Perry and the Profs

If you want a glimpse of the way Rick Perry operates as an executive and a politician, consider the issue of higher education reform in Texas, which no one in Texas knew was an issue until Perry decided to make it one.

In his 30-year public career, Perry—how to put this delicately?—has shown no sign of being tortured by a gnawing intellectual curiosity. “He’s not the sort of person you’ll find reading The Wealth of Nations for the seventh time,” said Brooke Rollins, formerly Perry’s policy director and now president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a free-market research group closely allied with Perry. At Texas A&M he majored in animal science and escaped with a grade point average a bit over 2.0. (Perry’s A&M transcript was leaked last month to the left-wing blog Huffington Post by “a source in Texas,” presumably not his mom. How his GPA compares with Barack Obama’s is unknown, since no one in higher education has thought to leak Obama’s transcript to a right-wing blog.)

Perry expends his considerable intelligence instead on using political power and, what amounts to the same thing, picking fights with his political adversaries. When Rollins came to Perry in 2007 with a radical and comprehensive proposal to overhaul higher education in the state, Rollins says the governor quickly understood the potential of the issue, not only politically but on its merits. The state operates more than 100 colleges, universities, technical schools, and two-year community colleges, organized into six separate systems. As in other states, public higher education in Texas is scattered, expensive, poorly monitored, and top heavy with administrators, even as it subjects students to often large annual tuition increases without a compensatory increase in educational quality.

Perry’s first poke at this sclerotic establishment came early in his first term. He suggested converting the money that the state gives to public colleges and universities into individual grants handed straight to students. Money is power, and Perry’s idea was to place the power in the hands of “consumers,” as he put it, rather than the administrators, to increase competition among schools and thereby lower costs and increase quality. “Young fertile minds [should be] empowered,” he said at the time, “to pursue their dreams regardless of family income, the color of their skin, or the sound of their last name.”

The higher ed establishment, led by regents of the University of Texas system, rebelled, and the legislature, well-wired with the system’s allies, agreed, and the proposal died. But Perry continued to poke. College graduation rates in Texas are unusually low, and the gaps among whites, blacks, and Hispanics are unusually high. Nationwide 38 percent of American adults (age 25-64) have a post-secondary degree; in Texas the figure is 31 percent. So Perry proposed “Outcomes-based Funding,” tying the amount of aid a school receives to the number of students it graduates. To keep a school from lowering its standards to increase its graduation rates, he suggested giving an exit exam to all students receiving a B.A. Students wouldn’t have to pass the exam to get their degree, but the information yielded by such a test—how much learning is going on around here?—would be useful, mostly to reformers. The proposal was seen, correctly, as a threat to the status quo, which has so far successfully fought it off.

The proposals Rollins brought to Perry in 2007 turned on the same themes of—apologizing in advance for the buzzwords—accountability and transparency: collecting information about how much students learn and how well schools function, and holding the schools responsible for the results. “His priority has been putting students back into the driver’s seat,” Rollins said. Perry said he hoped to apply the cost-benefit logic of business to public higher education. He incorporated Rollins’s ideas into a package of reforms and called a “higher education summit” to build support.

The reforms attacked the establishment from multiple angles. They would require schools to expand their websites to make vast amounts of new information available to students. For the first time, professors would be required to post course syllabi online. To suss out slackers among the faculty, schools would post every teacher’s salary and benefits along with the average number of students and course hours they taught every year. A summary of student evaluations would be posted too, and the average number of As and Bs professors handed out, to guard against grade inflation. Before choosing a particular school or enrolling in a major, students would be given a list of the specific skills or knowledge that they could expect to learn, as well as the average starting salaries of students who had graduated from a similar course of study.

Perry also suggested separating teaching budgets from research budgets, as a way of encouraging teachers to teach and researchers to do research. Tenure would be granted only to teachers who spent a large majority of their time teaching; a defined percentage of tenure jobs would go to researchers, who would concentrate on pure research. A system of cash awards and other incentives would compensate professors who successfully taught a large number of students.

