take won’t work because the increasingly it is clear that we must change. The folks inside the institutions might resist this pressure from outside, because it may be seen as interfering. Nonetheless, the call for change persists. The students are saying they want the best education available that will give them jobs. I can go around the room; we each have our own perspectives. We can do this together through collaboration. The question is, “How can we support the BOG and their vision?” I hope that the reading materials that I sent out got you to at least raise an eyebrow. While no specific endorsement was implied, I felt the views were instructive and well-constructed. These views and others are those which you may not have been exposed to before today. Try to analyze it and integrate it into your work today. Now, let me introduce Andrea Henning, the leader of the Collaborative Labs:

Andrea Henning, Executive Director, Collaborative Labs: Welcome Florida Leaders! We’re going to have a great day today because you are here. You are not only the most intelligent, but the best looking group we’ve had. We’re here to determine how Florida can become the national model for higher education in 2017. We can do in six hours with our unique collaborative process, what can sometimes take weeks, months or never to accomplish. Let me share our objectives.

First, we’ll leverage our Strengths/Best Practices across Florida’s University System. We use a process called Appreciative Inquiry. It is strength-based, rather than deficit-based. We’ve done this successfully with thousands of organizations. When you focus on strengths and the ideal future, you have better outcomes. The challenges and problems are not the focus, but a part of the process. Continue to infuse the strengths into your work today.



Our second objective is to define what success in State Higher Education looks like over the next 3-5 years. After lunch, you’ll build 3-year recommendations in the areas of governance, accountability and tuition. Let’s take a look at what you’ve written on the boards for the first activity. Let me introduce Milo Paich, our facilitator extraordinaire. He’ll invite you to share two to three best practices in each of these three areas.



Activity 1: “The Best of Florida Universities”

Welcome to the Collaborative Labs! Let’s get started right away. “Walk about” and consider a strength/best practice within Florida Universities that you’d like to recognize. There are four Best Practice Walls on which your example might fit, as a 5-to-8 word example or free-handed illustration:

Wall #1:

Governance

Wall #2:

Accountability

Wall #3:

Tuition

Wall #4:

“System Wide”

Each participant, please contribute at least one strength/best practice to any one of the walls. We’ll kick off the engagement by leading a round of “laser reporting” where you can volunteer to share your example. All of your contributions to the Best Practice Walls will be captured for the real-time record.



Activity 1: “The Best of Florida Universities”

Governance Strengths/Best Practices

Dedicated Board of Trustees who are involved! Student-elected B.O.G. Member Local, shared governance Faculty representations on boards Suggested: Include a person with a disability on every U. Board of Trustees



Accountabilities Strengths/Best Practices

Commitment to identifying and evaluating appropriate measures Impact of research productivity, patents, awards 2+2 programs Valid accreditation measures Balance b/w input accountability and output accountability Nationally-normed accountability measures for general education



Tuition Strengths/Best Practices

Bright Futures Commitment to relatively affordability Accessibility Affordability Need-based One of most affordable in SUS



System Wide Strengths/Best Practices

Geographic locations of universities with full range of courses; local access Drivers of economic engines locally, statewide and nationally Flexible & efficient course delivery (Virtual/traditional) Supportive boards & administrative bodies that nurture faculty, student & community interests & facilitate progressive thinking Industry-academic partnerships – Florida High Tech Corridor Council Pursues system-wide goals while honoring each university’s distinctive mission



Milo: Who would like to share a 10-second sound bite about one of these strengths? Harrison Sherwin: Our BOT and BOG – we always make sure there is a student representative elected.

Jack Sullivan: We have committed Boards of Trustees across the Florida system. Milo: Let’s shift to accountability.

Bill Law: I don’t think there is any question that we have the best 2+2 system in Florida. Milo: Here are a few more comments under Accountability: Commitment to identifying and evaluating appropriate measures. Impact of research productivity, patents and awards. Balance of accountability. There were a couple of things on governance as well. How about Tuition? Bright Futures, a commitment to relative affordability, accessibility, needs-based and one of the most affordable. We also had a whiteboard for system-wide strengths: Geographic locations of universities with a full range of courses. Drivers of economic engines. Flexible and efficient delivery. We have supportive boards and administration. We have industry and academic partners and we honor each university’s distinctive mission.

Speaker: Having a mix of local and system boards is a best practice. Having experienced all the different mixes, this is the best. It’s sensitive to local needs with statewide goals. Ed: According to the US chamber of commerce, Florida is #1 in access and accountability and #1 in effectiveness.

Andrea Henning: Our Collaborative Labs process is unique. You’ll be in four different team configurations. Speaking of teams, let me introduce our green team. There are two members up here in green. Jonathan Massie is our business illustrator. If pictures speak to you, his work will represent in visual form your ideas today. When he’s inspired, he breaks into interpretive dance. We have Joyce on keyboard. We will produce a Real-time Record that will available to you tomorrow on the file-sharing section of the website. Joyce will be capturing all your work today. You’ll be working in teams. You are in charge. You’ll need a keyboard-savvy person. You will also need a spokesperson - someone who can share deliverables and outputs with the rest of the group. Music means movement. Please take breaks as you need them. You’ll have a formal break for lunch. You’ll be visiting the Collaborative Labs today. Let me introduce your second activity.



You will be in one of the ten teams. We’ll be building what success looks like in 2017. We’ll be using magazine cover software to build your vision. You’ll also have three sub-headlines that relate to governance, accountability and tuition. If you can include success metrics, that would be great. When you arrive in your team, you’ll see a blank slate. Begin on the left by brainstorming ideas about how Florida University System can become the nation’s model in 2017.

You’ll have three sub-headline areas to add ideas in the three areas: governance, accountability, and tuition. You can add clip art as well. We have found that when you begin with the end in mind, you have better outcomes. If you don’t have a team assignment, take a look around and if you find an empty chair with your name on it, take a seat. You’ll have 25 minutes to envision the future and create this success model. I’ll be giving you time prompts throughout. When you hear music, you’ll return here to the Board Room.



Activity 2: “2017 Florida University System Success – the Nation’s Model” Instructions: Join your assigned team (on the opposite side of this page).

Appoint a “keyboarder” who will capture the team’s ideas using our magazine software on the lap top computer.

Imagine that it’s 2017, and Florida University System has achieved unprecedented Success as the “Nation’s Model” in operating, regulating, controlling and being fully responsible for the management of the whole university system (refer to the 2012 – 2025 Board of Governors’ Strategic Plan as a reference).

Your task as a team is to take 25-minutes to prepare a 2017 magazine cover & headline news success story,

using the electronic magazine cover as your presentation material. Consider any of the following focus areas in your stories:

Everyone on the team should participate in the preparation of the magazine cover & headline news success story. Be

sure to add a headline, sub-headlines, images and quotes to your cover story. Select two or more team members who will present the magazine cover & headline news’ story to the full group.

After 25 minutes, we’ll call time and ask each team to make a 2-minute presentation of their 2017 Headline Success Story to the full group in the Boardroom.

