|
After
years of confusion about Virginia's highest
priority -- education! transportation! -- it is
good to learn from current campaign ads that it is
the death penalty. Governors, we are learning, not
only are to faithfully execute the laws, but also
execute criminals with enthusiasm. And there may
be other nuances about capital punishment --
relieves overcrowding prisons, cuts down on future
appeals that clog the court system, eliminates all
that molly-coddling that goes with multiple life
sentences -- that don't come out in those
30-second ads.
Current
and future governors of the Commonwealth, however,
could provide a more valuable service to
Virginians by focusing attention on other matters
such as the fast evolving relationship between the
state and its colleges and universities. What has
been known as the "charter initiative"
for colleges and universities is now in a critical
phase of negotiations on new management
agreements. The General Assembly is to approve
those agreements in 2006 and Virginia's new
governor is to begin overseeing their
implementation beginning July 1.
In
a nutshell, Virginia state colleges and
universities submitted six-year strategic plans by
October 1. What little public discussion there has
been has focused on the tradeoffs between the
levels of state financial support and the levels
of future tuition. The State Council of Higher
Education in Virginia (SCHEV) issued institutional
performance standards at the same time to keep
state institutions of higher learning accessible
and affordable.
But
there are details and nuances in the benchmarks
and guidelines from SCHEV that each institution
must work through before individual boards of
visitors can approve new management agreements
with the Commonwealth before a November 15
deadline. And college and universities presidents
rightfully are worried that their autonomy and the
commitments promised by the state could be lost in
translation.
Gov.
Mark R. Warner, for example, has made clear in
public remarks over the last weeks that economic
development plans for each institution and
activepartnering with elementary and secondary
schools are critical goals for Virginia's colleges
and universities. SCHEV has incorporated much of
Gov. Warner's thinking into its standards, from
dual enrollments for high school students in
community colleges to more predicable and easy
transfer for students from community colleges to
four-year institutions to increasing
externally-funded research. To assess institution
performance, SCHEV also will detail criteria for
capital outlays, procurement and property
management and personnel policy.
Meeting
these goals and objectives will prompt major
changes in the way state government works with its
institutions of higher learning. Efficiencies in
operations and management will result. Most
Virginians, however, tend to more more concerned
with issues of accessibility for family members
and people they know. Will more Virginia students
get to attend Virginia colleges and universities?
Will those institutions have a mix of students
that looks and feels like the entire state? Will
students be able to afford to attend? Will they
get the courses they need and a degree that leads
to a good job in Virginia?
In
attempting to answer those questions even before
negotiating management agreements, SCHEV has
proposed some rigid guidelines that could limit
the imagination and autonomy of unique
institutions and ultimately undermine their
efficiencies and the differences that allow them
to complement one another.
What
are termed "four-year non-research
institutions" (think James Madison University
or Old Dominion) are to demonstrate continuing
progress on 15 of 18 measurables. For
"research institutions" (think Virginia
Tech or the University of Virginia), it's 17 of 20
and for community colleges, 14 of 17.
To
keep higher education affordable, for example,
SCHEV proposes that the percentage of tuition
increases be no larger than percentage increases
in financial aid and that institutions reduce both
the average of student debt and the percentage of
students who borrow to finance their education.
That is in addition to the balance of state
support and tuition.
For
academic guidelines, SCHEV suggests that
institutions lower the percentage of students
denied enrollment in introductory courses and
increase the ratio of degrees conferred per
full-time equivalent faculty member. These kinds
of standards, if imposed by SCHEV in the
management agreements now being negotiated, could
be the start of a centralized, highly-regulatory
approach to higher education that Virginia
heretofore has avoided. More degrees per faculty
member, for example, may not be the primary goal
of a research institution, particularly if faculty
salaries are not competitive in the first place.
That
is not what the initiative to better balance
authority, commitments and funding between
Virginia's General Assembly and its four-year
institutions is all about. SCHEV suggests that not
all measures addressing goals will apply to all
institutions and that mission language could lead
an institution to request an exemption based on
exceptional performance as well as under
performance.
But
SCHEV also makes it clear that it will decide
whether to grant or to deny an exemption.
Negotiators, boards of visitors, the General
Assembly and both current and future governors
need to take care that such a process doesn't
deteriorate into a top-down, one-size-fits-all
approach that stifles innovation and market
responsiveness. That result certainly would
constitute a "decline penalty" for
quality in Virginia higher education.
--
October 17, 2005
|
