Blue ribbonworkshopjuly26realtimerecord

presents

Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force
On State Higher Education Reform
Collaborative Workshop

July 26, 2012

Real-Time Record

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

*The Collaborative Labs is a venture by St Petersburg College

Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force July 26, 2012

Welcome and Opening Remarks

www.collaborativelabs.com (727) 341-3139 2 CollaborativeLabs@spcollege.edu


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: Wall #2: Wall #3: Wall #4:

Governance Accountability Tuition “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:

1. Governance
2. Accountability
3. Tuition
4. “System Wide”

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.



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
Team 2: Forest
Lisa Roy State Farm
Team 3: Forest
Team 4: Forest
Don O'Shea New College
Team 5: Forest



Team 6: Forest
Team 7: Water
Team 8: Water
Team 9: Water
Anthony Barbara Florida Atlantic University
Team 10: Water



Team 1: Forest
Team 2: Forest
Team 3: Forest
Team 4: Forest
Team 5: Forest
Lisa Roy State Farm



Team 6: Forest
Team 7: Water
Team 8: Water
Team 9: Water
Team 10: Water



Team 1: Forest
Team 2: Forest
Team 3: Forest
Team 4: Forest
Team 5: Forest



Team 6: Forest
Team 7: Water
Lisa Roy State Farm
Team 8: Water
Team 9: Water
Team 10: Water



“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.


Blue ribbonworkshopjuly26realtimerecord

Blue ribbonworkshopjuly26realtimerecord

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Blue ribbonworkshopjuly26realtimerecord

Ähnlich wie Blue ribbonworkshopjuly26realtimerecord (18)

Mehr von Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform

Mehr von Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Blue ribbonworkshopjuly26realtimerecord