1. Governance

2. Accountability

3. Tuition

4. “System Wide”



Activity 2: “2017 Florida University System Success – the Nation’s Model”: Teams 1 – 5

Team 1: Forest

Dick Beard Board of Governors Susan Pareigis Florida Council of 100 Dana Coleman Florida Research Consortium Sam Ferguson Higher Education Coordinating Council Ken Jessell Florida International University Sherry Plymale Florida Atlantic University Susan Fiorito Florida State University Pam Northrup University of West Florida

Team 2: Forest

Randy Goin, Jr. Board of Governors Steven Birnholz Florida Council of 100 Sharon Watson Florida Research Consortium Randy Hanna Higher Education Coordinating Council Mark Rosenberg Florida International University Felice Schulaner New College Reuben Stokes Florida State University Blair Sapp New College

Team 3: Forest

Tim Jones Board of Governors Jack Sullivan Florida Research Consortium Kim McDougal Executive Office of the Governor Susanne Homant Florida Chamber Foundation Don O’Shea New College Ida Cook University of Central Florida Harrison Dubosar Florida State University Harrison Sherwin New College

Team 4: Forest

Frank Brogan Board of Governors David Norton University of Florida Chris Hart Workforce Florida, Inc. Joe Pickens Higher Education Coordinating Council Stephen Miles New College Cheri Brodeur University of Florida Heidi Harley New College Cynthia Florentino University of Central Florida

Team 5: Forest

Jane Adams Florida Chamber Foundation David Day University of Florida Mary Lazor Workforce Florida, Inc. Jennifer Goen Florida Gulf Coast University Bernard Machen University of Florida John Ramil University of South Florida Manoj Chopra University of Central Florida Andrew Green University of Central Florida Richard Cole The Able Trust



Activity 2: “2017 Florida University System Success – the Nation’s Model”: Teams 6 – 10

Team 6: Forest

Angel Kwolek-Folland University of Florida Tola Thompson Florida A&M University Theresa Antworth Office of Student Financial Assistance Imeh Ebong University of North Florida Pam Tedesco Florida Chamber Foundation T.J. Villamil University of Florida Arlen Chase University of Central Florida Rhea Law University of South Florida

Team 7: Water

Larry Robinson Florida A&M University Jon Moyle Higher Education Coordinating Council Les Croland Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP Bill Law Florida Chamber Foundation Marcus Motes University of Florida Frank Bova University of Florida Charles Horner, RET University of West Florida Ralph Wilcox University of South Florida

Team 8: Water

Diane McCain Higher Education Coordinating Council Ed Schons University of Central Florida Ryan West Florida Chamber of Commerce Brian Goff University of South Florida Gregory Teague University of South Florida Ron Nyhan Florida Atlantic University Janice Gilley University of West Florida Mary Jane Saunders Florida Atlantic University

Team 9: Water

Jackson Streeter Banyan Biomarkers Lisa Roy State Farm Lindsay Lewis University of South Florida Paul Sanberg University of South Florida Susan Dyess Florida Atlantic University Judith Bense University of West Florida Brenda Claiborne Florida Atlantic University Ed Moore Higher Education Coordinating Council

Team 10: Water

Percy Luney Space Florida Cora Merritt University of West Florida Philip Levy University of South Florida Elizabeth Jakubowski Florida State University Bob Stilley Florida Atlantic University Ronald Toll Florida Gulf Coast University Marshall M. Criser III Higher Education Coordinating Council M.J. Soileau University of Central Florida Anthony Barbar Florida Atlantic University



Activity 2: “2017 Florida University System Success – the Nation’s Model”

Milo: Welcome back, everybody. You’ve seen the process by which these cover stories have been produced. Each team has had a chance to choose a magazine or to make up their own. Andrea: Let’s start with our magazine reports – your vision of the future. Milo: We’ll ask each team to send two presenters to the front to walk the group through their magazine cover. Team 1:

Sherry Plymale and Curtis Austin: I’d like to thank our FSU student, Alex, for keyboarding. We picked the Wall Street Journal because a few years ago, they had a headline of, “Is Florida Over?” We had a Board of Governors that is coordinated. Also, lump sum the funding into the process. Getting beyond the tuition debate. Having a year-round school. We talked about cross-institution programs. A system presence rather than just an institution presence. How do we pool our resources and take a look at how we’re doing business?



Team 2:

Reuben Stokes and Blair Sapp: We chose the Wall Street Journal for driving the economic side of it. Florida university system derives diversification, expansion and transformation of Florida’s globally competitive economy. Governance has reached a consensus over shared goals. Global metrics have exceeded stakeholders’ expectations. Variable tuition and mission-based funding promotes excellence and access. Milo: Around accountability, you mentioned metrics – any particular metrics? Blair: Not particularly, just to make sure that when you set goals, they are accomplished.



Team 3:

Harrison Dubosar and Harrison Sherwin: We focused on accountability. Florida system delivers top talent globally. We were talking a lot about having important start-ups that evolve in Florida. We really wanted to include start-ups in the headline. Global perspective rather than just in Florida. Helping our graduates succeed after they go out and bring it back to Florida. Meeting general needs as well as issues evolving around the disabled. Florida graduates lead the nation in receiving employment signing bonuses. Milo: What kind of start-ups? Harrison: Businesses and start-ups see what graduates are coming from the Florida university system.



Team 4:

Cynthia Florentino and Frank Brogan: Thank you Cynthia for being our keyboarder. We stayed with Time because it’s a national publication. It’s prominent. “Higher Education, Florida gets it right.” We stole from the US Chamber of Commerce: “New epicenter of the knowledge-based economy.” Florida: Magnet for talent – best students, faculty, industry flock to Florida. This is not about any one constituency. Collaboration: How Florida transformed its governance. In Florida, it was collaboration – every governance structure, if it isn’t based on collaboration, it doesn’t work. The price is right – tuition affordability – predictability and value of degree. How does that degree translate? Cynthia: Stability is the most important. I think I speak on behalf of all the students on that aspect. Milo: There’s a great perspective for now, near future and long-term. Frank: Predictability in other funding revenues besides tuition. The State has to jive with tuition predictions.



Team 5:

Andrew Green and John Ramil: We asked ourselves what the model is for the nation: effective, efficient and innovative. Graduates should add value to the State by drawing in new resources. We should continue to offer affordable education while achieving national prominence. We must continue to draw top-notch research and teaching faculty. Milo: What were you thinking in terms of national prominence? Andrew: As the only student in the group, I felt it was important to remain affordable.



Team 6:

Billy Walsh and (?): We changed it to Forbes. We thought big on a global scale, Florida’s prominence on an international level. We wanted to make sure we could back up what we could say through quotes from prominent people. Florida has the highest value education. Quotes from Bono and Tebow. Florida research is in the top five states for high tech development. Florida leads nation in ROI. Tuition recognized as best value. Growth from 220% to over 400% in ROI on education. Milo: And, Bill is using an iPad to illustrate that technology.



Team 7:

Marcus Motes and Elizabeth Caruth: We went crazy with the clip art (laughter). We spent 45 minutes solving all the problems in the State. Florida’s universities drive the State’s economic success. Legislature, governor, businesses and higher education are finally on a single page. Florida attracts the best and brightest students and faculty. At the end of the day, that’s what we want to measure for accountability. Florida’s tuition rated best bang for the buck. It needs to be a good value. Milo: How did your team discuss that value? Marcus: At length. Is that job placement, retaining graduates in the state, getting more students in early, getting high-paying jobs?



Team 8:

Ron Nyhan and Ed Shons: We didn’t really follow instructions. Florida Universities recognized as Leading Nation in Basic and Applied Research and Scholarship. If we really do our job, we’ll be a success for this country. Our fundamental responsibilities are research and scholarship. Governance: Link systems for higher education. College and university systems. It must be coordinated. Accountability: We’re looking for higher education innovation – Florida results in annual wages in top 10 of nation innovation. It’s a way to measure value. Florida tuition recognized as the best value in the nation. Cheap is not good. We have to recognize that the value is what we’re striving for, not just dollar amounts. Almost all of us have chosen a magazine with a business orientation. Milo: Coordinated and differentiated system and a coordinated system? Ron: We didn’t want to suggest that every university has to look the same or not include all the needs. It needs to differentiate itself based on local needs. We have to be concerned about our local populations.



