BOARD OF GOVERNORS STRATEGIC PLANNING/EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE Strategic Planning ... · 2013-11-08 · BOARD OF GOVERNORS STRATEGIC PLANNING/EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE Strategic

BOARD OF GOVERNORS STRATEGIC PLANNING/EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

Strategic Planning for the State University System Y-Axis

Goals and Objectives 2002-03 (or as

indicated) 2008-09 2012-13

I. State University System Goals A. Access to and Production of Degrees 59249 74,470 86732

1. Bachelor 39,989 50,305 58,622 2. Master's 12,179 15,316 17,845 3. Doctoral* 1,315 1,428 1,508 4. Professional 1,380 1,864 2,278

TOTAL 54,863 68,927 80,253 5. Access/Diversity: Minority Representation in SUS Graduates as Percentage of Expected Representation 74% 89% 100%

B. Meeting statewide professional and workforce needs (details to support I.A.) TOTAL Degrees 54,863 68,927 80,253 TOTAL Degrees in Targeted Programs 22,320 31,986 40,054 Targeted Program Degrees as % of All Degrees 41% 46% 50%

1. Critical Needs: Education 1,281 2. Critical Needs: Health Professions 3,227 3. Economic Development: Emerging Technologies 10,480

a. Mechanical Science and Manufacturing 2,564 b. Natural Science and Technology 2,538 c. Medical Science and Health Care 734 d. Computer Science and Information Technology 4,086 e. Design and Construction 503 f. Electronic Media and Simulation 55

4. Economic Development: High-wage/high-demand jobs 7,332 5. Educated citizenry/workforce (not specifically targeted) 32,543

Estimated Instructional Expenditures (constant dollars)** $ 1,711,684,671 $ 2,150,470,979 $ 2,503,833,730 Estimated New Construction Capital Outlay Expenditures (constant

dollars)*** $ 312,221,054 $ 364,072,642

*The number of doctoral degrees needed will be evaluated at the program level in consultation with universities. Florida currently produces 96% of the national average in doctoral degrees per capita, but many of these are not in fields that lead primarily to research or teaching.

**Includes tuition, lottery and general revenue funds for instruction. Assumes no increase in instructional expenditures per student. Florida ranked 42nd in 2002 in funding per FTE in public higher education (see www.higheredinfo.org).

***Estimated annual costs for new space construction. Does not include renovations, operations and maintenance, or infrastructure

Page 1 Y-axis draft March




indicated) 2008-09 2012-13

C. Building world-class academic research capacity Invitation /

1. Association of American Universities (AAU) membership (see Application Started I.A.3, I.C.2, I.C.3, and I.C.5) 1 for Second 2

2. Research expenditures - Contracts and Grants (Constant dollars) $1,158,481,034 1,637,111,912 $ 2,061,601,218 2002-2003 survey is pending. Six out of 36 out of 146

3. National Research Council rankings (number of ranked programs 62 in top 25% in Progress Indicated in programs ranked in in top 25% nationally) 1992-93 Related Measures top 25% nationally 4. Centers of Excellence

a. Biomedical and Marine Biotechnology (FAU) X (2003-04) b. Photonics (UCF) X (2003-04) c. Regenerataive Health Biotechnology (UF) X (2003-04) d.- New Centers of Excellence...

5. Other forms of national recognition TOTAL= 6 NAS=4 (UF-3, FSU1) NAE=2 (UF-1, FAU-

a. Faculty Admitted to the National Academies in the last five 1) years IOM=0 8 11

TOTAL=29 (FSU-7, FAU-1, FIU1, UCF-3, UF-14,

b. Highly Cited Scholars USF-3) 41 52 TOTAL=1 NOB=0

c. Nobel Prizes, Pulitzer Prizes and MacArthur Fellowships PUL=0 awarded to faculty in last five years MAC=1 (FIU) 1 2





indicated) 2008-09 2012-13

II. Constituent University Goals A. Access to and Production of Degrees

1. Bachelors 2. Masters 3. Doctoral 4. Professional

TOTAL 5. Access/Diversity

B. Meeting statewide professional and workforce needs (details to support II.A.) 1. Critical Needs: Education 2. Critical Needs: Health Professions 3. Economic Development: Emerging Technologies

a. Mechanical Science and Manufacturing b. Natural Science and Technology c. Medical Science and Health Care d. Computer Science and Information Technology e. Design and Construction f. Electronic Media and Simulation

4. Economic Development: High-wage/high-demand jobs 5. Educated Citizenry/Workforce

TOTAL for II-B (should tie to total in II.A.1-4) C. Building world-class academic research capacity

1. Association of American Universities (AAU) membership 2. Research expenditures 3. National Research Council rankings 4. Centers of Excellence (specify) 5. Other forms of national recognition

D. Meeting community needs and fulfilling unique institutional responsibilities


Accountability System

Goal Student Achievement Access Articulation Employment and

Earnings Efficiency

Indicator Evidence of Student Achievement Evidence of Access Evidence of

Progression/Readiness

Evidence of Employment and

Earnings

Evidence of Return on Investment

State Board of Education-Approved

Related University Sector

Measures

Related University Sector Measure: Number and percent of FTIC students who make learning gains as measured by an external assessment aligned with a previous assessment, or an exit test (yet to be determined).

Related University Sector Measure: Number and percent of students from underserved populations who enroll in and who complete a baccalaureate degree program.

Related University Sector Measure: Graduation rates for all entering students based on a 2-year and 4-year expectation; include provision for students who transfer in and out and for students who persist.

Related University Sector Measure: Number and percent of former students whose earnings are within ranges established as appropriate for baccalaureate degree; categories and ranges identified by decisions of Workforce Estimating Conference.

Related University Sector Measure: Show university return on investment as a ratio of the educational outcome represented by earning a degree divided by the money used to achieve the learning outcome.

Goal Student Achievement Access Articulation Employment and Earnings Efficiency

Indicator Evidence of Student Achievement Evidence of Access

Evidence of Progression/

Readiness


Earnings


Board of Governors-Approved Measures

Per the goals and negotiated targets of FBOG Strategic Plan, increase access to and production of bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral, and professional degrees. Proportion of test takers who pass required licensure/ certification exams

Per the goals and negotiated targets of FBOG Strategic Plan, number and percent of students from underserved populations who enroll in and complete a baccalaureate degree program.

4 and 6-year cohort-based graduation rates for FTICs, and 2 and 4-year cohort-based graduation rates for AA transfers (or to be determined).

