Back to the Main Page
Mr. Flippen, Commission Chairperson, welcomed commission members and introduced Mr. John Ackerly, III, Rector of the University of Virginia. Mr. Ackerly welcomed the Commission and visitors to The Rotunda and the Lawn.
Remarks by The Honorable M. Boyd Marcus, Jr.
Mr. Marcus, Jr., Chief of Staff to Governor Gilmore, expressed appreciation for the work done to date. He reminded the members of the Governor's charge to them - To ensure that Virginia's public colleges and universities remain affordable, to make recommendations on how to ensure quality, and to make recommendations on we can ensure that Virginia institutions remain accountable for the tax dollars they receive.
Specifically, Mr. Marcus urged the Commission to reach consensus on their recommendations and to address how board of visitor members might do their work more effectively.
Mr. Marcus thanked the Commission for the interim report and said its work had already resulted in change. He said that the 20% tuition rollback and the college savings trust account were changes initiated by Governor Gilmore as a direct result of the report.
He reminded the Commission that quality should be defined in terms of the students we serve, not the size of the institutions we build and suggested that board of visitor members could become more effective by: (a) leading the institutions' strategic planning processes, (b) approving every budget expenditure, meeting more frequently, and (c) setting their own agendas.
He closed by thanking the commission again for its work and said the Governor was looking forward to receiving the final report.
Remarks by the Honorable John Chichester
The Honorable John H. Chichester, Co-chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and Co-chairman of the Joint Subcommittee on Higher Education Funding Policies addressed the Commission next.
Senator Chichester reminded the Commission that he had been involved in Virginia's system of higher education for a long time. He said that before the last recession the General Assembly had established several funding objectives: (a) a state funding ratio, (b) faculty ratios, (c) faculty salaries, and (d) student financial aid. These funding principles didn't provide incentives and overstated the cost of enrollment growth but they did let us know what we had to do.
In the last recession we abandoned these guidelines. Colleges could not plan and could not anticipate funding. He suggested that we must reestablish funding guidelines.
He wanted the Commission to know that cutting the colleges loose to do their own thing is not likely to be supported by the General Assembly and would not be viewed as a step forward.
He identified what Virginia's system of higher education should be:
He suggested further that we must determine the level of financial support necessary to do this. Senator Chichester said the funding guidelines should accomplish three things. First, they must provide for base funding. The number of faculty and staff, library resources, and support services necessary to provide needed services should be determined. Second, we need to know what adjustments are necessary to provide for the future. Third, we must provide incentives for innovation and effectiveness.
While Senator Chichester supports decentralization, he does not view this increased freedom as independence. He said that performance funding was a very attractive option if done correctly.
If such a system is to be adopted, it must address these issues:
Remarks of the Honorable Alan Diamonstein
Delegate Diamonstein also addressed the Commission. He said that he was in basic agreement with Senator Chichester and stated further that much of what was being discussed was not new.
Decentralization is a project started in 1986. He said that access, affordability, and accountability have been watch words for quite some time. He also emphasized that any system must maintain the diversity of the system.
Delegate Diamonstein took issue with the block funding model that has been developed by the State Council. He said that he would not support anything that lets colleges spend without accounting for such expenditures to the General Assembly. He went on to say that the maintenance of buildings should not be eroded and the equipment trust fund should not be abandoned.
He reminded the Commission that the General Assembly has not been elected to give away this oversight and that SCHEV should not be a governing or controlling body. He went on to say that SCHEV should advise the Governor, the General Assembly, and college presidents. It should not prevent college presidents from expressing their needs to the General Assembly.
He did agree that Virginia's funding policies needed revision but that they did not need to be overhauled.
He suggested that lump sum funding would result in status quo, stagnation, and discourage innovation and growth. Further, he concluded that innovation cannot be funded internally.
Finally, Delegate Diamonstein expressed disappointment that the Joint Committee on Higher Education had not been invited to work with the Commission more closely.
Phyllis Palmiero reviewed higher education funding in Virginia during the last 25 years. In a Powerpoint presentation, she reminded the Commission that:
Recent developments in higher education
Work Session I: Quality and Assessment
Part 1 - Quality and Assessment
Mr. Rob Lockridge, Education Section Chief from the Department of Planning and Budget, reviewed a paper that summarized several of the best practices currently in use by some Virginia colleges and universities that promote quality. This short list developed from DPB's meetings with institutions and conversations held during the Commission meetings included five major areas of activity.
I. Providing a distinct academic experience based upon a defined mission.
II. Foster a collegiate environment that produces successful students.
III. Refine academic program content and delivery to address the changing needs of students.
IV. Impart the necessary skills and abilities to students that businesses require
V. Attract and retain the best faculty and assist them to continually enhance their teaching skills
Defining Quality
Dr. Jerry Martin offered his thoughts on quality. He suggested that in order to define quality one needed to identify the purpose of higher education. Purpose can be defined as, "What every educated person should know." The purpose of college then is: (a) we want students to have successful careers, (b) we want students to be prepared for a democratic society, and (c) we want students prepared for personal fulfillment.