Team 9:

Ed Moore: We went with the business model, too. We grabbed onto ecosystem. We also looked at the governance on a broader issue. We looked at the economic impact of higher education. Increased business/higher education partnerships. CEO’s across Florida clamoring to be on these boards. To be fully engaged in the role of higher education in Florida. New companies. New patents. New business start-ups in Florida. Incubators. Linking with the universities. I’m from the private college sector. Flexible tuition modeling, access for all students. Students are paying the same for institutions with higher demand as they are for institutions with lower demand – we should allow more flexibility to the universities. Milo: What would make higher education service more attractive to CEO’s? Ed: We hope the issues of governance would be gone. We hope business leaders would know the value of serving. Speaker: In our graphic, we were hoping to have more diversity in gender and various disabilities.



Team 10:

Marshall Criser: We spent no time picking up a title or artwork. It’s hard to get the media to say something nice. There are multiple stakeholders in this process. We need to collaborate and coordinate with them. Students, business, economic and research development. Citizens bring that together. Focus on achievement – focus on output. What would that translate into? Florida tops nation in baccalaureates per capita. Matching students’ expectations to job opportunities. We do have a research and development economic engine in our state. We need to build on the collaborations that naturally occur today in spite of the fact that we don’t have a systemic incentive for that.



Milo: We’ve had ten different news stories. There are a lot more connections and possibilities here.

Dale: In this process, one phase builds on the next. We want to build on our time. Marshall gave us an idea of stakeholders. There is increasing pressure on the higher education system to be the economic driver. Some ideas that came out were knowledge creation, knowledge transfer and economic development. We were light on the idea of “teaching.” Tech transfer and commercialization was mentioned. In the role of economic driver – innovation, economic driver and workforce development. With these three roles, let’s talk about value. Value was the main theme across the 10 teams. If we just pick four stakeholders, for example, let's ask:

What is their view of value? Here are the four stakeholders: (1) Taxpayers/Citizens/Elected officials, (2) the institutions (and internal team members), (3) students and (4) the business community. How about taxpayers/citizens/elected officials? Reuben Stokes: I’m working toward an education. Where value comes in is what is my return on investment? What does a degree from Florida State do for me? Dale: So, the question is: Does your degree make you a higher wage earner? Speaker: For the taxpayer – I think about all my friends who have recently graduated and have moved to Atlanta and other states. As a member of the legislature, it’s making sure that there is a return on the dollar in Florida. Those dollars do end up in the state. Dale: Keep that money in the system, OK. Speaker: Value can be intrinsic and explicit. Education expands the capabilities and knowledge that can help our community thrive and become better citizens. Dale: So a better societal return. Speaker: Inclusivity, so we understand other cultures. Dale: How about institutions? Speaker: Values of the credentials of the faculty. How that positions the students in their attempt to get jobs. Speaker: This is a competitive marketplace. If our system doesn’t have a high value, people make different choices. It’s a continually increasing competitive field.

Dale: So we need to be able to compete internationally.



Speaker: From a taxpayer perspective – we haven’t measured what the value is for that degree. As we develop and define those, we can help the taxpayers and elected officials understand the outcomes better. We have to get beyond the buzz words. Better define higher education to the taxpayer. It might mean not having to pay more taxes individually because the state can rely on those with a higher education to bring value to the state in other ways. Dale: There is frustration to try to do that. The ball moves. The expectations are difficult to define. Speaker: How do we show the stakeholders our value? We go to all 67 counties and ask our citizens to define the value – what is it that you need from our university? A lot of universities do that. Then we do our accountability based on how well those needs are being met. Dale: How much of this a communication issue? Aren’t we doing this much of this already – maybe we need to get that word out? To each other. To the other stakeholders.

Speaker: Efficient, effective and affordable. We haven’t decided where we want to be as a state. We can feel good in our silos. But, if the state is falling behind because we haven’t defined where we need to be, then I would submit that the value disappears. We need to decide where we need to be as a whole. The whole is not greater than the sum of its parts and I think that’s the thing.

Susan Dyess: Respectfully being responsive to the community, but I see the university being the knowledge creator. The contributions of knowledge creation. The thought leader approach. Depends on the university academic environment. Speaker: I think we have the ability to pull together these thoughts, but I don’t think we have the strength to talk against the prevailing eliticism. I think we need to talk about it to all the people, not just a narrow group of stakeholders.

Speaker: Cost and quality are the value. Cost to the students and taxpayers. Then we need to come up with the metrics to measure quality. It may be a job to a student; it may be how many we get through to the legislature. I think it’s the interplay of those.

Speaker: I think we’re looking at the present and the future, too. We don’t know the value of what we haven’t invented yet. We have the knowledge to bring together. We can’t predict what jobs are changing,



going away or coming. The research that is going on now is not predictable. We have to look at what we have now as well as what’s coming up in the future. Dale: The more you can decrease uncertainty, the better off you are. We try to measure things to make them more certain and predictable. Are we measuring the right things the right way? Take faculty evaluation, for example. Is it more valuable to have a student look back five years later and evaluate how well a faculty member prepared him/her for the future? Is that where the ROI is evident for the student? Speaker: When we talk about investment – we want both short-term and long-term. In research, we have to invest not knowing what the future will be. We have to simultaneously think about the enduring value of arts. Dale: There’s uncertainty everywhere! Before we move on, I want to personally thank the Collaborative Labs of St. Petersburg College who pitched in – this was pro bono – and thank USF-St. Petersburg and the Collaborative Labs for feeding us today. Andrea: We will have 45 minutes for lunch. We’ll reconvene at 12:15. Enjoy the lunch. Boards from Values discussion:

2017 Success Models

Measure for Investment: - Define clearly - Whole greater than sum of its parts - Cost to students, to taxpayers - How do we measure quality of product

Knowledge Creation: - Visionary/thought leader, academic

environment Knowledge Transfer:

- Teaching, tech transfer Economic Driver:

- Innovation - Workforce - Competitive marketplace - Compete internationally

Value: Intrinsic/explicit Taxpayers:

- Job opp’s - $ end up in Florida - Helping community thrive

Citizens: - Becoming better society – inclusive, educated

Institutions: - Faculty degrees, credentialing help students –

add value



2017 Success Models

Research: Basic, applied Teaching Tech transfer Faculty (reputation, achievements) become value for the institution University is a knowledge creator Need boldness in the right places! Value:

- ROI = job prospects, in Florida and nationwide - Graduates stay in Florida (students) - Dollars return to Florida (businesses) - Value is intrinsic and explicit - Societal return (better citizens) - Economic return - Need to define the measures of value - Make the whole > sum of parts

Need to determine value/cost for each group: students, faculty, business

The group broke for lunch.



Milo: Welcome back, everybody. Here’s a milestone marker as to where we started out this morning and where we are now. We started with some boards this morning highlighting the State’s strengths in the areas of governance, accountability and tuition. Then we had a number of nuggets of how to define those. As Dale said this morning, we’re gathering your input and your definitions. In this afternoon’s activity, you’ll have an opportunity to get a lot more granular around those definitions.

Andrea: How many of you have put a puzzle together? What is the most important tool? The picture! What you did this morning was to put the picture together. Jonathan is putting the golden nuggets of your ten success stories together. Now, we’re going to put the puzzle pieces together for the remainder of the afternoon. You’re third and final mission is on your table. We’re looking for your recommendations for getting us to your vision of 2013 and beyond. There will be three rounds: governance, accountability and tuition. You will have three different teams. We will again ask you to elect a keyboarding expert. You’ll begin by working in our groupware. Under governance, you’ll brainstorm strategic recommendations. You’ll not only see your own input, put you’ll see all the other teams’ ideas as well. After about 20 minutes, you’ll have, let’s say, 50 recommendations. We’ll prompt you to pick one. You can pick any recommendation, not just your team’s. You’ll drag your #1 recommendation into the “Best Bucket.” Then, we’ll ask you to go to the Best Bucket and type in your team number next to the one you selected. Next to your chosen recommendation, we’ll ask you to add your justifications and impacts. This is where the metrics come in. Then, we’ll gather in the Tropics. We’ll hear your recommendations for each round and then you’ll take a polling device to vote on the top three.



