The Politics of Restructuring Higher Education in Virginia: A Case Study

Abstract

This paper presents a case study of the origins, politics, and preliminary outcomes of Virginia's "restructured" relationship between public colleges and universities and the Commonwealth. The initially proposed "charter" status for the state's three historically important universities became the vehicle fora reform that imposed more substantive accountability in exchange for procedural independence—a different outcome than the institutions expected. Was this difference the result of a misestimation of the political realities that could have been anticipated? This reform's long-term impact remains uncertain as the terms of highly complex legislation remain to be translated into clear operational policy.

Impacts of performance-based accountability on institutional performance in the U.S.

“…Thus, very little was changed to implement new institutional accountability. Leslie and Berdahl (2008) who studied governance innovation in Virginia found that Virginia sustained substantive regulation even during the adoption of new accountability. The state itself might not be prepared to implement the new accountability even though it initiated the managerial reforms.…”

Privatization and Accountability Trends and Policies in U.S. Public Higher Education

“…For example, numerous public colleges and universities have gained control over tuition pricing, academic program review, personnel policies, and daily operations (the "how," or procedural matters of higher education), while ceding some influence to states over mission differentiation and goals (the "what," or substantive nature of higher education). Paradoxically, as some public colleges and universities seek the highest levels of autonomy, they may also deepen their entwinement with states through heightened accountability to deliver on their performance goals to serve the public good (Leslie & Berdahl, 2008;Pusser, 2008). Thus, government-both federal and state-can and often does shape the constraints in which public colleges and universities maneuver to compete in markets for faculty, students, and funding.…”

“…Collectively, shifts in state funding and increases in cost have transferred the responsibility for college financing toward students, with significant implications for lower-income students and their families, as well as middle-income students who may be on the margins of qualifying for aid, enrolling in college, and persisting until graduation (see Alon, 2011;Heller, 2013;Lovenheim & Reynolds, 2011;McPherson & Schapiro, 1998). 4 It is notable that much of the enrollment growth in public institutions is among lower-income students so, in effect, the financially neediest are those who are increasingly covering the escalating costs of higher education (Taylor & Morphew, 2015 Act, which allowed colleges and universities to apply for a particular tier of operational control in purchasing, personnel, construction, technology implementation, and tuition-setting authority (Leslie & Berdahl, 2008). The law seemed to favor the elite and more research-focused institutions in the state-the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, and the College of William Mary-as it provided for the increasing of institutional autonomy based on financial and managerial capacity.…”

Accountability, Affordability, Access: A Review of the Recent Trends in Higher Education Policy Research

“…Although research on performance funding policies and the accountability movement has lessened over the last two years as compared to the early part of the decade, there have been several works that have furthered scholarship in this area. Building on previous work by McLendon, Heller, and Young (2005), Leslie and Berdahl (2008) explore the case of higher education reform in Virginia, where several flagship universities sought to convert from public institutions to chartered universities that would receive less financial support from the state in exchange for greater autonomy and discretion. They find that reform advocates “misestimated” (Leslie & Berdahl, 2008, p. 309) the ability of the political system in Virginia to process such a radical change, and that as a result, the state ended up adopting an accountability policy quite different than that which reformers initially anticipated.…”