Any businessman in a profit-seeking enterprise would see ideas like “pay for performance” as unremarkable, but they overwhelm the delicate sensibilities of people who have spent their professional lives on campus, where the word “nonprofit” is meant to act as a firewall against the unpleasantness of commercial life. “Texas Governor Treats Colleges Like Businesses,” headlined the Chronicle of Higher Education—a sentence sure to induce aneurysms in faculty lounges from El Paso to Galveston. The outrage was deafening, especially when university regents began acting on the recommendations. The Texas A&M system, for example, which includes a dozen schools, posted a spreadsheet on its website evaluating teacher performance on a cost-benefit basis.

“Very simplistic and potentially very dangerous,” an official of the American Association of University Professors said. “This is . . . simplistic,” said the dean of faculties at A&M. “Simplistic,” said the Houston Chronicle. A group of former regents and wealthy school boosters organized a pressure group to oppose -Perry’s reforms. The group hired Karen Hughes, a close aide to the second President Bush, as press spokesman. The rage at Perry from within the establishment has taken many forms: You think it’s easy stealing someone’s college transcript?

The protests might have been more effective except that Perry, for the last decade, has been seeding Texas higher education with like-minded reformers (cronies too). By 2009 he had appointed every regent in the state. The chancellor of A&M who issued the cost-benefit report, for example, was a former chief of staff of the governor. At least three campus presidents have been pressured to resign in recent years, to make way for Perry appointees—all Republican businessmen. A particularly popular (and vocal) vice president of student affairs at the University of Texas was removed and replaced by . . . a retired Marine Corps general.

The appointees weren’t as pliant as Perry might have wished. The implementation of the reforms has been difficult and at times dilatory. Perry barrels on. In his state of the state address this spring, he urged administrators to develop a four-year bachelor’s degree that would cost less than $10,000 “including textbooks.” The discount degree, he said, would be a “bold, Texas-style solution” to the problem of rapidly rising tuition. (The average in-state cost of a four-year degree in Texas, including books, is roughly $30,000.) After the goal was declared impossible by Perry’s critics, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board published a plan to lower costs dramatically: greater use of online classes and “open-source” course materials, accelerated or staggered student schedules, fuller integration of four- and two-year colleges, and more.

Perry’s admirers praise his sure-footedness—his ability to sense cultural trends before others do and turn them to his political advantage. He was the first national politician to ally himself to the Tea Party movement in 2009, a move that’s just now paying off. He caught the mounting anxiety among middle-income parents about college costs early on. Most American parents now say that a college degree will be essential for their children’s future success; at the same time, according to a new Pew Foundation poll, only 22 percent of Americans believe that most people can afford to send their kids to college. And 57 percent describe the quality of American higher education as “only fair” or “poor.” To address this anxiety Perry’s opponents offer more government subsidies, which in turn provide an incentive for schools to raise their prices—an attempt to douse the fire with gasoline. Perry’s ideas are cheaper, more comprehensive, more imaginative, and more likely to work.

And they have a good chance of being put into action. In late August, Perry scored another significant, if partial, victory. The University of Texas regents approved an “action plan” proposed by the system’s chancellor, who isn’t a Perry appointee. The plan is a compromise, but it incorporates many of Perry’s ideas, including some of the most radical, such as “pay for performance” and “learning contracts” between schools and their students. Amazingly, the plan has won support from both the right (Brooke Rollins’s Texas Public Policy Foundation) and left (Karen Hughes’s group).

Reforms like these would have been unthinkable 10 years ago, before Perry picked up his stick and started poking the system until it had to respond. It’s been a remarkable display of political entrepreneurship: Create an issue, define it on your terms, cultivate public support, and your opponents, who never saw it coming, will have to go along, even if only partway—at first.

Andrew Ferguson is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard and the author, most recently, of Crazy U: One Dad’s Crash Course in Getting His Kid Into College.

I am really, really sad to read that Justanobody was driven from this forum. I personally met Justa who drove virtually every single week for years, more than 100 miles each way, to participate in the Friday night Walter Reed FReeps. A better, less self-serving FReeper has never posted on these boards. Driving Justa from this forum is disgraceful.

I will proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with you on your wonderful words about Justa. She is a fine lady, and is the very definition of an American Patriot possessed with a servant's heart.

I had the honor of first meeting Justa in 2006 when I was a volunteer for the Diana Irey for Congress campaign. Diana was running in the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania(where I live) against the detestable and corrupt John Murtha.