Nothing gets lost. We’ll have all the brainstorming recommendations in the Real-Time Record. We’ll use the same process for Accountability and Tuition. After the Tuition round, we’ll reconvene here in the Board Room for final closing remarks. We’ll see you over in the Labs.



Activity 3: “Elevating our Top 3-Year Recommendations for the Task Force”

Instructions:

Join your assigned team (see the opposite side of this page).

Appoint a “keyboarder” who will capture the team’s ideas using our collaborative groupware on the lap top

computer. Your task as a team is to brainstorm 3-Year Recommendations that will support the “2017 Florida University

System Success as the Nation’s Model” in each of the following Strategic Focus Areas (as they appear on the

electronic whiteboard):

Round 1 1. Governance

Round 2 2. Accountability

Round 3 3. Tuition

We will prompt your team to reach consensus and “drag and drop” your #1 Three Year Recommendation into the “Best” Folder. Note: You may choose another team’s recommendation if your team thinks it is best (and gets to it first!).

After your team has dragged and dropped your #1 Recommendation, click on the “Best Bucket” and add your team

number next to the recommendation you chose. Next, add justifications/ impacts in the column next to your team’s

#1 Recommendation.

After 30-minutes, and between each round, we will reconvene as a full group in the Tropics Lab, where we will hear from each team’s spokesperson regarding their #1 Recommendation. We may take a poll to further prioritize the Top Recommendations for each of the Three Strategic Areas.

There will be three different team mixes…one for each round, to ensure good energy and idea flow.

After Round 3, we will reconvene as a full group in the Boardroom for final highlights and next steps.



Round 1: Activity 3: “Elevating our Top 3-Year Recommendations for the Task Force”: Teams 1 - 5

Team 1: Forest

Percy Luney Space Florida Jackson Streeter Banyan Biomarkers Diane McCain Higher Education Coordinating Council Larry Robinson Florida A&M University Angel Kwolek-Folland University of Florida John Ramil University of South Florida Heidi Harley New College Harrison Sherwin New College

Team 2: Forest

Lisa Roy State Farm Ed Schons University of Central Florida Jon Moyle Higher Education Coordinating Council Tola Thompson Florida A&M University Bernard Machen University of Florida Cheri Brodeur University of Florida Harrison Dubosar Florida State University Blair Sapp New College Richard Cole The Able Trust

Team 3: Forest

Ryan West Florida Chamber of Commerce Les Croland Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP Theresa Antworth Office of Student Financial Assistance Jennifer Goen Florida Gulf Coast University Stephen Miles New College Ida Cook University of Central Florida Reuben Stokes Florida State University Pam Northrup University of West Florida

Team 4: Forest

Bill Law Florida Chamber Foundation Imeh Ebong University of North Florida Mary Lazor Workforce Florida, Inc. Joe Pickens Higher Education Coordinating Council Don O'Shea New College Felice Schulaner New College Susan Fiorito Florida State University Cora Merritt University of West Florida

Team 5: Forest

Pam Tedesco Florida Chamber Foundation David Day University of Florida Chris Hart Workforce Florida, Inc. Susanne Homant Florida Chamber Foundation Mark Rosenberg Florida International University Sherry Plymale Florida Atlantic University Philip Levy University of South Florida Lindsay Lewis University of South Florida



Round 1: Activity 3: “Elevating our Top 3-Year Recommendations for the Task Force”: Teams 6 - 10 Team 6: Forest

Jane Adams Florida Chamber Foundation David Norton University of Florida Kim McDougal Executive Office of the Governor Randy Hanna Higher Education Coordinating Council Ken Jessell Florida International University Elizabeth Jakubowski Florida State University Paul Sanberg University of South Florida Brian Goff University of South Florida

Team 7: Water

Frank Brogan Board of Governors Jack Sullivan Florida Research Consortium Sharon Watson Florida Research Consortium Sam Ferguson Higher Education Coordinating Council Bob Stilley Florida Atlantic University Susan Dyess Florida Atlantic University Gregory Teague University of South Florida Marcus Motes University of Florida

Team 8: Water

Tim Jones Board of Governors Steven Birnholz Florida Council of 100 Dana Coleman Florida Research Consortium Ronald Toll Florida Gulf Coast University Judith Bense University of West Florida Ron Nyhan Florida Atlantic University Frank Bova University of Florida T.J. Villamil University of Florida

Team 9: Water

Randy Goin, Jr. Board of Governors Susan Pareigis Florida Council of 100 Marshall M. Criser III Higher Education Coordinating Council Brenda Claiborne Florida Atlantic University Janice Gilley University of West Florida Charles Horner, RET University of West Florida Arlen Chase University of Central Florida Andrew Green University of Central Florida Anthony Barbara Florida Atlantic University

Team 10: Water

Dick Beard Board of Governors M.J. Soileau University of Central Florida Ed Moore Higher Education Coordinating Council Mary Jane Saunders Florida Atlantic University Ralph Wilcox University of South Florida Rhea Law University of South Florida Manoj Chopra University of Central Florida Cynthia Florentino University of Central Florida




Tim Jones Board of Governors Imeh Ebong University of North Florida Theresa Antworth Office of Student Financial Assistance Randy Hanna Higher Education Coordinating Council Don O'Shea New College Sherry Plymale Florida Atlantic University Reuben Stokes Florida State University Cora Merritt University of West Florida Anthony Barbar Florida Atlantic University

Team 2: Forest

Randy Goin, Jr. Board of Governors David Day University of Florida Jon Moyle Higher Education Coordinating Council Sam Ferguson Higher Education Coordinating Council Stephen Miles New College Elizabeth Jakubowski Florida State University Harrison Dubosar Florida State University Lindsay Lewis University of South Florida

Team 3: Forest

Dick Beard Board of Governors David Norton University of Florida Diane McCain Higher Education Coordinating Council Ronald Toll Florida Gulf Coast University Bernard Machen University of Florida Susan Dyess Florida Atlantic University Heidi Harley New College Brian Goff University of South Florida

Team 4: Forest

Percy Luney Space Florida Jack Sullivan Florida Research Consortium Ed Moore Higher Education Coordinating Council Brenda Claiborne Florida Atlantic University Angel Kwolek-Folland University of Florida Ron Nyhan Florida Atlantic University Manoj Chopra University of Central Florida Marcus Motes University of Florida

Team 5: Forest

Lisa Roy State Farm Steven Birnholz Florida Council of 100 Marshall M. Criser III Higher Education Coordinating Council Mary Jane Saunders Florida Atlantic University Ralph Wilcox University of South Florida Charles Horner, RET University of West Florida Arlen Chase University of Central Florida T.J. Villamil University of Florida




Ryan West Florida Chamber of Commerce Susan Pareigis Florida Council of 100 Dana Coleman Florida Research Consortium Larry Robinson Florida A&M University Janice Gilley University of West Florida Rhea Law University of South Florida Frank Bova University of Florida Andrew Green University of Central Florida

Team 7: Water

Bill Law Florida Chamber Foundation M.J. Soileau University of Central Florida Sharon Watson Florida Research Consortium Tola Thompson Florida A&M University Judith Bense University of West Florida John Ramil University of South Florida Gregory Teague University of South Florida Cynthia Florentino University of Central Florida

Team 8: Water

Pam Tedesco Florida Chamber Foundation Jackson Streeter Banyan Biomarkers Kim McDougal Executive Office of the Governor Jennifer Goen Florida Gulf Coast University Bob Stilley Florida Atlantic University Cheri Brodeur University of Florida Paul Sanberg University of South Florida Harrison Sherwin New College Richard Cole The Able Trust