Per the goals and negotiated targets of the FBOG Strategic Plan, meet statewide professional and workforce needs in education, the health professions, economic development, emerging technologies, high-wage/high-demand

Per the goals and negotiated targets of the FBOG Strategic Plan, building world-class, academic research capacity and nationally recognized programs as demonstrated by Association of American Universities membership, research, National Research Council rankings,

Accountability System

Goal Student Achievement Access Articulation Employment and

Earnings Efficiency

Indicator Evidence of Student Achievement Evidence of Access Evidence of

Progression/Readiness


Earnings


within a timeframe appropriate to the discipline.

jobs, and an educated citizenry.

Centers of Excellence, or other forms of national recognition. Research expenditures from external sources per state-funded ranked faculty member.

Possible Additional

Recommendation for the Florida

Board of Governors

“Academic Learning Compacts”

SSTTAATTEE UUNNIIVVEERRSSIITTYY SSYYSSTTEEMM OOFF FFLLOORRIIDDAA SSTTRRAATTEEGGIICC PPLLAANN MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY

YY--AAXXIISS GGOOAALLSS AANNDD IINNDDIICCAATTOORRSS

Board of Governors Strategic Planning Committee

John Dasburg, Chair

DRAFT FOR CIRCULATION

MARCH 2004

II.. SSttaattee UUnniivveerrssiittyy SSyysstteemm GGooaallss

I.A. Access to and Production of Degrees

I.A.1. Bachelor Degrees

In December 2002, the Commissioner’s Higher Education Funding Advisory Council recommended that Florida seek to reach the national average in number of bachelor degree graduates per capita. The recommendation reflected concern that Florida’s low ranking (45th among the states) in per-capita bachelor graduates reflected inadequate access to four-year education. While not everyone should be expected to complete a bachelor degree, the Council believed the national average would be a reasonable, though challenging target to set for long-term planning. For further background on the Council’s recommendations, see http://www.fldoe.org/HigherEdFundAdvCounc/default.asp/.

I.A.1-4. Bachelor, Master’s, Doctoral, and Professional Degrees

The targets in I.A.1-4 extend this reasoning to graduate degrees as well. The 2012-13 goals are all based on projections of the national average degrees per capita. Key data, assumptions and calculations used to arrive at the targets include:

Projected U.S. Population age 18-44 in 2013: 109,708,000. U.S. Census Middle Series Projections. See http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natproj.html/

Projected U.S. Degrees Awarded in 2012-2013:

Bachelor: 1,509,000 Master’s: 556,000 First Professional: 95,900 Doctoral: 47,300

National Center for Education Statistics, Projections of Education Statistics to 2013, Middle Series Projection. See: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/

Given these projections, degrees per 100,000 population nationally in 2012-13 would be:

Bachelor: 1,375 Master’s: 507 First Professional: 87 Doctoral: 43

Projected Florida population age 18-44 in 2013: 6,307,817. Office of Economic and Demographic Research, Florida Total Population by Age, Race, and Gender: April 1 1970-2025. See http://www.state.fl.us/edr/population.htm/

http://www.fldoe.org/HigherEdFundAdvCounc/default.asp/

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natproj.html/

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/

http://www.state.fl.us/edr/population/web8.xls

http://www.state.fl.us/edr/population/web8.xls

http://www.state.fl.us/edr/population.htm/

At the national average rate per capita, Florida’s share in 2012-13 would therefore be:

Bachelor: 86,732 Master’s: 31,981 First Professional: 5,488 Doctoral: 2,712

This analysis assumes that the State University System’s share of degrees awarded would remain constant.

State University System degrees granted:

97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 Bachelor 34,075 34,529 35,437 35,724 38,078 39,989 Master’s 9,830 10,008 10,036 10,766 11,623 12,179 First Professional 1,128 1,141 1,237 1,245 1,335 1,380 Doctorate 1,121 1,064 1,115 1,221 1,270 1,315 Grand Total 46,154 46,742 47,825 48,956 52,306 54,863

Although the baseline for planning is 2002-2003, the most recent year for which data are available on degrees awarded by private institutions is 2001-2002:

Private Institution Degrees Granted in Florida, 2001-2002

Bachelor Master’sFirst Professional Doctoral

Private Non-Profit 16,403 8,003 1,747 839 Private For Profit 1,937 1,212 135 176 Total 18,340 9,215 1,882 1,015

Source: IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Set) Peer Analysis System. See http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/

Applying the system’s share of all degrees granted (public + private) in 2001-02 to the 2012-2013 combined target yields:

Bachelor: 67.6% x 86,732 = 58,622 Master’s: 55.8% x 31,981 = 17,845 First Professional: 41.5% x 5,488 = 2,278 Doctoral: 55.6% x 2,712 = 1,508

Reaching these targets would require the following annual growth rates in degrees granted from 2002-2003:

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/

Bachelor 4.34% Master's 4.34% Doctoral 1.53% Professional 5.73% All Degrees 4.32%

Cost Estimates

More detailed estimates of costs will be needed in the final strategic plan but cannot be made until universities have submitted their own projections. The numbers and methodologies for the current system-level estimates are for discussion purposes only.

Estimated Instructional Costs

The total full instructional costs from the 2002-2003 SUS Expenditure Analysis was divided by the total number of degrees produced in 2002-2003 to generate an estimated cost per degree. This cost per degree can be used as a benchmark of total full instructional costs that may be incurred to achieve the targeted degree production in the out years. It is not adjusted for inflation, so as expenses rise, cost-per-degree will also rise.

Costs may also change as a result of quality improvement initiatives, changing emphasis in degree programs or changing ratios of upper-division, lower-division, and graduate instruction.

Estimated Capital Outlay Costs

Preliminary projections of enrollment assume that enrollment will grow in proportion to bachelor degrees at the undergraduate level, and to doctoral, professional, and master’s degrees at the graduate level. This would yield 241,948 FTE students by 2012-13 with Net Assignable Space Needs, using the current formulas, of 31,420,335 square feet. This is 12,528,235 more square feet than currently available. Total project costs to complete the additional square feet needed are estimated at $2,823,878,903 using December 2002 construction costs.

This amount has been distributed in proportion to the annual FTE increases projected from 2004-05 to 2012-13.

These figures represent the estimated expenditures needed. Because of the long-term nature of capital projects, however, appropriations for these expenditures might need to occur several years in advance.

In addition to the need for additional assignable square feet, there would also be additional infrastructure, renovation and maintenance needs to accommodate the growth.

