“Are there any examples of institutions that actually went up in their performance scores and institutions that actually went down in their performance scores and got more funding?” Alexander asked Criser.
FAMU made a 72 score in 2018. That’s seven points higher than its 65 score in 2017. But FAMU didn’t get any performance-based funding (PBF) investment money because it was in the “Bottom 3.” Alexander knew this but appeared to ask the question in order to bring the years-long fairness problems to attention of his fellow committee members.
“It is possible as a result of the relative score where you were to go lower year over year because you’re still awarded based on your overall quality of your performance, and someone else who might have a tremendous amount of improvement, um, it’s kind of the balancing,” Criser said. “I think this probably, and if you fall in the past into the ‘Bottom 3,” then you frankly go from funding to no new funding. It’s what led the board really to the deliberation to eliminate the ‘Bottom 3’ and bring that forward this last fall.”
Criser didn’t mention FAMU in his response.
The BOG formerly denied performance-based funding (PBF) money to the three universities that finished in the “Bottom 3” of the PBF metrics each year no matter how much they improved. It scrapped the policy after Alexander and House Majority Leader Ray Rodrigues, R-Estero got bipartisan support in the House in 2018 for their proposal to change the law to bar the denial of PBF funds to the “Bottom 3.”
At the meeting, Alexander said that the work to make PBF fair isn’t done. He said that it isn’t right for schools that don’t receive “preeminent” money to be required to compete against the institutions that do in the race for PBF investment dollars.
The legislature will consider making more changes to PBF during the 2019 session.