Team 9: Water

Jane Adams Florida Chamber Foundation Ed Schons University of Central Florida Chris Hart Workforce Florida, Inc. Joe Pickens Higher Education Coordinating Council Ken Jessell Florida International University Ida Cook University of Central Florida Philip Levy University of South Florida Blair Sapp New College

Team 10: Water

Frank Brogan Board of Governors Les Croland Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP Mary Lazor Workforce Florida, Inc. Susanne Homant Florida Chamber Foundation Mark Rosenberg Florida International University Felice Schulaner New College Susan Fiorito Florida State University Pam Northrup University of West Florida




Team 1: Forest

Jane Adams Florida Chamber Foundation Jackson Streeter Banyan Biomarkers Jon Moyle Higher Education Coordinating Council Brenda Claiborne Florida Atlantic University Bob Stilley Florida Atlantic University Susan Dyess Florida Atlantic University Gregory Teague University of South Florida T.J. Villamil University of Florida

Team 2: Forest

Frank Brogan Board of Governors M.J. Soileau University of Central Florida Theresa Antworth Office of Student Financial Assistance Ronald Toll Florida Gulf Coast University Judith Bense University of West Florida Ron Nyhan Florida Atlantic University Paul Sanberg University of South Florida Andrew Green University of Central Florida

Team 3: Forest

Tim Jones Board of Governors Susan Pareigis Florida Council of 100 Mary Lazor Workforce Florida, Inc. Sam Ferguson Higher Education Coordinating Council Janice Gilley University of West Florida Charles Horner, RET University of West Florida Philip Levy University of South Florida Cynthia Florentino University of Central Florida

Team 4: Forest

Randy Goin, Jr. Board of Governors Steven Birnholz Florida Council of 100 Chris Hart Workforce Florida, Inc. Randy Hanna Higher Education Coordinating Council Ralph Wilcox University of South Florida Rhea Law University of South Florida Susan Fiorito Florida State University Harrison Sherwin New College

Team 5: Forest

Dick Beard Board of Governors Jack Sullivan Florida Research Consortium Kim McDougal Executive Office of the Governor Susanne Homant Florida Chamber Foundation Angel Kwolek-Folland University of Florida John Ramil University of South Florida Reuben Stokes Florida State University Blair Sapp New College




Team 6: Forest

Percy Luney Space Florida David Norton University of Florida Sharon Watson Florida Research Consortium Joe Pickens Higher Education Coordinating Council Bernard Machen University of Florida Cheri Brodeur University of Florida Harrison Dubosar Florida State University Pam Northrup University of West Florida

Team 7: Water

Lisa Roy State Farm David Day University of Florida Dana Coleman Florida Research Consortium Jennifer Goen Florida Gulf Coast University Stephen Miles New College Ida Cook University of Central Florida Heidi Harley New College Cora Merritt University of West Florida

Team 8: Water

Ryan West Florida Chamber of Commerce Imeh Ebong University of North Florida Marshall M. Criser III Higher Education Coordinating Council Tola Thompson Florida A&M University Don O'Shea New College Felice Schulaner New College Manoj Chopra University of Central Florida Lindsay Lewis University of South Florida

Team 9: Water

Bill Law Florida Chamber Foundation Les Croland Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP Ed Moore Higher Education Coordinating Council Larry Robinson Florida A&M University Mark Rosenberg Florida International University Sherry Plymale Florida Atlantic University Arlen Chase University of Central Florida Brian Goff University of South Florida Anthony Barbar Florida Atlantic University

Team 10: Water

Pam Tedesco Florida Chamber Foundation Ed Schons University of Central Florida Diane McCain Higher Education Coordinating Council Mary Jane Saunders Florida Atlantic University Ken Jessell Florida International University Elizabeth Jakubowski Florida State University Frank Bova University of Florida Marcus Motes University of Florida Richard Cole The Able Trust



“Elevating our Top 3-Year Recommendations for the Task Force”

Round 1: Governance Brainstorm Governance 3-Year Strategic Recommendations

1. Hello 2. Legislative and BOG cooperative predictability of funding. 3. Better Coordination Amongst All Types of Schools in Higher Ed 4. Governance: Increase coordination between SUS and BOG 5. Local board of trustees and BOG need to formalize their relationships 6. Coordinated system: all of higher education or just the SUSFL? 7. If you get public dollars, you are subject to same level of governance and oversight 8. Public body is responsible for management of public funds... 9. Statewide strategic plan for higher education as a whole.... stick to that plan 10. Define the roles of BOTs and BOGs (better define their missions and assign outcome standards and

clear roles) 11. Legislature needs to consider the needs of institutions in the process of establishing regulations 12. Performance contracts that hold institutions accountable to achievement standards 13. Consistency (with regards to the manner in which public institutions are managed and funded) 14. consensus and collaboration among all stakeholders 15. Focus on educating citizens of value of higher education 16. Student representation on the BOG that is elected by students 17. Increase communication between all stakeholders 18. Lump sum funding for BOG and then devolve to BOTs 19. using highly efficient tools that allow routine matters effectively 20. Improve communication between all stakeholders 21. clarify and establish the roles of state legislature on regards to higher ed. 22. Agreement between Legislature, BOG and BOTs on roles. Consistency of strategic plans. 23. Governing structure has to be representative of the agreed upon needs of Florida. 24. Better Integrate State Colleges with Other Programs and Schools 25. Implement Communication Plan between all stakeholders 26. Role of BOG and Chancellor in advocacy with the Legislature 27. Providing incentives based on performance 28. Collaboratively place appropriate authority between the BOG and Boards of Trustees. 29. Greater collaboration between the Higher Education institutions 30. creating an environment of constructive criticism among all stakeholders 31. Taking politics out of governance 32. Move to Capital to Orlando!!! 33. Move to Capital to Gainesville 34. Create a value based culture of understanding. 35. more predictable funding 36. Align resources for the long term and creating strategic accountability plan that produces appropriate

outcomes. 37. Higher education governance requires explicit goal-oriented collaboration amongst all the delivery

systems. 38. Higher education governance requires explicit goal-oriented collaboration amongst all the delivery

systems. 39. alignment of goals, values and plans between the governing bodies 40. Clarify authority and respective roles of the BoG/BoTs/Legislative and Executive Branch. 41. Clarify authority and respective roles of the BoG/BoTs/Legislative and Executive Branch.



42. alignment of goals, values and plans between the governing bodies Best Governance Team 1: Require Coordination Amongst All FL Educational Systems 1. Every System Pulls from the Same K-12 System 2. Improved Communications=Improved Results 3. Better Coordination=Better Efficiency 4. Improved Cost/Benefit Analysis, Much More Cost Effective 5. Builds on and Sustains Individual Institutional Strengths and Diversity 6. Promotes Efficient Use of Tech 7. Prepare All K-12 Students Early On of Educational and Workforce Options 8. Promote a Coordinated Approach to Globalization of the Curriculum 9. Use Standard National Metrics for Easy Comparison 10. Better Interaction with Legislature in Regards to Funding in FL 11. Promote Lifelong Learning and Career Decisions 12. Stronger Case that FL is a place to build corporations. Team #2: board of governors with linear communication throughout the university system. 1. The board of governors are able to make better decisions when

problem solving. 2. To enhance coordination among institutions to better meet state

needs. Team 3 Collaborative/coordinated system among all stakeholders that requires interaction and involvement by all 1. Satisfy funding needs to achieve agreed upon goals Team 4: Clarify authority and respective roles of the BoG/BoTs/Legislative and Executive Branch through alignment of goals, values, and plans of the governing bodies 1. Maximizing productivity and efficiency of each participant. 2. Reduces redundancy. 3. transparent lines of communication. 4. interfaces well with accountability 5. encourages collaboration Team 5: Develop a collaborative strategic plan for higher education that is implemented through goal-oriented collaboration amongst all the higher ed delivery systems and stakeholders. 1. Consensus over shared goals is critical. 2. Without an agreed upon plan any port in the storm. 3. Collaboration ensures best utilization of resources.



