politics@roanoke.com
A guide to political news, commentary and resources in Southwest Virginia

Preston Bryant is a Republican who has represented Lynchburg and part of Amherst County in the Virginia House of Delgates since 1996.

Charter schools of a higher sort

By PRESTON BRYANT
FEB. 9, 2004

When Jim Gilmore was governor, he made among his top priorities a soup-to-nuts review of Virginia’s collection of 15 four-year and 24 two-year public colleges and universities. His purpose was to discover what strengths needed to be accentuated and what shortcomings needed to be corrected. Doing so, it was hoped, would make our best-in-the-nation higher education system even better.

Immediately upon taking office in January 1998, Gilmore established a blue ribbon commission of business, civic, academic and legislative leaders to embark on what would be a two-year assessment. When the review was complete, Gilmore’s commission would forward to him some 75 recommendations to strengthen our schools in such areas as accessibility, affordability, accountability, and quality. Embedded in these also was the objective of making higher education governance and funding stronger and more predictable.

Among the recommendations was an especially important one suggesting that a mechanism be created by which the state could enter into so-called Institutional Performance Agreements with schools that wanted to do so. The purpose of these IPAs would be to contractually grant to a participating college or university certain operational flexibilities and long-term funding certainties – which all schools have greatly wanted – in exchange for its meeting specific standards, outcomes, and accountability measures. A well-negotiated IPA would allow these behemoth institutions to better manage in the here and now as well as plan for the future.

It wasn’t anticipated, however, that an IPA would be right for every school, at least not immediately. Some institutions simply didn’t have the administrative and financial depth to easily meet the newer, loftier goals that’d be expected of them. But for a number of colleges and universities, especially the bigger ones, an IPA would be just what the doctor ordered, and it’d be a good deal for both the state and the institutions.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the negotiating table. When Gilmore sought General Assembly approval to set up the IPA scheme, the legislature balked. No reason, really, just politics. Democrats in the late ’90s still had enough muscle in the House of Delegates and Senate to throw off track a few initiatives the Republican governor wanted to push, and the goal of making IPAs a reality was one of them.

That’s not to say, however, that folks stopped thinking of ways to achieve the notions that were a part of these contractual agreements, where there’d be a certain give and take in the relationship between the state and participating institutions. The concept remained a good one – especially the bit about giving institutions more governance and operational flexibility – and few right-thinking people thought it should die on the vine.

Fast forward a few years and you’ll see that the recent push by three of Virginia’s flagship schools to be granted “charters” is very much in keeping with the IPA concept suggested by Gilmore’s blue ribbon commission.

The University of Virginia, the College of William and Mary, and Virginia Tech have approached the General Assembly in recent months and asked to be given greater leeway to manage their own affairs. If the state would grant them the ability run their own personnel and procurement operations as well as possibly manage their own health insurance and retirement benefits, then they’d be willing to forego a chunk of the state funding they’d otherwise be entitled to receive. And the money they give up could then be redistributed, at least in theory, to all the other colleges and universities.

Simply put, these schools calculated that they’d be able to save a heck of a lot more money (not to mention frustration) by being out from beneath Richmond’s thumb – no more triplicate paperwork and month-long waits for approval to do this or that – than they’d give up.

Being granted a charter would mean each school would be less a state agency in the traditional sense than something of an independent entity. It doesn’t mean they’d become “private” universities – no, not at all – and it doesn’t mean folks working for them would lose the benefits that come with being state employees. On the contrary, each school would still be owned by the state, and each would continue adhering to the state’s current personnel and procurement laws and regulations. And in the event one, two, or all three of the schools wanted to promote a signature benefits plan, that plan would have to be every bit as good as what’s on the table now – else, it’s highly doubtful the state would approve the charter.

The only difference is that these administrative functions and employment offerings would be managed at the institutional level instead of by green-visored pencil pushers in Richmond. Are there costs to be saved by doing it this way? Almost certainly.

Still, such a move is not something either the state or the schools want to make lightly. So a wee bit of study is in order.

The executive and legislative branches, in all likelihood, will embark on a yearlong review of the charter initiative. It’s hoped that Gov. Mark Warner along with House and Senate leaders will work cooperatively with UVa, W&M, and Tech officials over the spring, summer, and fall to set forth the provisions that’d likely be included in a negotiated charter.

We all know that state funding for higher education is falling increasingly – and perilously – short. By the General Assembly’s own admission, our colleges and universities’ basic instructional and operational needs are being underfunded by some $400 million. Nobody expects this situation to be corrected any time soon.

So if the state is not going to pull its weight, and if a few institutions think they can compensate, at least in part, for the state’s shortcomings by doing a few things themselves, then why not give it a whirl?

Let’s give Gilmore the kudos he deserves. Let’s resurrect a good idea that he once had. Let’s chart a slightly new course for higher education.

Post a message to Preston Bryant's message board

The Bryant Archive

The right to privacy

The real value of Howard Dean

George Allen and his penguins

In defense of slush

Investing in economic development

Processing money

Kilgore shows some spunk

Western Virginia weekend and "A Tidewater Morning"

Economics and taxes: Byrd to Warner