I.A.5. Access/Diversity

There are many forms of diversity to which individual institutions and the system need to be attentive. The broad measure on the Y-axis is the ratio of the representation of historically under-represented minorities (Black, Hispanic, and Native American) among SUS graduates (27.3% of graduates, excluding non-resident aliens and ethnicity unknown graduates, in 2002-2003) to their representation in the total18-44 year-old population (36.8% in 2003). In 2002-2003, this ratio was: 27.3 divided by 36.8 = 74.3%. If minority graduates were as well represented as they are in the total population, this figure would be 100%, which is the target for 2012-13.

This broad analysis needs to be broken down at various points in the degree pipeline. The following tables illustrate admissions, enrollment and completion gaps throughout the SUS pipeline. There are differences in how race and ethnicity are categorized in different data sources, but the overall patterns and discrepancies are still evident.

2003 Florida Population Age 18-44 (Census Middle Series)

Asian Non-Hispanic

Black Non-Hispanic

Hispanic (Any Race)

American Indian Non-Hispanic

White Non-Hispanic

2.0% 16.8% 19.7% 0.3% 63.3%

U.S. Census Population Projections. See http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natdet-D1A.html/

Florida Public High School Graduates (Standard Diploma), 2002-2003

Asian/Pacific Islander

Black Non-Hispanic Hispanic

American Indian/Alaska Native

White Non-Hispanic Multiracial

2.7% 19.2% 17.3% 0.3% 59.7% 0.8%

Florida Department of Education Statistical Brief, High School Graduates 2002-2003. See http://www.firn.edu/doe/eias/eiaspubs/pdf/graduates.pdf/

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natdet-D1A.html/

http://www.firn.edu/doe/eias/eiaspubs/pdf/graduates.pdf/

Summer/Fall 2003 SUS Admitted Students by Race/Ethnicity

Asian-Pacific Islander Black Hispanic

Indian-Alaskan Native

Non-Resident Alien White

Unknown Race

First-Time-In-College 4.6% 16.7% 13.2% 0.3% 1.6% 62.7% 0.8% Community College Transfer 3.4% 9.9% 14.3% 0.5% 2.2% 68.8% 1.0% Other Transfer 3.4% 10.6% 11.3% 0.4% 7.6% 65.8% 0.8% First Professional 6.7% 8.9% 9.9% 0.6% 0.9% 71.7% 1.2% Graduate (Incl. Post-Baccalaureate) 2.8% 7.6% 7.2% 0.2% 22.5% 59.0% 0.6% All Admitted 3.9% 12.7% 12.0% 0.4% 6.4% 63.7% 0.8%

Summer/Fall 2003 SUS Applicants by Race/Ethnicity




Unknown Race

First-Time-In-College 4.1% 18.9% 12.9% 0.3% 3.1% 59.6% 0.9% Community College Transfer 3.4% 11.1% 14.3% 0.5% 2.4% 67.3% 1.0% Other Transfer 3.5% 12.8% 11.0% 0.4% 9.7% 61.5% 1.1% First Professional 7.8% 9.3% 11.4% 0.6% 1.2% 67.8% 2.0% Graduate (Incl. Post-Baccalaureate) 2.6% 7.8% 6.9% 0.2% 32.2% 49.6% 0.6% All Applicants 3.7% 13.9% 11.5% 0.3% 10.5% 59.1% 1.0%

Fall 2003 SUS Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity




Unknown Race

Total 4.5% 14.6% 14.9% 0.4% 4.0% 59.9% 1.7% Total Undergraduate 4.6% 15.7% 15.9% 0.4% 1.9% 59.7% 1.6% Total Graduate 4.3% 10.4% 9.9% 0.4% 12.8% 60.3% 1.9% Freshman 4.4% 19.2% 15.5% 0.4% 0.9% 58.1% 1.5% Sophomore 4.9% 15.8% 18.6% 0.4% 2.1% 56.8% 1.5% Junior 4.3% 14.5% 15.2% 0.5% 2.1% 61.7% 1.7% Senior 4.8% 14.1% 14.8% 0.5% 2.5% 61.6% 1.7% Beginning Graduate 4.7% 11.0% 11.0% 0.4% 8.5% 62.5% 2.0% Advanced Graduate 2.8% 8.4% 6.3% 0.3% 27.7% 52.8% 1.6% Unclassified 4.2% 12.2% 16.1% 0.4% 4.3% 60.5% 2.4%

2002-2003 SUS Degrees Granted by Race/Ethnicity




Unknown Race

Bachelor 4.5% 12.8% 14.1% 0.4% 3.1% 63.9% 1.3% Master’s and Equivalent 3.7% 9.4% 11.9% 0.3% 12.8% 60.0% 1.9% First Professional 7.5% 11.6% 8.7% 0.5% 0.7% 70.4% 0.7% Doctorate 2.8% 5.9% 5.4% 0.4% 20.7% 63.4% 1.4% Grand Total 4.3% 11.8% 13.2% 0.4% 5.6% 63.2% 1.4%

Other Access/Diversity Issues

In addition to the broad issues of race and ethnic representation, there may be diversity issues at the program or institution level that differ from the larger patterns statewide. There will also be other diversity problems—in terms of geography, gender, age, disability status, family background, etc.—that institutions should identify and plan to address. Each institution’s plan should enumerate its unique diversity goals and issues as well as its contribution to the objective of reducing the statewide minority educational attainment gap.

I.B. Meeting statewide professional and workforce needs

In addition to serving students, universities also serve the state’s employers by providing an educated workforce. The State University System and individual universities need to plan both for the predictable needs of the state today and for the harder-to-anticipate needs of the future. We know, for example, that we need more teachers and nurses, and we can quantify those demands fairly well. We also know, although it is harder to quantify, that the kinds of businesses we want to bring to or start in Florida will need a range of creative, educated workers who, in addition to the specific training they may have, can also think critically, communicate well, work collaboratively, compute accurately, and solve problems in creative ways. Florida can learn from areas where new industries have thrived, places where education tends to run broad and deep: Boston, Austin, Chicago, Atlanta, North Carolina’s Research Triangle, and California’s Bay Area.

The specific technologies students will work with ten years from now have probably not yet been invented, which is why the targeting process has to be flexible. Some degree programs will be closely linked to occupations: nursing, law, surveying, etc. Others are difficult to tie to particular jobs but rather have a broad range of possibilities, either directly or by way of feeding into graduate programs: mathematics, business, industrial engineering, psychology, etc.

