In the battle for trust, relevance, and student success, higher education leaders are increasingly asked to deliver measurable outcomes. As state budgets tighten and calls for return on investment rise, performance-based funding models are proliferating—but not all models are created equal.
Florida’s bronze-silver-gold tiered model for its 28 state colleges stands out as a uniquely visible and flexible approach to aligning funding with results.
Using a metaphor drawn from a popular game, Plants vs. Zombies, this article looks at how Florida’s strategy puts accountability front and center, offering a clear pathway for others to emulate.
More from UB: With research cuts surging, which states have been hit the hardest?
For policymakers, system heads, and campus leaders, this piece offers a simple litmus test: Is your funding model visible? Is it reputational? And does it reward institutions not just for excellence, but for progress? If not, it’s time to update your playbook.
Florida’s approach to post-secondary accountability
In Plants vs. Zombies, success comes down to strategy, resource management and knowing which plants will stop the zombies. That’s not a bad metaphor for higher education funding right now. With state budgets tight and public skepticism high, the race is on to weed out low-value programs and cultivate outcomes that matter.
Just like players in the game learn to stop wasting sun on the wrong plants, states are learning that throwing money at every postsecondary institution, regardless of performance, won’t win the game. That’s why Florida’s bronze-silver-gold college funding model is quietly leading a national shift toward ROI-driven accountability in higher education.
And while other states are experimenting with performance-based funding, Florida’s framework stands out for making institutional performance measurable and reputationally visible.
The Florida model: Growth with accountability
Florida’s performance funding system for its 28 state colleges evaluates each institution on a combination of outcomes and improvement. Metrics include student retention, degree completion, job placement, time-to-degree and wage earnings.
What makes Florida’s model different is its use of tiered designations—bronze, silver and gold—that translate into financial incentives and public perception.
This approach doesn’t just reward absolute performance; it also celebrates improvement over time. The system levels the playing field so that colleges serving more at-risk students aren’t penalized but still have to show progress.
The result is a dynamic, competitive ecosystem where continuous improvement is the baseline and gold status is the goal. It’s not just a funding formula. It’s a leadership framework.
How other states stack up
Many states have adopted some form of performance-based funding but none with Florida’s visibility and simplicity. Here’s a look at a few peers:
Tennessee
A pioneer in outcomes-based funding, Tennessee ties nearly all community college dollars and 85% of university funding to outcomes like credit accumulation, persistence and credential attainment. It’s rigorous and equitable but lacks a public-facing tiered system like Florida’s.
Texas
Texas awards funding to community colleges through a “Success Points” system, giving credit for milestones like completing developmental education or transferring. But without tiers or public recognition, the incentive structure is more transactional than transformational.
Ohio
Ohio’s model links nearly all higher ed funding to completion and employment metrics, with particular emphasis on at-risk student success. However, the model is formula-heavy, making it harder to communicate to the public or create visible distinctions among institutions.
Indiana
Indiana emphasizes workforce alignment by funding credentials with economic value, including STEM degrees. It includes rewards and penalties for institutions, though it stops short of ranked recognition, focusing instead on formulaic adjustments.
Missouri
Missouri uses campus-specific metrics to allocate funding, emphasizing job placement and learning outcomes. Some institutions reported feeling “ranked” informally but there’s no formal tiered designation.
At a Glance: Florida vs. The Field
Why Florida wins
Florida’s model succeeds for three reasons:
- It’s legible. The bronze-silver-gold tiers provide clear signals to students, employers and policymakers.
- It’s flexible. By balancing outcomes with year-over-year improvement, the model rewards both excellence and growth.
- It’s reputational. Just like players fight for gold in games, college presidents now fight for it in real life and that raises the bar.
This isn’t just gamification. It’s strategic visibility. Florida has figured out that if you want to shift institutional behavior, you need to make performance matter not just financially but symbolically.
Don’t water the wrong plants
In Plants vs. Zombies, success doesn’t come from planting every option: it comes from deploying the right tools at the right time. Too often, higher ed systems invest in programs that look good on paper but deliver little in terms of ROI, workforce relevance or equitable outcomes.
Florida’s model reminds us that strategic visibility—clear, understandable performance tiers tied to funding and public reputation—can spark real behavior change in colleges and universities.
Florida’s approach gives us a blueprint for accountability that works for students, taxpayers and colleges themselves.
How other states can benchmark
Make performance visible and legible.
Move beyond complex formulas buried in policy documents. If your model doesn’t offer public-facing tiers, consider developing a transparent designation system that communicates institutional performance clearly to students, families and employers.
Reward both excellence and improvement.
Design systems that value year-over-year progress, particularly for institutions serving high-need populations. Excellence shouldn’t only be defined by absolute outcomes; it must also include meaningful growth.
Link funding to both ROI and reputation.
Incentivize completion, wage outcomes and job placement, but do so in ways that raise the public profile of high-performing colleges. Make it prestigious to be effective.
Adopt a leadership mindset, not just a funding formula.
Florida’s success comes not just from metrics but from how leaders talk about and use those metrics. Use your accountability system as a strategic lever, not just a compliance tool.
As more states reimagine their higher education funding systems, they’d be wise to ask: Are we feeding the sunflowers or letting the zombies win?