Team 6: Designating specific roles of players in higher education structure (BOG, BOT, SUS, FCS, and Private) 1. Justification: Knowing who is responsible provides clearer lines of

accountability within Higher Education and allows for greater Collaboration, Coordination, and Communication.

2. Impact: A Super-Board (representatives from the various existing Higher Education Boards and Stakeholders) that provides Collaboration, Coordination, and Communication between all the stakeholders (including PK-12) for Higher Education.

Team 7: Higher education governance requires explicit goal-oriented collaboration between the BoG/BoT/Leg/Ex Branch/Board of Ed. 1. Culture follows form. 2. Clarity of Governance provides for clarity of plan and execution. 3. Longer term improvement requires synchronization of systems. 4. Efficiency Team 8: Create long-term stable State-wide plan for Higher Education including SUS, SCS, and Private education providers 1. Provides clarity for long term efficiencies 2. Avoids Unnecessary Duplication of Programs 3. Focuses vision 4. Stabilizes Predictability of Planning Team 9: Flexibility with accountability and meaningful metrics (state legislature sets constants; BOG , BOE, and BOT's set variables). Issuance of performance contracts to ensure that measurable results are achieved. 1. To ensure that goals do not change without warning; meaningful goals

should not change 2. There are universal goals and measurements that should be applied 3. Shifting of funding from inputs to outputs 4. Rewarding students who meet requirements/excel Team 10: Stability in strategic planning, lump sum funding to BOG and devolve to BOTs, and clear delineation of roles and responsibilities of Legislature, BOG and BOTs. 1. Shared collaborative consensus building and long term planning is

essential and will lead to buy-in by all stakeholders and acceptance by policy makers. This relies on predictable investment or appropriate modifications to the plan.

2. Lump sum funding is the only mechanism by which the BOG and BOTs will have the authority and ability to implement the strategic plan.

3. We recognize that we are still in a transitional phase of stabilizing the relationship between the Governor, Legislature, BOG and the local BOTs.

Andrea: We’re going to ask each team’s spokesperson to introduce yourself and to share your team’s justifications and impacts.



Report Outs: Team 1: Harrison Sherwin: We talked about better coordination of all Florida education systems from kindergarten on. Helping students stay informed and help the infrastructure to stay more informed. Being able to have the programs overlap so moving between schools is smoother. You have better, efficient use of the infrastructure. Requesting money from the legislature is more effective if it affects the entire system.

John Moyle: What if the coordination was “required” rather than “better”? This change was made to item #1.

Team 2: Blair Sapp: Board of Governors with linear communication throughout the university system. We have to clearly define which roles go with which entity. The BOG is not stomping on other people’s terrain.

Team 3: Les Croland: We spent a lot of time – we had agreement on the intent. All of the stakeholders should be required to interact and agree: the taxpayers, institutions, governor, legislature, businesses and venture capitalists. If we agreed, there would be better funding for the institutions. To attract and retain the best and the brightest. Working it out among the stakeholders seems to be a common theme.

Speaker: Would this be mandatory? Les: Yes. Satisfy the funding needs based on the agreement of the stakeholders. Speaker: You didn’t mention students as one of the stakeholders. Where did that come in? Les: I think we broke that down in the institutions.

Team 4: Don O’Shea: Legislative and executive branch have alignment of goals, values and plans of governing bodies. We thought about them doing their roles relatively quickly. We talked about efficiency and productivity. Allow them to contribute in ways that they can best contribute. We’re hoping for transparent lines of communication and there needs to be trust. That would interface well with accountability. We wanted to encourage collaboration.

Speaker: Were you focused only on the SUS system? Don: We asked ourselves that question and we didn’t quite settle it. Higher education or SUS system? We are worried that, by using the broader term, it would dilute focus.



Team 5: Pam Tedesco: Are we making recommendations for the entire education system? The SUS? We talked about requiring collaboration for a defined set of outcomes. A strategic plan across the higher education system. The justification for that is having shared goals. If we don’t know where we’re going, anywhere is good. Collaboration would give us the best results.

Team 6: Kim McDougall: I’m going to let Frank own this recommendation. It doesn’t really say what we meant. What is governance? Designate specific roles. Justification – knowing who’s responsible. We were thinking a little bit broader. What five responsibilities could you give a super board? Who are you going to coordinate with and what’s going to happen with that coordination?

Team 7: Marcus Motes: This looks similar to what everybody else said. We stole it from somebody else. Explicit goal-oriented collaboration between BoG, BoT, legislature and executive branch. Everybody has their own little kingdom and they are scared that they’re going to lose out. There are a lot of unknowns at the top with the legislature. They are just trying to survive. Synchronization of systems. Make Florida a better place together.

Speaker: Would you object to adding DOE? That has the colleges. Team 7 agreed to add the Department of Education. Speaker: Efficiency was one of the justifications. It really needs to be there. Marcus: Bob gave an example of Scripps working together with South Florida. That is a good example of collaboration. We should be doing more of that. Speaker: I think you mean the Board of Education. It’s the bond for pre-K, community colleges and universities.

Team 8: TJ Villamil: Statewide plan for higher education including all parties involved. Provides clarity, avoids unnecessary duplication, focuses on the vision and stabilizes predictability. Speaker: Stability at what level – with the pressures on the legislature,

things have changed. We wanted to make sure that we weren’t necessarily focused on being stable with the current level.

Team 9: Janice Gilley: Flexibility with accountability with having measurable goals. Having results rewarded or penalized. Performance contracts and how to measure them comes down a little bit farther. Shifting of funding from inputs to outputs. Rewarding students who meet requirements, who excel. The state legislature sets the constants. We don’t want to be comfortable with where we are now. But with graduation or employment rates, there have

to be universal truths. The BoG and BoT set the variabilities for the universities.



Team 10: Manoj Chopra: Stability and strategic planning. Lump sum funding. Clear delineation of roles. Long-term planning is essential. Have predictable investment or a change in the plan. Lump sum funding – in order for us to have the authority to implement the plan, we need the lump sum funding. We are still in a transitional phase of stabilizing the relationship between the governor, legislature and others.

Andrea: We like to merge like items. Which items actually fit together? Milo: We can go through these items to see if there is overlap. Milo read each item. Speaker: The thrust of what we’re after is clear to me. It can be worked on and cleaned up for presentation to the task force. Milo: This is input that is all being saved. The Task Force will see everything. Andrea: Let’s vote on all ten of these items.



Milo: There is more energy around a collaborative strategic plan. A close second is around item 6 which is about stability in strategic planning, lump sum funding to BoG, BoT and clear delineation of roles and responsibilities.

Round 2: Accountability Brainstorm Accountability 3-Year Recommendations 1. Establish clear performance expectations and create a system of rewards, positive or negative, to

accompany accountability 2. Tying metrics in with marketplace conditions 3. Ensure that metrics fit the programs, not only the institutions 4. Reverse accountability; public universities utilizing the resources that is has, as opposed to the creation

of additional public universities 5. Create metrics and appropriate dashboards at each level that instill confidence 6. Recognize increased significant performance expectations are impossible without an increase funding 7. Accountability should implemented throughout the process, and be used to guide and amend the

process. 8. Annual performance metrics should be aligned with long term goals and be adjusted based on

stakeholder interests. 9. 10. Streamline the data-reporting process; outline the goals of said data and follow up with outcomes. 11. Strategic plan should define outcomes 12. Balance between short-term and long-term accountability measures 13. Focus on key metrics instead of many different metrics. 14. Metrics should capture reality and not distort it. They should allow for differences in inputs. 15. Accountability process needs to be accountable. 16. You should be rewarded for meeting or exceeding goals 17. Outcome accountability system has to be sensitive to local boundary conditions. 18. Go Gators! 19. Division and role clarification amongst stakeholders in Higher Education. 20. Choose useful metrics for performing in areas of education, research, and service. 21. Seek complex ways to measure long-term value that include the intangibles.