The methodology below is a first attempt to group programs for whose graduates specific employers and the broader business and education communities believe demand will be highest in coming years. It will need to be revisited regularly, as economic conditions change and new technologies develop. It is based on data used for Targeting Baccalaureate Degree Programs for Florida Workforce Enhancements, a report submitted to, and adopted by, the Workforce

Estimating Conference in 2001, which was updated and expanded to include graduate and professional programs.

The 2001 report identified baccalaureate degree programs that could be expected to have high demand for at least one of three reasons. Programs either:

met critical state needs were identified by the Advisory Group on Emerging Technologies as being important to

continued high-tech industry development in the state; and/or had a record of placing graduates in high-wage positions.

The strategic plan’s goal is that half of all degrees be in targeted programs (up from 41% in 2002-2003), which will require that those programs grow at a rate 40% faster than the average annual growth rate for all programs. This rate of growth for targeted programs also allows for growth, although at a slower rate, in other degree programs.

Overall Growth

Targeted Programs Growth

Non-Targeted Programs Growth

Bachelor 4.3% 6.1% 2.4% Master's 4.3% 6.1% 1.5% Doctoral 1.5% 2.1% 0.8% Professional 5.7% 8.0% 0.0% All Degrees 4.3% 6.0% 2.1%

I.B.1-2 Critical Needs in Education and Health Care

As in the 2001 report, the two areas identified as critical state needs are health care and education.

I.B.1. Critical Needs: Education

Each year, the State Board of Education is statutorily required to identify teacher shortage areas. For the 2004-05 school year, the SBE identified the following subject fields as critical shortage areas:

Middle and high school level mathematics; Middle and high school level science; Reading; Exceptional student education programs; English for speakers of other languages (ESOL); Foreign languages; School psychologists; and Technology education/industrial arts.

The number of education graduates does not reflect the system’s only contribution in these areas. Some of these fields (such as exceptional education) do generally require specific education degrees. Others, such as foreign language or mathematics instruction, draw both from education programs and from subject-area majors.

I.B.2. Critical Needs: Health Care

The Florida Hospital Association released a report in December 2003 that indicates that Florida will need 61,000 more nurses in 2020 than are currently being produced, as determined by the National Center for Health Workforce Analysis. In addition to a shortage of nurses, faculty shortages in nursing programs were documented in a report released in May 2003 by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing.

In its July 2000 report, Shortages of Allied Health Professionals, the Florida Hospital Association documents that hospitals are experiencing shortages in other key patient care positions, such as in Pharmacy and Medical technology.

I.B.3. Economic Development: Emerging Technologies

The Advisory Group on Emerging Technologies consisted of individuals from Florida industry and universities who were selected based on their broad knowledge of cutting edge scientific research and technological developments. The Group’s basic methodology in 2001 is used with updated data to identify degree programs that support emerging technologies.

The Advisory Group had merged targeted industry sectors identified in the Workforce Florida, Inc. 2000-2001 Strategic Plan with areas of research identified by the State University System 1998-2003 Strategic Plan as being important to economic development in Florida.

The Workforce Florida/SUS targeted areas were analyzed by the Advisory Group to determine those areas in which Florida had an advantage or critical mass. From this analysis, Areas for Strategic Emphasis were developed.

The Advisory Group then created a list of degree programs that prepared graduates for employment in each area.

Because of the great overlap of degree programs associated with each area, the Advisory Group grouped the programs under broad descriptive headings as follows:

I.B.3.a. Mechanical Science and Technology Programs

I.B.3.b. Natural Science and Technology Programs

I.B.3.c. Medical Science and Technology Programs

I.B.3.d. Computer Science and Information Technology Programs

(n/a) Analytical and Conceptual Programs

This list has been modified slightly to replace Analytical and Conceptual Programs with two related categories:

I.B.3.e. Design and Construction and

I.B.3.f. Electronic Media and Simulation,

The 2001 report included, within existing programs, tracks that could prepare graduates for employment in high-tech fields. For example, the Cognitive and Psycholinguistics track within Psychology could prepare students to work in the strategic area of Simulation Training and Modeling. Other programs, such as Landscape Architecture, do not have specific tracks, but a certain percentage of program graduates could be expected to work in a high-tech area. Since the present Classification of Instructional Programs Code system and the university databases are not configured to track students at either of these levels, the Board of Governors Strategic Plan does not include the tracks and programs identified by either of these approaches.

I.B.4. Economic Development: High-wage/high-demand jobs

In economic terms, employer demand is most directly measured by how many people are hired and how much employers are willing to pay. When the demand for workers exceeds the supply, employers may have to raise wages to attract the workers they want (or reduce their expectations…). Many of the critical need and emerging technology fields also have relatively high wages, but this group also captures some fields not included in those two categories.

The criteria used to determine high-wage programs were similar to those used in the 2001 Targeting Baccalaureate Degree Programs for Florida Workforce Enhancements report: (1) the program had to have at least 25 graduates and 15 in-state job placements and (2) the median salary of bachelor degree graduates had to be at least $32,000. This approach was expanded for graduate and professional degree programs – graduates had to earn an average of $50,000. If a program is listed under either of these categories (critical needs or emerging technologies), it is not listed again under high-wage.

If a program is not listed as high-wage, it may just mean that it was too small to be included even though wages are actually very high. In the future, the Board of Governors or individual

universities may wish to propose groups of related programs that would collectively have enough graduates and placements to be included.

I.C. Building world-class academic research capacity

In addition to producing new graduates, universities also produce new ideas.

Part of what students learn in college comes from becoming familiar with a range of specialized skills, knowledge, and ideas already familiar to those in the field. Some of what they learn, however, is how to expand that body of knowledge, as faculty share their own discoveries or collaborate with students on groundbreaking work. In the research programs of universities, the distinction between teacher and student fades as everyone involved grapples with innovative theories or new information. The ability to produce and test new ideas is also one of the most valuable skills a student can bring to the workplace.

The high-level measures of research activity in universities are very blunt instruments to simplify an enormous range of activity. At any given moment, research in progress on our campuses might include:

Testing potential new treatments for breast cancer Mapping the flow of water (or pollution) in the Floridian aquifer Documenting the history of slavery locally, regionally, and internationally Developing more effective strategies to teach learning-disabled children to read Interviewing recent immigrants to compare their experience with previous generations Identifying characteristics of successful democracies in different cultures Investigating ways to reduce pesticide use in citrus production

I.C.1. Association of American Universities (AAU) Membership

The AAU is an association of 63 institutions in the U.S. and Canada that includes most of the major research universities in the two countries. Florida is the only large state with fewer than three member universities (UF is the only member).