Justa shared my disgust with Murtha and wanted to come here and volunteer. She drove her RV from her home in Virginia at her own expense and stayed with us for months leading up to the election.

She really knows her way around Walter Reed and made it a point be Diana's host and guide at a Friday Freep. She also arranged for Diana to visit with wounded warriors and their families at Fisher House.

Diana and all of us in the campaign are blessed to know her. Justa even made sure that Diana met Jim Robinson at a Support the Troops rally in DC in September of 2006 that was organized by Kristinn Taylor and the DC Chapter of Free Republic. The picture below is from that day.

Diana and Jim

Diana, Jim, Justa, me

I can only tell you what this all looks like to some of us

I have a very hard time understanding how professed Conservatives could be on fire for him.

I hear ya, and I can tell you what it looks like to me. The product of a vivid imagination, and it's silly. No need to take that personal, it may not apply to you.

I can assure you I'm not on fire for anybody.

As I've said before to others in one fashion or another, I'm not involved in any cause, Perry is a candidate I'm interested in, and one I believe may be able to garner the funds necessary to take on Obama and appeal to a broad base.

Personally, I don't much like or trust politicians. I'm a basic kind of person. I want a President who loves my country and will defend it, will promote it here and around the world, will get and keep government off our backs, and will make sure the military is properly manned, funded, and respected. I think Perry may be able to handle that.

I have four that I'm looking at. Palin, Perry, Cain, and Bachmann, and I'm thinking about getting rid of Bachmann and cutting my roster to three.

I'll leave all the esoteric and philosophical navel gazing to others.

Not a bad reply, really. I naturally have some different toughts on this, so I'll relate what they are.

I hear ya, and I can tell you what it looks like to me. The product of a vivid imagination, and it's silly. No need to take that personal, it may not apply to you.

Do you know how many times I've heard this type of comment this year? It explains away nothing. It mearly casts folks who have severe concerns over this guy, as being irrational. I appreciate you mitigating the comment by trying not to make it personal. None the less, there are things I could not have done, that he did.

I had this same problem when George Bush was foisted off on us. People said the same thing then. And of course good old George did some good things, and squandered six fricken years with Republican majorities in the House and the Senate. The list of things we could have fixed is very very long. We undid NONE of it.

I don't want to see this happen again. If that makes me candidate for Kook for the Week, I'll wear the crown gladly.

I could not travel to Mexico and use terminology directly addressing open borders. I don't care how innocent it may have been, it shows a lack of sensitivity on this issue that is massive. We have the citizens of Mexico pouring into our nation, we have people dying just about every day because of it, we have women and children getting sexually abused, the resultant crime is rampant, it's been a massive problem for decades, we have between 20 and 35 million illegals here, and he talks about open borders? Wow. That was a mistake. It caused folks to wonder just where his loyalties were. Was he going to take the border problem seriously?

The citizen land owners in his state could have seen a new highway system proposed that would merely enhance the current highways where they could be, and belt-ways to go around larger metropolitain areas where they couldn't. This would have saved most of the land rights for most of the citizens of Texas. Instead this guy plans a massive new highway system that will by necessity take over 70,000 more acres of land from private land-owners, and leave the previous highways where they were too. Here you have a plan that will cause the most possible disruption and land confiscation. There isn't a chance I would have signed off on that plan. Nobody else would either. He got it totally wrong.

When it came to backing Al Gore in 1988, the choices were to back Bush and continue the Reagan legacy, or back Al Gore and try to get a Democrat controlled House, Senate, and White House. He opted to take the most destructive path related to Reagan's legacy. I couldn't have done that. You couldn't have done that.

These and other personal and public policy decisions, cause me to realize this guy isn't instinctively a Conservative. He talks a good game. He maneuvers himself to look good. His supporters do their best, but you simply cannot explain it all away. I do not want a third Bush term. That is what this guy wreaks of.

I can assure you I'm not on fire for anybody. Okay, great.

As I've said before to others in one fashion or another, I'm not involved in any cause, Perry is a candidate I'm interested in, and one I believe may be able to garner the funds necessary to take on Obama and appeal to a broad base. I would urge you to quit trying to maneuver for 2012. My brother's pet Chihuahua would look good compared to Obama in November 2012, and probably raise more money. Later on in your comments here, you mention other good people. With elevated status, comes plenty of money. Nobody is going to lack for funds in 2012. Well, I take that back. I think Obama is going to find himself in one hell of a mess.

