The perfect stormed lined up, brought on by a series of unexpected circumstances.

A search was under way for a new chief executive (chancellor) for the Tennessee Board of Regents.

The national economy went into a tailspin, forcing Tennessee along with every other state to wrestle with significant budget restraints. The potential impact on higher education was deep and wide-ranging. Higher education leaders pushed for double-digit tuition increases to stem the flow of red ink but were told that students could not bear the financial brunt.

Then in Knoxville the University of Tennessee prepared to remove its third president in 10 years.

Gov. Phil Bredesen, who envisioned reforming higher education during his second term, months earlier felt the clock had run out to fix the state’s colleges and universities and their antiquated governance.

With the departure of UT President John Petersen in Knoxville, the governor found a glimmer of hope that perhaps reform was not lost. Bridging the changes in pre-K to 12 with higher education would put Tennessee on a path that 10 years earlier was missed.

As reforms are being assembled and action, if any, will not come until next year, the governor’s final year in office, frameworks are taking shape.

The rhetoric of schools wanting to resemble the University of Tennessee at Knoxville is gone. Each institution will maintain its identity, and most of the degrees — including graduate — currently offered will remain. The reforms look to the future.

For example, while UTC has a number of master’s degree programs and a couple of doctorates, Chattanooga officials will be encouraged to craft an academic model that embraces the opportunities that Volkswagen and Wacker Chemical will bring to the tri-state region and the state. Enhanced undergraduate and graduate course offerings in engineering tied to these technologically advanced manufacturing facilities mirror the approach envisioned by Gov. Bredesen.

To achieve reforms in higher education, there are guiding principles that frame the issues.

For a state with low graduation rates — around 20 percent have a college degree — one priority is more undergraduate degrees in the hands of students before building more elaborate postgraduate initiatives.

Accessibility is key and there is room for improvement.

Excelling in the basic or core curriculum, i.e., retaining and graduating more students, is the core mission before diversification. The funding of higher education requires dollars being tied to a standard of excellence such as graduation rates. Unnecessary or underutilized programs will require greater review and possible elimination.

To integrate these principles, new governing structures are one solution.

If the Board of Regents and the UT board of trustees continue in a reformed higher education system, then a modified Tennessee Higher Education Commission is a probability. The

new governing body would have the authority to parcel out the dollars and approve new program offerings for the colleges and universities in the state. Another model simply blends the Board of Regents and UT board into one with a central administration housed in Nashville.

A third potential is individual boards for each institution that report to a blended statewide governing body.

Most of the changes will mean fewer higher education lobbyists as the legislative battle for funding among the state’s public institutions would be captured in one central budget request with clear, measurable goals.

Don Sundquist, the governor who defeated Phil Bredesen when he first ran for the state’s highest office, may watch his successor retool a 1999 higher education reform plan and implement the reform goals more than 10 years later.

The time may finally have arrived, all due to a perfect political storm.

To reach Tom Griscom, call (423) 757-6472 or e-mail tgriscom@timesfreepress.com.