For high-level strategic planning, membership in the AAU is really a proxy for the measures of research quantity and quality that the association uses to evaluate potential members. These include National Research Council rankings, faculty awards, publications, and research expenditures, among others. (See http://www.aau.edu/aau/Policy.pdf for details on AAU membership policy.)

The two most recent institutions to join, SUNY Stony Brook and Texas A&M, are good examples of public institutions with growing research agendas. Significant resources and focus would be required for any one of our institutions to aspire to a similar level of research activity, but that level is not out of reach in a long-term plan. Progress may be made on the AAU membership criteria measures by a number of institutions even if no additional Florida institutions become members.

http://www.aau.edu/aau/Policy.pdf

The strategic plan sets the goal of having one additional public AAU member institution by 2012-13, with significant progress toward that goal, as measured by related indicators, by 2008-09.

I.C.2. Research Expenditures – Contracts and Grants

Externally-funded contracts and grants are an important source of income for university research programs and, indirectly, for economic development. They are also an indirect measure of the quality of a university’s research program. New contracts and grants are more likely to be awarded to universities who have done excellent research in the past. Governmental and private funding entities will not provide funding if they have been unsatisfied in the past with the research work provided by a university or if the university’s research faculty does not have a good reputation.

In the most recent national data available, Florida ranked 45th in total academic R&D expenditures per capita and 44th in federal academic R&D per capita. (See the National Science Foundation data compiled at www.higheredinfo.org.)

Projections of future federal R&D expenditures are not available, so the strategic plan sets the objective of growing externally-funded contract and grant research expenditures at a rate that would bring Florida to the 2001 national average.

The goal was derived using the ratio of the 2001 national average per capita Federal R&D ($66.40) to the 2001 Florida per capita Federal R&D ($28) and multiplying it by the contract and grant expenditures in the 2001 operating budget (less funds for the developmental research schools).

That figure was then increased by 19% to adjust for projected population growth (2013 population: 19,845,212) and by an additional 3.6% to adjust for inflation (CPI-U) from 2001 to 2003, so that the goal could be expressed in 2003 dollars. The result is an estimate of what the SUS would need to achieve to make a proportionate contribution to increasing the state’s federal academic R&D spending to the national average.

In constant dollars, external contracts and grants would need to grow by 5.9% annually to reach the target. If national R&D expenditures per capita increase as well, however, growth will have to be at a faster rate than projected.

I.C.3. National Research Council Rankings

The National Research Council conducts a survey every ten years of doctoral/research programs around the country, asking programs to evaluate the faculty and educational quality of their peers. To be considered for ranking, programs must have a minimum number of doctoral graduates. In the most recent survey, 62 SUS programs were ranked, and six out of those were ranked in the top 25% nationally for faculty quality (All six were at the University of Florida: Anthropology, Chemistry, Electrical Engineering, Material Science, Physics and Psychology. See Appendix P of the report Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and

http://www.higheredinfo.org/

Change at http://books.nap.edu/html/researchdoc/). The survey for 2002-2003 has been delayed and results will not be available for at least two years. The strategic plan sets the goal of having 25% of SUS programs ranked in the top 25% nationally and assumes that the number of research programs (regardless of rank) will grow in proportion to the increase in doctoral degrees granted.

This survey is the most direct indicator of a program’s reputation within a discipline. However, because it is only revised once each decade, intermediate related measures, such as faculty publications and awards, should be used to gauge progress.

I.C.4. Centers of Excellence

Universities with existing centers of excellence should specify their quantifiable goals for those centers over the next ten years. Existing centers include:

I.C.4.a. Biomedical and Marine Technology (FAU)

I.C.4.b. Photonics (UCF)

I.C.4.c. Regenerative and Health Technology (UF)

I.C.4.d. Other Centers

Institutions that plan to apply for establish new centers should indicate that as part of their strategic plan.

I.C.5. Other Forms of National Recognition

In addition to research expenditures, certain types of national recognition would be good indicators that a program, institution, or the system as a whole, is on track to world-class status. These are also some of the indicators that the AAU uses to evaluate potential members. Targets on the Y-Axis assume that these forms of recognition will increase at a rate proportional to increasing research expenditures.

Examples of significant forms of national recognition:

National Academy membership and awards at the level of the Nobel Prize are unusual enough that any “targets” are purely speculative. As SUS institutions and programs raise their levels of research activity and national prominence, however, it would be expected that there would be additional national and international recognition.

Since these awards and National Academy memberships are, by design, exceptional and not to be expected every year, the number awarded in the previous five years is given. To create a better link with recent levels of SUS research and creative activity, only those given to faculty who had been in the SUS for three or more years were included.

I.C.5.a. National Academy Membership

Membership in the national academies (Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Science, and National Academy of Engineering) is granted to only a small percentage of prominent researchers. For membership lists, see http://www.nationalacademies.org/

I.C.5.b. Major Awards

Of all the national and international awards, the Nobel Prize (http://www.nobel.se/), the Pulitzer Prize (http://www.pulitzer.org/), and the MacArthur Fellowships (http://www.macfdn.org/) signal a unique national achievement. They are often, although not always, awarded to university faculty and cover a range of fields of achievement in science, humanities, and social science.

I.C.5.c. Highly Cited Scholars

The Web of Science citation service compiles lists of the most frequently cited scholars in each of 21 fields. Other measures of faculty productivity could be used, but this is a good high-level indicator of the number of influential researchers in the system. See: http://hcr3.isiknowledge.com/home.cgi/

I.C.5.d.- Other Measures

Individual institutions may wish to suggest other types of significant recognition in their plans. In general, specific numerical “targets” would not be expected.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/

http://hcr3.isiknowledge.com/home.cgi/

How familiar are you with the colleges and universities in Florida?

235 25.5 25.5 25.5442 47.9 47.9 73.4131 14.2 14.2 87.6112 12.1 12.1 99.8

2 .2 .2 100.0922 100.0 100.0

Very familiarSomewhat familiarSomewhat unfamiliarVery unfamiliarDo not knowTotal

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

How familiar are you with the University of North Florida?

244 26.5 26.5 26.5407 44.1 44.1 70.6118 12.8 12.8 83.4151 16.4 16.4 99.8

2 .2 .2 100.0922 100.0 100.0

Very familiarSomewhat familiarSomewhat unfamiliarVery unfamiliarDo not knowTotal


CumulativePercent

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion about the University of North Florida?