Quality can be defined as the inputs that achieve these purposes. These purposes are achieved through content and delivery of content. The content is what you what them to know - the curriculum. The delivery method includes good teachers, labs, time on task, honest grading, etc.
An appropriate curriculum must include courses in history (western civilization & non-western civilization), science, math, English (comp & literature), foreign language, arts, social sciences (civics & economics). The curriculum must be: (a) comprehensive, (b) include broad-based courses, (c) rigorous, and (d) coherent.
Most college and universities do not have core curricula. They have distribution requirements where students pick from long lists of courses to satisfy the politics of the faculty.
Quality Measures
Leonard Sandridge, Executive Vice President from the University of Virginia, reviewed a list of quality measures prepared by the Council of State Senior Business Offices (CSSBO). The list was not meant to be all-inclusive and was viewed as a work in progress. The list included:
Assessment of Virginia's Institutions of Higher Education
Drs. Patricia Cormier and Jon Mikalson reviewed a short paper on assessment. They suggested that the current assessment program in Virginia: (a) has resulted in quality improvement, (b) has been welcomed by the institutions, (c) should continue to be institution specific and mission driven, and (d) should focus on student learning. They recommended that:
Differences in Community Colleges
Dr. DiCroce made comments about the differences in the community college sector. She said the mission is different in that community colleges prepare students for transfer to senior institutions and prepare/retrain students for the work place while maintaining an open admission process. This is accomplished by quality developmental education programs, quality transfer programs, and quality workforce preparation programs.
Quality is measured by looking at how community colleges students do at the senior institutions and looking at national awards earned by institutions, among other things. Community colleges ask: (a) Can student achieve at the next level? (b) Are our students hired? (c) Are our students succeeding and are they promoted? Graduation rates (students earning an associate degree) are not a good measure because that not what community college students want to do.
Quality can also be defined by looking at the quality of the faculty, the types of faculty development programs in place, the nature of the facilities, the nature of equipment, the curriculum, the types of economic development and work force development programs, and the types of partnerships that exist.
Base Budget Analysis: A Key Component for Integrated Planning and Budgeting
Dr. Trani, President of VCU, reviewed the newly developed Base Budget Analysis program at Virginia Commonwealth University. The program will help planners use resources more efficiently, reallocate resources to support priorities, and develop new resources.
This process has support from University administrators and the Board of Visitors. It uses an uniform approach which includes all academic and administrative units and is based on five years of data. Standards and performance indicators are set for each department and school. Cost information will be developed at the department and program level.
Accountability in Higher Education
Mr. Ridenour, Executive Vice President from Virginia Tech, reviewed a comprehensive list of the reports higher education institutions that are required to prepare for a variety of state and federal agencies. Over 200 financial reports to 70 different agencies are required. Mr. Ridenour suggested that additional accountability reports were not necessary.
Many Commission members seemed to agree. Several members suggested that individual reports do not tell a full story that those outside higher education can understand. Creating a larger, more meaningful "bottom line" is what is needed.
The Current Status of Decentralization
Mr. Landsidle, Comptroller for the Commonwealth of Virginia, reviewed the decentralization pilots at nine institutions. Financial information is reported to the State in a highly aggregated form. The only way these reports can be verified is through a post audit review.
These audits do not test for best practice or compliance with direction from the General Assembly or SCHEV. Audits can test for accuracy of the financial record and transaction.
Mr. Landsidle recommended that the Code should be changed to reflect this new relationship and that boards of visitors should be strengthened since they have become more critical. Members of these boards need additional training on reading financial statements, understanding accounting systems and reports, and the Code of Virginia. Institutions that participate in restructuring should be required to have a full complement of internal auditors. Copies of audit reports should be forwarded to the money committee staffs.
Mr. Landsidle also revisited the matter of local funds. The Code requires that all institutional funds be deposited to the Treasury. A number of local accounts are maintained in local bank accounts. While there does not appear to be any wrongdoing, this practice is illegal. Either all funds should be deposited or none should.
Finally, with respect to decentralization, no real cost savings have been reported. Schools do report smoother operations and quicker responses.
Decentralization must be declared a success because it has not failed. Schools are performing well and there have been no reported problems. While these projects are still officially pilots, it would be unwise to think that the nine schools could go back to the old way of doing things.
Accountability Measures in Virginia Higher Education
Mr. Leonard Sandridge, Executive Vice President at the University of Virginia, quickly reviewed a list of accountability measures being developed by the Council of Senior Business Offices (CSSBO). The list included the following measures:
Posted: July 11, 1999
By The
Educational Policy Institute of Virginia Tech
sjanosik@vt.edu