With over 18 million residents, Texas is the second most populous
state in the country. It is a very diverse state (25 percent Hispanic,
12 percent African-American, 2 percent Asian) with a rapidly growing
Hispanic population. The population in Texas grew by more than
2.76 million people in the 1980s, a 19.4 percent increase, compared
to a 9.8 percent increase nationally. Only California and Florida
experienced greater growth in that decade. Texas' population is
projected to increase by an additional eight percent between 1995
and 2000, with the greatest growth continuing to be concentrated
in urban areas.
Compared to the six other study states, Texas residents are relatively
young and poor. As Table 1 indicates, Texas has the highest percentage
of its population (39 percent) under the age of 24, and ranks
at the bottom of case study states in terms of per capita income.
In addition, when measured by Aid to Families with Dependent Children,
poverty in Texas is higher than in any of the 50 states. While
Texas is second among states in this study in the percentage of
the population with a baccalaureate degree and about average in
percentage of the population with a graduate degree, it also has
the highest dropout rate (with Florida) of the study states and
one of the nation's highest illiteracy rates (33 percent). Texas
is first among states in this study in percentage of the population
who do not speak English in the home.
Contextual Variables for Texas Compared to Selected States (Numbers in Parentheses Represent Rank Among the Seven Study States) |
||||
(1-2) |
(3-5) |
(6-7) |
Average |
|
| Population (in Millions) (1995) | ||||
| Per Capita Income (in Thousands) (1995) | ||||
| Potential Tax Revenue (1995-96)** | ||||
| New High School Graduates per 1,000 population (1995-96)? | ||||
| Role of Private Higher Education§ | ||||
| Role of Governor* | ||||
| % of Population with Associate Degree (1990) | ||||
| % of Population with Baccalaureate Degree (1990) | ||||
| % of Population with Graduate or Professional Degree (1990) | ||||
| % of Population 24 Years Old or Younger (1995) | ||||
| % of Population that is Anglo (1990) | ||||
| % of Population Who Do Not Speak English in Home (1990) | ||||
| % of Population in Poverty (1994) | ||||
| High School Dropout Rate (1992 to 1994 Average) | ||||
| * This figure is expressed as an Index: National Average = 100.
Sources: Unless otherwise noted, data are drawn from Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac 43, no. 1 (September 1996), pp. 98-99. |
||||
In the mid-1980s, Texas underwent a widespread recession as a
result of the depression in the oil and gas industry. The economy
has been recovering in the 1990s, while the rest of the country
was in a recession. The state has been able to diversify its economy,
particularly by attracting many companies moving from California
in the early 1990s. Diversification and growth contribute to what
many describe as a generally healthy economy in the state right
now. Growth, however, is much slower than it has been, and with
increasing demands on state services, the competition for state
resources is intensifying.
There is no state personal or corporate income tax in Texas, and
most of the state's revenue comes from sales and property taxes.
In the past, a great deal of revenue was generated from a tax
on natural resources, and as this has decreased, property taxes
have increased. The lack of an income tax, say some of our respondents,
makes it very difficult for the state to support its public services.
According to one university administrator, "Texas is a state that
is allergic to taxes," and the citizens make many demands that
they are unwilling to pay for.
State General Revenue Appropriations in 1996-97 were $44.5 billion,
an increase of 11.1 percent over 1994-95.
A rising prison population, increased federal mandates, and court-ordered reforms in public schools, prisons, and mental health facilities have prompted increased spending in these areas. A recent report notes that the state's revenue system is not keeping pace with the state economy's expansion.
While funding for higher education increased during the five years
prior to our visit, some individuals said that higher education
has been and will continue to be squeezed in the state budget
process, as it is one of the few areas in which the Legislature
has discretion about how much money to spend. Many other areas
of the budget have spending amounts mandated by court order. Higher
education has not seen the decreases in actual dollars in Texas
that it has seen in other states, but it has lost in its total
share of the state budget. Between 1984-85 and 1994-95, the state's
allocation to public higher education as a percentage of total
tax revenues went from 18.4 percent to 12.2 percent. Per student
general revenue appropriations over this decade increased from
$4,043 to $4,690, a 16 percent increase. When inflation is taken
into account, however, per student appropriations in constant
1984 dollars decreased by 16 percent between 1984-85 and 1994-95.
General revenue funding for higher education in the 1996-1997
biennium was $6,288.8 million, an increase of $428.9 million,
or 7.3 percent over the previous biennium.
There is concern among higher education officials that increasing demands for other state services, such as corrections, K-12 education, and welfare programs will continue to eat away at higher education's share of the budget. Additional concerns are raised by the impending changes due to the "devolution" of federal programs, which will place increasing pressure on the state to meet social service needs for health and welfare.