414 44.9 44.9 44.9298 32.3 32.3 77.2

25 2.7 2.7 79.912 1.3 1.3 81.2

172 18.7 18.7 99.91 .1 .1 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

Very favorableSomewhat favorableSomewhat unfavorableVery unfavorableDo not knowRefusedTotal


CumulativePercent

What is your opinion of the University of North Florida based on?

267 29.0 29.0 29.0

305 33.1 33.1 62.0

116 12.6 12.6 74.6

37 4.0 4.0 78.6

70 7.6 7.6 86.2127 13.8 13.8 100.0922 100.0 100.0

Personal experienceReports from familyand friendsWhat you have readabout in publicationsWhat you have heardon radio or TVAll of the aboveDo not knowTotal


CumulativePercent

If you had one word to describe the University of North Florida, what would it be?

66 7.2 7.2 7.262 6.7 6.7 13.9

5 .5 .5 14.4

62 6.7 6.7 21.1

11 1.2 1.2 22.33 .3 .3 22.7

27 2.9 2.9 25.614 1.5 1.5 27.1

11 1.2 1.2 28.3

26 2.8 2.8 31.112 1.3 1.3 32.4

7 .8 .8 33.2

8 .9 .9 34.1

454 49.2 49.2 83.3

23 2.5 2.5 85.87 .8 .8 86.62 .2 .2 86.85 .5 .5 87.3

116 12.6 12.6 99.91 .1 .1 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

NoneYoung or growingAffordableConvenient or close orgreat locationUnfamiliarInconvenientOver rated or unorganizedLargeRegional or commuterschoolOtherChallengingSmall or individualattentionRespondent mentionedspecific programGood or great or fantasticetcNon specific responseEfficient or effectiveWell knownExpensiveDo not knowRefusedTotal


CumulativePercent

When you think of the UNF, which qualities do you think of most often?

328 35.6 35.6 35.6

594 64.4 64.4 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

Not selectedQuality of educationalprogramsTotal


CumulativePercent


781 84.7 84.7 84.7141 15.3 15.3 100.0922 100.0 100.0

Not selectedQuality of studentsTotal


CumulativePercent


715 77.5 77.5 77.5

207 22.5 22.5 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

Not selectedQuality of campusenvironmentTotal


CumulativePercent


813 88.2 88.2 88.2

109 11.8 11.8 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

Not selectedQuality of athleticprogramsTotal


CumulativePercent


790 85.7 85.7 85.7

132 14.3 14.3 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

Not selectedQuality of culturalprogramsTotal


CumulativePercent


902 97.8 97.8 97.820 2.2 2.2 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

Not selectedOtherTotal


CumulativePercent


879 95.3 95.3 95.343 4.7 4.7 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

Not selectedNone of the aboveTotal


CumulativePercent


858 93.1 93.1 93.164 6.9 6.9 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

Not selectedDo not knowTotal


CumulativePercent


920 99.8 99.8 99.82 .2 .2 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

Not selectedRefusedTotal


CumulativePercent


918 99.6 99.6 99.64 .4 .4 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

Not selectedSpecified staffTotal


CumulativePercent


919 99.7 99.7 99.73 .3 .3 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

Not selectedHigh costTotal


CumulativePercent


917 99.5 99.5 99.55 .5 .5 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

Not selectedSpecific programTotal


CumulativePercent


919 99.7 99.7 99.7

3 .3 .3 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

Not selectedCommunityoutreach effortsTotal


CumulativePercent


921 99.9 99.9 99.91 .1 .1 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

Not selectedAffordabilityTotal


CumulativePercent


920 99.8 99.8 99.8

2 .2 .2 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

Not selectedLack of programsor small programsTotal


CumulativePercent

If you were asked by someone to tell them about UNF, how would you begin yourdescription?

357 38.7 38.7 38.7

51 5.5 5.5 44.3

97 10.5 10.5 54.8

155 16.8 16.8 71.640 4.3 4.3 75.916 1.7 1.7 77.735 3.8 3.8 81.532 3.5 3.5 84.9

3 .3 .3 85.22 .2 .2 85.51 .1 .1 85.6

5 .5 .5 86.1

1 .1 .1 86.2

8 .9 .9 87.1

32 3.5 3.5 90.61 .1 .1 90.7

1 .1 .1 90.8

1 .1 .1 90.983 9.0 9.0 99.9

1 .1 .1 100.0922 100.0 100.0

UNF is a 4 year publicuniversityUNF is a commuterschoolUNF offers mostly BAsand some MA degreesUNF has a nice campusUNF has low tuition ratesOtherNone of the aboveMultiple responsesSports programsUNF is growingUNF is a small universityWould offer personalexperience of UNFFormer Mayor ofJacksonville is UNFPresidentUNF is not as good asother universities or donot go to UNFUNF is a great schoolFaculty and staff are goodUNF offers diverseprogramsUNF is expensiveDo not knowRefusedTotal


CumulativePercent

When you compare UNF with other colleges and universities what positive featuremakes UNF different?

84 9.1 9.1 9.1309 33.5 33.5 42.6

113 12.3 12.3 54.9

9 1.0 1.0 55.9

21 2.3 2.3 58.1114 12.4 12.4 70.5

41 4.4 4.4 74.94 .4 .4 75.42 .2 .2 75.6

31 3.4 3.4 79.04 .4 .4 79.41 .1 .1 79.5

189 20.5 20.5 100.0922 100.0 100.0

NoneLocationSize or student toteacher ratioConvenience of classtimesCheaperQuality of educationCampusNot centered on sportsNot a party schoolOtherCulture and diversitySportsDo not knowTotal


CumulativePercent

When you compare UNF with other colleges and universities, what negative feature makesUNF different?

129 14.0 14.0 14.0

115 12.5 12.5 26.5

106 11.5 11.5 38.0

67 7.3 7.3 45.2

39 4.2 4.2 49.5

26 2.8 2.8 52.3121 13.1 13.1 65.4

22 2.4 2.4 67.8

1 .1 .1 67.9

8 .9 .9 68.8

12 1.3 1.3 70.1

7 .8 .8 70.8

19 2.1 2.1 72.9

4 .4 .4 73.32 .2 .2 73.52 .2 .2 73.8

236 25.6 25.6 99.36 .7 .7 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

UNF parking is worsethan other collegecampusesUNF does not offer DIathletic programsUNF does not offer abroad range of gradprogramsUNF does not seem tohave much campus lifeUNF facilities areinadequate for populationOtherNone of the aboveLocationInadequate theaterprogramNot as prestigious asother FL UniversitiesMultiple responsesLack of advertising of UNF

Too small or lack ofclassesCostUNF is too bigLack of culture at UNFDo not knowRefusedTotal


CumulativePercent

If you were thinking about attending UNF, what is the most important factor you wouldconsider?