Personally, I don't much like or trust politicians. I'm a basic kind of person. I want a President who loves my country and will defend it, will promote it here and around the world, will get and keep government off our backs, and will make sure the military is properly manned, funded, and respected. I think Perry may be able to handle that. Look, Bush loved this country. I firmly believe that. Was he the president we needed? No. Folks settled on Bush fairly early on, and it was over. Did I want Gore? Of course not, but we folded in the primaries way too early. Bush announced in the fall of 1999, that he had $70 million in a campaign war chest. That scared the crap out of most folks who might have gotten in. It actually made me angry. It telegraphed who the nominee was going to be from the word go. And it was clear to me that the guy who wanted to grant amnesty wasn't going to be a U. S. First type of guy. He was always going to worry first about how something would look to the rest of the world.

I have four that I'm looking at. Palin, Perry, Cain, and Bachmann, and I'm thinking about getting rid of Bachmann and cutting my roster to three. When Palin first agreed to come on the ticket with McCain, I liked the idea because I saw her as a moderating force. When she backed him for return to his Senate seat, it became clear to me that she actually liked his agenda. That was the end of her for me right there. It didn't help that she had supported the LOST Treaty, a U. N. management of the high seas, placing all nations in an subservient role. She did so because she wanted certain oil rights to the Arctic Ocean. While that may have worked out well for her, the U. N.'s total control of the seas would have had the potention to cost the U. S. terribly in times of conflict. It also gave the U. N. an independent income stream for the first time, and quite a healthy one at that. Her comments on registering illegals so they could stay here and work, didn't help either.

I've addressed Perry. We've both been less than thrilled with Bachmann this last week, and that pretty much leaves Herman Cain. I'm still not totally discounting Bachmann, but I will tell you she is on a short leash at this time. I hope that Cain comes along and develops into a first rate leader.

I say this because I think it would be a great object lesson for Blacks, to see the difference between what Obama and his communist/socialist/marxist/fascist ideology could provide for them, and what Cain and sound Capitalist Free Enterprise System could provide for them. We could put this whole black vs white, Leftist vs Conservative thing to bed once and for all.

It would also help young Black men to see an excellent role model with top notch moral fiber, doing the right thing.

I'll leave all the esoteric and philosophical navel gazing to others.

Good luck with that. I agree it would be nice to be able to glide along and take things as they came, but there is a concerted effort to force another RINO off on us, and we simply cannot afford to let our guard down one minute.

I made that mistake in 1999. Never again!

IMO there are GOP boys club RINO’s in the senate and house.I kindly disagree on Bush he was a better President than what the MSM want you to think.He was indeed Alinskyized and did NOTHING to counter that but his interviews with his book erased all of the media garbage about him.

I don’t blame Bush I blame the government gone wild RINO club.THEY have to go.Bush is history and will go down in history well favored, I believe.You are letting McDemocrat freak you out too much.Palin endorsed Perry and said you betcha to Romney VP in 2012 and that does not bother you when you are so freaked out about Bush?

No candidate is perfect.Look at Paw Paw endorsing Romney WTH! And I don’t think we will get a hero and TRUE big gov reform.No politician will do this I think Jesus will come first.The elites freak out at Perry calling SS a ponzi scheme do you really think some one will get in there and dismantle the EPA,DOEduc,DoEnergy, and so on and so on, and disavow the UN?I will get on a horse and ride beside you if this can happen.I don’t see Palin being the frontrunner any more than Bachmnn can be,sorry.Like you said then all’s we have is Cain. I don’t think Perry is McDemocrat PERIOD.

I think the same way about West as you do Palin at this stage.But he is not running I face that reality and move on.If he did he would be the frontrunner over all.But I am not in denial.While I GET and understand your McDemocratMcCain dilemma I also snap out of that long enough to realize Obama CANNOT be re-elected PERIOD.Like Bachmann said ObamaCare will be LAW and not able to be touched just like SS.Obama’s current horrific so called jobs plan with a government bank snuck in will be law.We will have to agree to disagree.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

He picked the right fight.