Florida's University Performance Funding Set for Changes
The new model would allow any state universities that improve their performances on a series of measures to receive full shares of the state performance funds.
October 17, 2018 at 11:32 AM
4 minute read
Florida university leaders want to revise the system's performance-funding model, looking to eliminate a dreaded “bottom three” that annually denies state money to the lowest-performing schools.
In this academic year, Florida A&M University, the University of North Florida and New College of Florida missed out on shares of $265 million in state performance funding because they were ranked in the bottom three on a 100-point scale.
The three schools lost out despite the fact that two of them, Florida A&M and the University of North Florida, improved their performances on an evaluation in June, while New College maintained its performance level from the prior year.
But that penalty would be eliminated under a plan discussed Tuesday by the Budget and Finance Committee of the university system's Board of Governors during a meeting in Tampa.
The plan is a response to a new state law directing the university system to develop a “performance-based continuous improvement model focused on outcomes that provides for the equitable distribution of performance funds.”
Basically, the new model would allow any state universities that improve their performances on a series of measures, including graduation rates, salaries of recent graduates, retention of students and student costs, to receive full shares of the state performance funds.
If any school's performance declined on the 100-point scale over two consecutive years, it would have to develop a “student success plan” to improve performance. The plan would be presented to the Board of Governors, and if approved, the school would receive 50 percent of its state performance funding.
A second evaluation would occur in March and, if approved by the Board of Governors, the second 50 percent of the funding would be released.
Beginning in the 2021-2022 academic year, all the schools would have to score at least a 70 on the performance scale to qualify for the state performance funds.
If a school fell below that level, it would only receive 50 percent of its allocation, divided into two 25 percent amounts subject to a performance-improvement plan and approval by the Board of Governors.
In the last evaluation, the 11 participating schools averaged 81 points on the performance scale, with only UNF falling slightly below the proposed 70 percent measure. Florida Polytechnic University, the state's newest school, does not yet participate in the program.
Syd Kitson, chairman of the Board of Governors budget panel, said the new performance model retains a focus on student success as well as recognizing “continuous” improvement by the schools.
“We're trying to be fair to the universities because this is a fairly significant change, but one that we think addresses the concerns that the Legislature had,” Kitson said.
He said, at the same time, it is designed to keep “everybody on their toes and there is a consequence to not performing.”
Kitson also noted the performance-funding system, which has been in use since 2014-2015, has resulted in significant improvements at the universities, including more than a 5 percent increase in four-year graduation rates and a 9.9 percent decrease in the number of undergraduates taking “excess” classes to earn degrees.
“There's real data that shows that it is working. It's really contributing to student success. And I think that's exciting for all of us,” Kitson said.
Another aspect of the new performance model is that it would eliminate the use of a tiebreaking mechanism if more than three schools tied for the “top three” level, which guarantees 100 percent of schools' shares of the state performance funds.
That formula proved costly this year to the University of South Florida and the University of West Florida, which both statistically ranked among the top three scores, but were eliminated based on the tiebreaker.
The full Board of Governors is expected to review the new performance-funding proposal at a meeting in November.
Lloyd Dunkelberger reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAbout to Become a Partner? Here's What to Know About Your Newfound Wealth
10 minute readHolland & Knight Hires Chief Business Development and Marketing Officer From EY
2 minute readMcDermott Welcomes Back Litigation Partner Following Stint With Miami-Dade County
3 minute readFlorida Bar Rolls Out Free Trust Accounting Software for All Its Members
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250