445 48.3 48.3 48.3

15 1.6 1.6 49.9

5 .5 .5 50.4

157 17.0 17.0 67.560 6.5 6.5 74.0

120 13.0 13.0 87.07 .8 .8 87.7

11 1.2 1.2 88.964 6.9 6.9 95.9

6 .7 .7 96.515 1.6 1.6 98.2

1 .1 .1 98.314 1.5 1.5 99.8

2 .2 .2 100.0922 100.0 100.0

Quality of teachingQuality of campus lifeand activitiesQuality of campusenvironment andbuildingsPrice of tuitionAverage size of classesLocationOtherNone of the aboveMultiple responsesAcademic reputationCourse selectionAthleticsDo not knowRefusedTotal


CumulativePercent

Do you recall hearing about UNF on the radio in the last six months?

294 31.9 31.9 31.9617 66.9 66.9 98.8

11 1.2 1.2 100.0922 100.0 100.0

YesNoDo not knowTotal


CumulativePercent

On the radio did you hear information about UNF through

119 12.9 40.5 40.546 5.0 15.6 56.178 8.5 26.5 82.727 2.9 9.2 91.8

15 1.6 5.1 96.9

9 1.0 3.1 100.0294 31.9 100.0628 68.1922 100.0

AdvertisingSports programmingNews storiesOtherAdvertising andanother sourceDo not knowTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

What do you recall about the advertisement you heard on the radio?

50 5.4 37.3 37.3

4 .4 3.0 40.3

9 1.0 6.7 47.0

30 3.3 22.4 69.4

20 2.2 14.9 84.3

4 .4 3.0 87.31 .1 .7 88.12 .2 1.5 89.61 .1 .7 90.36 .7 4.5 94.87 .8 5.2 100.0

134 14.5 100.0788 85.5922 100.0

NoneNon-specific responselike UNF mentionedMasters ProgramPromoting school orprogramsPromoting concerts oreventsMentioned John DelaneyTuitionLocationCampus lifeOtherDo not knowTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Do you recall seeing anything about UNF on television in the last six months?

318 34.5 34.5 34.5589 63.9 63.9 98.4

15 1.6 1.6 100.0922 100.0 100.0



CumulativePercent

On television, did you see something about UNF through

94 10.2 29.6 29.657 6.2 17.9 47.5

121 13.1 38.1 85.520 2.2 6.3 91.8

8 .9 2.5 94.3

18 2.0 5.7 100.0318 34.5 100.0604 65.5922 100.0

AdvertisingSports programmingNews storiesOtherAdvertising andanother sourceDo not knowTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

What do you recall about the advertisement you saw on television?

30 3.3 29.4 29.46 .7 5.9 35.3

39 4.2 38.2 73.58 .9 7.8 81.45 .5 4.9 86.34 .4 3.9 90.2

10 1.1 9.8 100.0102 11.1 100.0820 88.9922 100.0

NoneNew presidentAcademic programNon specific responseOtherArts presentationDo not knowTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Do you recall seeing anything about UNF in print in the last six months?

509 55.2 55.2 55.2406 44.0 44.0 99.2

7 .8 .8 100.0922 100.0 100.0



CumulativePercent

In print, where did you see this information?

131 14.2 25.7 25.7

206 22.3 40.5 66.2

63 6.8 12.4 78.6

40 4.3 7.9 86.432 3.5 6.3 92.7

20 2.2 3.9 96.7

16 1.7 3.1 99.81 .1 .2 100.0

509 55.2 100.0413 44.8922 100.0

Newspaper ormagazine advertisingNewspaper ormagazine news articleUNF publications orbrochuresDirect mailOtherAdvertising andanother sourceDo not knowRefusedTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

What do you recall about the advertisement you saw?

53 5.7 35.1 35.119 2.1 12.6 47.738 4.1 25.2 72.8

9 1.0 6.0 78.89 1.0 6.0 84.8

16 1.7 10.6 95.41 .1 .7 96.06 .7 4.0 100.0

151 16.4 100.0771 83.6922 100.0

NoneNew presidentAcademic programNon specific responseOtherJob fairBillboardDo not knowTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Did the communication leave you with a favorable or negative impression of UNF?

619 67.1 86.7 86.718 2.0 2.5 89.2

65 7.0 9.1 98.3

12 1.3 1.7 100.0714 77.4 100.0208 22.6922 100.0

FavorableNegativeNeither favorablenor negativeDo not knowTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Do you recall a program or department that contributed to your opinion of the University?

526 57.0 57.0 57.028 3.0 3.0 60.149 5.3 5.3 65.4

51 5.5 5.5 70.9

27 2.9 2.9 73.944 4.8 4.8 78.612 1.3 1.3 79.921 2.3 2.3 82.210 1.1 1.1 83.3

4 .4 .4 83.71 .1 .1 83.8

6 .7 .7 84.5

3 .3 .3 84.8

59 6.4 6.4 91.2

8 .9 .9 92.134 3.7 3.7 95.8

5 .5 .5 96.3

8 .9 .9 97.2

2 .2 .2 97.4

24 2.6 2.6 100.0922 100.0 100.0

NoneComputer scienceBusinessNursing or COHprogramsSportsEducationEngineeringFinancial aid departmentGraduate programHistory departmentNoneProfessors or teachingqualityCampus or nature trailsOther degree program ordepartmentPsychologyFine arts or music or jazzOverall positiveimpressionPre law programOverall negativeimpressionDo not knowTotal


CumulativePercent

If you were thinking about attending a college or university, would youconsider UNF?

803 87.1 87.1 87.197 10.5 10.5 97.622 2.4 2.4 100.0

922 100.0 100.0



CumulativePercent

What is the most important factor to you in making that decision?

151 16.4 16.4 16.4302 32.8 32.8 49.1266 28.9 28.9 78.0

83 9.0 9.0 87.0105 11.4 11.4 98.4

14 1.5 1.5 99.91 .1 .1 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

CostLocationAcademic programsReputationOtherDo not knowRefusedTotal


CumulativePercent

If you were to recommend a university to a friend or relative, would youconsider UNF?

831 90.1 90.1 90.162 6.7 6.7 96.929 3.1 3.1 100.0

922 100.0 100.0



CumulativePercent

What is the most important factor to you in making that recommendation?

