Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, October 13, 1994 TAG: 9411160068
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A13 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
At last month's special session of the General Assembly, convened to consider recommendations of the governor's Commission on Parole Abolition, Allen won near-unanimous support for sweeping changes in state policy.
Now comes a passel of proposals, more than 360 in number, from the Governor's Commission on Government Reform, which Allen calls his Blue Ribbon Strike Force. This was created on the inaugural platform itself as soon as he took the oath of office.
Sixty people were named to the strike force, which divided itself and the huge panoply of state government into seven sectors. Their charge was to strengthen management from the top, eliminate duplication, increase productivity and improve services to citizens.
One thing the strike force did not do was launch a true management study of the day-to-day utilization of the vast resources of staff (more than 100,000) and physical plant at the disposal of state government after 25 years of rapid expansion, which was too bad. This type of assessment has saved many private companies from bankruptcy.
But a comprehensive review of this type could hardly have been done in under 12 months, or for less than $25 million in fees to consultants. And something that intrusive and threatening would have produced howls of protest from bureaucratic fiefdoms and their protectors in the legislature.
Private, for-profit concerns can make radical changes in the way they operate because those responsible must look to their own survival in a competitive marketplace. You will never have that same accountability in politics, which is why the acid test of reform must be to privatize as many functions of government as possible. As you might guess from a panel consisting mainly of businessmen, this has been the strike force's approach.
But the road will be harder than the governor faced in changing the philosophy of criminal justice. Instead of focusing on one emotional issue that elicited broad public interest and support, Allen now must fight on many fronts where the public's attention is not engaged, but where powerful special interests are powerfully focused. There are many fights here he will not win; indeed, cannot win.
One column could hardly list the main proposals of the strike force, must less expound upon them. So, let's begin by considering only those affecting education and likely to excite the most debate.
For public schools, the four most controversial ideas are tuition tax credits for parents sending their children to private schools; expanding both the school day and year; increasing the probationary period for new teachers; and making the public schools liable for the cost of remedying the academic deficiencies in their students enrolling in state colleges.
The only issue here commanding some political support is state assistance for those attending private schools. That principle is well-established in assisting private higher education. But extending it to private secondary schools will unite virtually all public-school teachers and administrators in defense of the near-monopoly they now enjoy.
Since most parents profess themselves satisfied with the public-school education their children receive - and those with no children in school are likely to see credits or vouchers as a further drain on taxes - there's precious little support to offset the near-fanatic opposition of public-school educators. Allen experienced this in his campaign when he was reduced to saying that all he really had in mind was allowing local school boards to offer vouchers if they saw fit.
That will happen, of course, only when the state provides a source of funding independent of the public-school budget. And it should be a specific stipend - not a tax credit - tailored to family income, etc. That is, those with the least should get the most and there should be no state subsidy for the very affluent.
You also could limit the state's exposure by beginning the grants with grades 7-12, which is where the most serious problems of discipline and academic failure are manifest. In these ways, you could increase both choice and competition without breaking the bank, and that might take some of the wind out of the sails of naysayers.
In higher education, the strike force recognized the traditional independence of state colleges in running their own show by falling back on exhortations, such as calling upon administrators to open classes a half-day on Saturday (dream on) and to operate a year-round system that would permit students to earn their degrees in three years instead of four.
The State Council of Higher Education, which was created many years ago to oversee state colleges, has a mixed record of results, which isn't surprising. While every college has both a local and a statewide constituency of alumni and benefactors - including many legislators - the council has no political base worth mentioning.
The strike force would reduce the council to an advisory and research role under the secretary of education, who serves at the pleasure of the governor. In that system, the secretary would assume at last the central role in coordinating and enforcing state policy. But that will require a change in state law, and partisans of both the existing council and the colleges are likely to unite to frustrate it.
It's not quite true, as the old saying holds, that the public's business is nobody's business. It is the business of those who make it their business, and they are legion, as Allen and company will shortly discover if they persist in the fondling of bumble bees.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.
by CNB