Best Accountability: Team 1: Create/establish metric measures recognizing each institution's specific mission. Footnote: team 2 collaboratively borrowed our first idea. 1. Institutions need to serve their students, their region, and the greater

good. 2. Local unique characteristics define and shape institutions' values. 3. Local metrics are more likely to be based on reality.



Team 2: Accountability measures should clearly align with the institution's mission. Institutional missions should align with broader statewide missions. 1. Institutions already address measurable elements of accreditation criteria

which reflect the institution's mission 2. Diversity within the system without contradiction between those diverse

missions and the broader statewide mission for higher education

Team 3: Clarify among stakeholders the goals for Higher Education. 1. Allows all stakeholders to be on a single page regarding the future of Higher Education. 2. Allows for the establishment of long-term, constant, and consistent metrics.

Team #4: Establishing metrics that are obtainable and appropriate for each institution or program; focus should be on outcomes as measurement of success or failure. 1. Justification: enhances the marketability and value of degree, and the

collegiate experience. 2. Create a better allocation of resources at institutional level. 3. Impact: Allows institutional distinctiveness and responsiveness to that

institution's stakeholders; flexibility is necessary to be responsible to stakeholders

Team 5: Embrace clarified differential missions, goals, expectations and differential funding both among and within Florida's institutions of Higher Education 1. Have accountability measures and standards clearly align with mission,

goals and expectations 2. Optimize Return on Investment 3. Recognize Florida's institutions are fully vested in a culture of

accountability 4. Clarify difference between Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Creation institutions 5. Enhance Florida's competitive position by institutional type

Team 6: Becoming mission oriented. Focus on performance and achieving measurable results. Create a mechanism for determining metrics based on data that is streamlined. Look to long-term trends and not unpredictable fluctuations. Be responsive to stake-holders. Create incentives and disincentives to drive success. 1. A mission focus curbs unnecessary duplication, and takes advantage of the experience of individual

institutions. 2. Provides clarity on expectations which enhances resource utilization. 3. Ensures predictability and validity of accountability while optimizing resources. Team 7: Define agreed upon factors for specific categories (specific enough to aggregate, broad enough to meet the needs of the mission of individual universities) 1. Streamline data-reporting 2. Hold the accountability process accountable 3. Seek complex ways to measure long-term value that includes the

intangibles 4. Evaluate accountability in terms of institutional strategic work plans to

ensure sensitivity to local boundary conditions



Team 8: Accountability system should ultimately provide information for parents and students for a better informed decision i.e. world and news report

1. Tax payer, parent, and student return on investment

2. Efficient way to provide transparent information to all stakeholders 3. Promotes the value of the degree 4. Allows apples to apples comparison for lack of better word Team 9: Develop unified comparable measures between Florida higher education institutions to maximize the already existing assessment data to capture strengths and weaknesses 1. Builds on a large body of existing assessment materials and regimes, for

example SACS accreditation, internal program review, internal curriculum review, and faculty performance reviews, etc.

Team 10: Accountability should be aligned with agreed upon nationally normed plan metrics and linked to performance funding. 1. Nationally normed metrics will attract and retain best and brightest

students and faculty. 2. Will attract, retain and enhance business environment 3. Will result in greater return on investment Report Outs: Milo: Once again, we’ll ask a spokesperson to give us a laser report of your team’s recommendation.

Team 1: Cora Merritt: We wanted to really look at each institution with its own population. Also, look at the local metrics to be sure they are based on reality.

Team 2: Steve Miles: Ours is very similar to Team 1. Accountability measures should clearly align with the institution’s mission and institutional missions should align with broader statewide missions. Diversity within the system without contradiction between those diverse missions and the broader statewide mission for higher education.

Team 3: Dick Beard: We spent the first 15 minutes working on a different one than what you’re seeing. Clarify among the stakeholders regarding the future of higher education. Allows for the establishment for long-term, constant and consistent metrics.

Team 4: Marcus Motes: I think we discussed the individual programs within the institutions more than others. We need to measure the individual programs based on their missions – whether they should exist or not.



Team 5: TJ Villamil: Embrace clarified differential missions, goals, expectations and differential funding both among and within Florida's institutions of Higher Education. Have accountability measures and standards clearly align with mission, goals and expectations. Optimize Return on Investment. Recognize Florida's institutions are fully vested in a culture of accountability. Clarify difference between Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Creation institutions. Enhance Florida's competitive position by institutional type. We feel

this model would have the institutions compete more which would be more efficient. Clarify knowledge transfer and knowledge creation – the difference between schools that focus on knowledge transfer and knowledge creation – research versus teaching. Ralph: There are different expectations. Research universities aren’t going to pick up the lion’s share of baccalaureate degrees. TJ: We didn’t see it as limiting at all.

Team 6: Rhea Law: We ought to be able to streamline the strategic plan. Look at long-term trends and not peaks and valleys. Let’s keep the big focus in mind. Being responsible to stakeholders. Create incentives and disincentives.

Team 7: Bill Walsh: Make sure that there is not just tons of data without getting somewhere. Streamlining data gathering. Holding the accountability process accountable. Having the State come and look at the data and saying what to do with it. Make sure that the local boundary conditions are taken into account. Setting up ways, proxy measures, to measure long-term kinds of outcomes.

Team 8: Kim McDougall: The number one goal should inform the customers. At the end of the day, it has to be usable for the ones who will make the decisions for their future. ROI to parents and students. If the parents and students could understand it, then the legislature should understand it. It’s important to promote the value of the degree. Allows apples to apples comparisons between institutions.

Team 9: Phil Levy: We all focused on the fact that all our universities are lean, mean assessment machines. We need a system to allow all this data to cross universities. We have this data. We really don’t need to reinvent the wheel; we now need to let it speak more broadly.

Team 10: Speaker: We agreed that accountability should be aligned with agreed upon nationally normed plan metrics and linked to performance funding. We could attract, retain and enhance the business environment and that would result on a greater return on investment for the state.



Milo: We feel great about everything we have just seen and heard. There is remarkable collaboration among all of these team reports. We’re going to depart from the plan. In this case, there is so much collaboration and interlock, if we were to try to vote, it would be like trying to overlay one part of the mosaic over another. We are going to recommend elevating all of these recommendations to the committee without voting. The group agreed to elevate all ten to the Committee. Andrea: Are we ready to hear about Jonathan’s work?

Jonathan: I feature the State of Florida prominently in this. Jutting out from the US. I was thinking that the US without Florida is Australia. The State has a lot of value. I put this highway at the bottom – the highway to Florida. All of these initiatives are so valuable. We are attracting faculty, students, and business leaders. They are seeking economic success, research, education. There was discussion around value. What’s valuable? Is it valuable if we can’t

afford it? Food for thought. The gentleman with the torch represents leading the transformation. The economic success of Florida. The epicenter of Florida. Florida delivering talent to the State and locally. At the top, we have to have global perspective. Also, leadership and long-term planning. The three buckets of governance, accountability and tuition support this.