103 11.2 11.2 11.2186 20.2 20.2 31.3329 35.7 35.7 67.0147 15.9 15.9 83.0130 14.1 14.1 97.1

26 2.8 2.8 99.91 .1 .1 100.0

922 100.0 100.0

CostLocationAcademic programsReputationOtherDo not knowRefusedTotal


CumulativePercent

What is your age?

124 13.4 13.4 13.4157 17.0 17.0 30.5213 23.1 23.1 53.6190 20.6 20.6 74.2119 12.9 12.9 87.1117 12.7 12.7 99.8

2 .2 .2 100.0922 100.0 100.0

18-2526-3435-4445-5455-6465 or olderRefusedTotal


CumulativePercent

What is your racial or ethnic background?

693 75.2 75.2 75.2153 16.6 16.6 91.8

31 3.4 3.4 95.116 1.7 1.7 96.9

9 1.0 1.0 97.87 .8 .8 98.6

13 1.4 1.4 100.0922 100.0 100.0

WhiteBlack or African AmericanHispanicAsianNative AmericanMixed or multiple racesRefusedTotal


CumulativePercent

What is the highest grade in school or year of college you have completed?

25 2.7 2.7 2.7217 23.5 23.5 26.2317 34.4 34.4 60.6239 25.9 25.9 86.6124 13.4 13.4 100.0922 100.0 100.0

Grade schoolHigh school graduateSome collegeCollege graduatePost graduate degreeTotal


CumulativePercent

How long have you lived in Florida?

24 2.6 2.6 2.699 10.7 10.7 13.399 10.7 10.7 24.179 8.6 8.6 32.6

621 67.4 67.4 100.0922 100.0 100.0

Less than a year1-5 years6-10 years11-15 yearsMore than 15 yearsTotal


CumulativePercent

What was your total household income in 2003?

93 10.1 10.1 10.1259 28.1 28.1 38.2189 20.5 20.5 58.7126 13.7 13.7 72.3140 15.2 15.2 87.5115 12.5 12.5 100.0922 100.0 100.0

Less than $20000$20000 to $50000$50000 to $75000$75000 to $100000More than $100000RefusedTotal


CumulativePercent

Do you now or have you ever attended the University of North Florida?

181 19.6 19.6 19.6741 80.4 80.4 100.0922 100.0 100.0

YesNoTotal


CumulativePercent

Are you a parent of a current student or alum who graduated in the last15 years?

99 10.7 10.7 10.7823 89.3 89.3 100.0922 100.0 100.0

YesNoTotal


CumulativePercent

Are you the parent of a child between the ages of 16 and 24?

185 20.1 22.5 22.5638 69.2 77.5 100.0823 89.3 100.0

99 10.7922 100.0

YesNoTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Will that child attend or is that child attending a 4 year college or university?

112 12.1 60.5 60.569 7.5 37.3 97.8

4 .4 2.2 100.0185 20.1 100.0737 79.9922 100.0

YesNoRefusedTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Do you have a family member other than a child who is a currentstudent or an alumn?

157 17.0 17.0 17.0765 83.0 83.0 100.0922 100.0 100.0

YesNoTotal


CumulativePercent

Do you know anyone who attends UNF?

281 30.5 50.1 50.1279 30.3 49.7 99.8

1 .1 .2 100.0561 60.8 100.0361 39.2922 100.0

YesNoRefusedTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

What is your zip code?

1 .1 .1 .11 .1 .1 .2

21 2.3 2.4 2.63 .3 .3 3.0

14 1.5 1.6 4.616 1.7 1.8 6.4

9 1.0 1.0 7.513 1.4 1.5 9.0

9 1.0 1.0 10.08 .9 .9 10.9

20 2.2 2.3 13.224 2.6 2.8 16.028 3.0 3.2 19.215 1.6 1.7 20.937 4.0 4.3 25.211 1.2 1.3 26.4

3 .3 .3 26.812 1.3 1.4 28.2

1 .1 .1 28.35 .5 .6 28.93 .3 .3 29.27 .8 .8 30.02 .2 .2 30.22 .2 .2 30.55 .5 .6 31.0

17 1.8 2.0 33.014 1.5 1.6 34.623 2.5 2.6 37.220 2.2 2.3 39.519 2.1 2.2 41.734 3.7 3.9 45.617 1.8 2.0 47.614 1.5 1.6 49.220 2.2 2.3 51.539 4.2 4.5 56.0

5 .5 .6 56.611 1.2 1.3 57.819 2.1 2.2 60.0

8 .9 .9 60.919 2.1 2.2 63.128 3.0 3.2 66.333 3.6 3.8 70.112 1.3 1.4 71.5

1 .1 .1 71.615 1.6 1.7 73.3

3 .3 .3 73.71 .1 .1 73.8

27 2.9 3.1 76.941 4.4 4.7 81.618 2.0 2.1 83.7

4 .4 .5 84.137 4.0 4.3 88.429 3.1 3.3 91.7

6 .7 .7 92.420 2.2 2.3 94.7

1 .1 .1 94.82 .2 .2 95.1

19 2.1 2.2 97.21 .1 .1 97.41 .1 .1 97.51 .1 .1 97.61 .1 .1 97.79 1.0 1.0 98.71 .1 .1 98.91 .1 .1 99.01 .1 .1 99.11 .1 .1 99.21 .1 .1 99.31 .1 .1 99.41 .1 .1 99.51 .1 .1 99.73 .3 .3 100.0

870 94.4 100.052 5.6

922 100.0

111112304032003320093201132034320403204332046320633206532068320733208032082320843208532086320913209232095320973216032202322043220532206322073220832209322103221132216322173221832219322203222132222322233222432225322263222732233322343223532244322463225032254322563225732258322593226032266322773228232285322913260532656328973321633280366183877453704666667777799999Total

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Respondent gender

342 37.1 37.1 37.1580 62.9 62.9 100.0922 100.0 100.0

MaleFemaleTotal


CumulativePercent

QUOTACEL

20 2.2 2.2 2.2122 13.2 13.2 15.4

51 5.5 5.5 20.9113 12.3 12.3 33.2616 66.8 66.8 100.0922 100.0 100.0

BakerClayNassauSt JohnsDuvalTotal


CumulativePercent

Documents

BOARD OF GOVERNORS STRATEGIC PLANNING/EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE Strategic Planning ... · 2013-11-08 · BOARD OF GOVERNORS STRATEGIC PLANNING/EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE Strategic