Andrea: We’re in our final round. We’ll give you 20 minutes to brainstorm tuition. Round 3: Tuition Brainstorm Tuition 3-Year Recommendations 1. Go Gators! 2. Go Owls! 3. Go Ephmen! 4. Parents and students should see (and receive) excellent value for the tuition paid. 5. TEBOW 4 GOVERNORRRRRR 6. Tuition is an impediment to graduation 7. Reductions in state support often require tuition increases which then reduce access. 8. Tuition should not be an obstacle to education. 9. Product driven costs; differential costs per programs; sticker vs net price. 10. Consistency and communication on the contribution expectations from students 11. It is not a tax. It is an investment. 12. Reputation of the product/education is important; costs might reflect quality of programs. 13. Marcus Motes is going to graduate debt free from UF with a Master's and Bachelor's. Combination of

Bright Futures, Pre-paid, working, and scholarships. 14. Reform current financial aid programs (Bright Futures, etc.) for balanced support shared by consumers

and state. 15. Reality is budget cuts don't equate to the tuition increases. Could state higher education thrive on

higher tuition paid by consumers not the state? 16. Is there a state policy for what portion of the cost is paid for by the consumer/student? Are reasonable

loan amounts upon graduation reasonable? 17. Classroom instruction is changing due to enrollment growth; and students get the instruction they pay

for. Best Tuition: Team 1: Bang for the Buck - adjusting tuition/state funding ratio as an incentive for market driven degrees or workforce development priority and subsequent marketing campaign to increase communication and knowledge of value of degree 1. Educates consumers 2. Provides Incentives for students to elect majors where the jobs are 3. High Return on Investment due to knowledge of market in Florida -

keeping students in state when they graduate 4. More informed set of policymakers/consumers/stakeholders 5. Provides industry education relationship

Team 2: It's not about tuition; it's about predictable funding levels. What is the product and how much are we willing to pay? 1. Justifications: Students seldom pay the sticker price.



Team 3: Create predictable tuition while maintaining value in Florida. Establish an interdependent relationship between need and merit-based financial aid. 1. "Quid pro quo" approach to education between the University and

the student. 2. Increase eligibility qualifications for merit-based awards. Team 4: We need to determine appropriate levels of funding for students and universities to accomplish higher education goals. Conversation about tuition must be linked directly with the differentiated cost of a world class education for all stakeholders (talented faculty and students). Financial aid/assistance is imperative to attract and graduate the best students. 1. Justification/Impact: to ensure a predictable and equitable funding base to meet student and state

objectives. To demonstrate return on investment (degree valuation), as well as to ensure affordable student access and success.

Team 5: Allow for market rate tuition determined at the point closest to delivery, while insuring adequate need based financial aid and predictability during the students 4 year tenure. 1. Accounts for need based students. 2. Adds predictability for families. 3. Consistent with conservative business practices. 4. Allows for differentiation of institutional mission and pricing. 5. Encourages competition in the public sector. Team 6: None Team 7: State recommits to prioritize higher education funding so that tuition does not become the primary means of revenue. 1. Reform current financial aid programs (Bright Futures, etc.) for

balanced support shared by consumers and state. 2. State addresses access problem 3. Ties to value-added and accountability strategically closer to point of delivery Team 8: Institutions should have the authority to set their own tuition, and that tuition should be fixed for four years by entering class. 1. Allows appropriate planning for schools and students. 2. Schools can charge tuition that align with value delivered. 3. Creates incentive for students to graduate in four years. 4. This would allow institutions to better compete nationally and internationally. Team 9: Appropriate and predictable funding for Higher Education following agreement between the Legislature and the BoG. 1. Allows for proper planning by Florida families and institutions. 2. Increases morale amongst stakeholders in FL Higher Education. 3. Funding flexibility to meet strategic needs.



Team 10: A formula for funding needs to be created. Tuition is a part of that formula, but too narrow of a focus. 1. Students want a 4-year outlook on tuition. 2. Stakeholders need to keep a global perspective on the cost of

attending school. 3. Mindful of mission to serve citizens of Florida. 4. Faster, Better, Cheaper. Pick 2. Report Outs:

Team 1: TJ Villamil: We had a pretty good debate and discussion on adjusting the tuition and state funding ratio as an incentive for market driven degrees or workforce development priority. Also a Marketing campaign to increase communication and knowledge of value of degree. Our justifications and impacts were: Educates consumers. Provides Incentives for students to elect majors where the jobs are. High Return on Investment due to knowledge of market in

Florida - keeping students in state when they graduate. More informed set of policymakers/consumers/stakeholders. Provides industry education relationship. Team 2: Theresa Antworth: It’s about predictable funding levels. Sticker price versus net price. It’s about the net in terms of what they are willing to pay for. They are willing to pay for a product – is that a quality education? If they get more funding for a quality education, they will pay for it. Team 3: Speaker: We kept it short and sweet. Create predictable tuition while maintaining value. The students have to make a commitment to develop themselves academically. Increase eligibility. Distinguish between merit- and needs-based incentives. Team 4: Ralph Wilcox: It would be irresponsible to decouple tuition from state funding. We ought to benchmark the overall level of investment across like universities across the country and around the world. Then we can begin talking about shared investment. There may be other appropriate sources of funding. Tuition must be linked to differentiating cost. We consolidated justification and impact. What we’re seeking is a predictable and equitable funding base.

Team 5: Les Croland: We thought we should allow the university to determine market rate tuition. Insuring adequate needs-based financial aid. Team 6: None

Team 7: Speaker: Have the State recommit to prioritize higher education funding. Tuition should be tied to the value-add of the institution. Have a provision for needs-based and access. Ties to value-added and accountability strategically closer to the point of delivery. We talked about fees and how they are used differently at our respective universities.



Team 8: Imeh Ebong: We felt that tuition should be fixed for four years. This would allow for appropriate planning for schools and students. It would create incentives for students to graduate in four years. This would allow institutions to compete nationally and internationally.

Team 9: Speaker: Appropriate and predictable funding for higher education following agreement between the legislature and the BoG. This is not about tuition. This is about having quality education for our students. This would allow for proper planning for Florida families and universities. The biggest challenge we have is planning for the coming year. If we need to charge differently for individual programs, we should be able to do that. Funding needs to be appropriate and equitable. Team 10: Speaker: I think we’re reiterating what Teams 4 and 9 said. This isn’t about just tuition. We’re really part of a national and global dialog. We need to be cognizant of what’s going on across states and around the world. We need to be mindful of our mission to serve the citizens of Florida. As the last person to speak, I really want to comment on the students who are here. They are articulate and they participated. It was such a delight to talk to them. They have such a love for their schools and this state. It speaks well to our future.

Milo: If there is one thing we learned, it’s that tuition is not a simple equation. Fixing tuition will not allow all the pieces to fall in line. It’s a complex issue. We heard about merit- versus needs-based. We heard about adjusting the ratio to drive more marketable degrees. National and global benchmarks. What’s the differentiating cost? You will see some of this in the work product.

Andrea: Kudos on the body of work you created today. It will look something like this. The group was shown a sample Real-Time Record. You will see all of the brainstorming as well as the elevated top 10. It will all be in there. It’s been an honor to serve you.

Dale: Let’s give the Collaborative Labs team a hand! Given the volume of this, it would have taken dozens of meetings and months and months to do this. I want to thank you for the effort you’ve put into this. You were here because you are passionate about your schools and the State. This material will be on our web site. You have my email address. Send me email as you continue to noodle on this. I know I’ll start thinking as soon as I get in my car. When that happens to you, wait until you get home, or when something hits you next week, email me.

Speaker: A lot of the teams talked about different funding, but nobody said where they want that funding to come from. I don’t have the answer. Dale: Indeed, we’re competing with other programs, such as Medicaid, K-12, etc.; where will the money come from? Because the Legislature has the sole responsibility of appropriating funds working with the Governor, they must ultimately make those decisions. Our job is to put forward the best possible business case we can to inform those deliberations. We have to stay involved. Thank you for the time and energy that you put in for your state.

Blue ribbonworkshopjuly26realtimerecord

Education

Transcript of Blue ribbonworkshopjuly26realtimerecord