Several of the individuals we interviewed stressed that state
politics are based on local institutions and local issues, and
that this creates some resistance to centralization. A legislator,
for example, told us that this is a system in which political
turf is defended at all costs. "There is a chamber-of-commerce
mentality" in most of what is done, said one higher education
official. Institutions of higher education, remarked another,
"are seen by legislators as the equivalent of a public works project
in their district." Some attribute these attitudes to the size
of the state and its five distinct regions, divided along geographic
lines.
Governor and Lieutenant Governor
Texas is generally referred to as a state with a constitutionally
weak Governor. The Governor is described as having very little
power in the budget process. The current Governor, Republican
George W. Bush, defeated incumbent Democrat Ann Richards in the
1994 elections. The Governor's main power comes through the appointments
that he or she makes. Though the Governor does have a line-item
veto and has control over numerous statewide appointments, most
of our respondents agreed that it is the Lieutenant Governor and
the legislative leadership that set policy in Texas.
The Lieutenant Governor, who serves as the head of the state Senate,
is regarded as the most powerful elected official in the state.
One individual served as Lieutenant Governor for 18 years, adding
to the power of that office. He was described by some as almost
dictatorial because of his influence in the Legislature. With
the ability to appoint the Senate committees, including the all-important
fiscal committee chairs, the Lieutenant Governor has significant
influence on all state services. The last two individuals who
served in the office were described as supportive of higher education,
a condition most described as extremely important to the maintenance
of state support to higher education over the past two decades.
Legislature
The Texas Legislature meets only once every two years, from January
to May. Budgets are developed on a biennial basis. The Senate
has only 31 members, so it is, according to one university administrator,
"a nice little club," very "collegial." Senators may introduce
what are known as "local bills," which in theory affect only the
area of the individual who has introduced it. Senatorial courtesy
applies to these bills, guaranteeing their passage. Again, this
is a reflection of Texas' strong resistance to any centralized
decision-making over what are considered to be local issues.
According to the Texas Charter for Public Higher Education, adopted in 1987, the role of the Legislature is to set "broad
policy while delegating implementation to appropriate officials."
The Legislature's main role with regard to higher education involves
financing the public system. It fulfills this role by authorizing
funding methods to promote educational quality, demanding accountability,
and demanding effective resource management.
The key players in higher education, by most accounts, are the
Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House, and the chair of
the House Appropriations and Senate Finance Committees. The Governor
and the chairs of the House Higher Education Committee and Senate
Education Committee are mentioned less frequently as playing a
significant role; these two committees deal with issues not related
to funding, such as the transfer of institutions from one system
to another.
The power of the Legislature relative to the Governor is evidenced
by a recent attempt by the Legislature to avoid line-item vetoes
in the higher education budget. When a previous Governor threatened
to use the line-item veto for certain areas of the higher education
budget, the Legislature combined all items into one lump-sum appropriation
for higher education. They then provided detailed directions in
supplemental language about how the appropriation was to be used.
This tied the hands of the Governor, whose only choice would have
been to veto the entire higher education appropriation.
The power structure in Texas policy making may best be exemplified
by membership on the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), a bipartisan
agency charged with preparing the first budget bill in each legislative
session. The LBB, established in the state constitution in 1949,
includes the Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker of the House,
the chairs of the Senate Finance and State Affairs Committees,
chairs of the House Appropriations and Ways and Means Committees.
Two additional senators are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor
and two additional representatives by the Speaker.
The board's bipartisan staff receive an estimate of available
revenues from the state comptroller's office, then use that estimate
to develop the preliminary budget.
Under the current Lieutenant Governor, the staff of the budget
board work closely with the staff of the four main offices in
the Senate and House to hammer out the budget. Previously, the
legislators themselves were much more hands-on in the development
of the budget, holding public hearings and determining budget
priorities. Now it is the staff who conduct the public hearings.
The LBB staff provide technical assistance to the House Appropriations
and Senate Finance Committees.
A number of our respondents pointed out that the proliferation
of court mandates in the state present a continuing problem for
developing the budget. In putting together a budget, the LBB must
first cover everything that is under court order. This includes
such things as K-12 education, prisons, etc. According to one
university administrator, it basically includes everything except
highways and higher education. As a result, the LBB always comes
up with a projected deficit for higher education, until a revised
revenue estimate is received from the comptroller's office.
The abundance of court mandates may contribute significantly to
the inability of the Legislature to respond to crises in the state.
Often, the Legislature cannot respond to a crisis because legislators
are focusing on other mandates. When that happens, a new mandate
often comes from the courts to force the Legislature to attend
to the new crisis. This process diminishes the Legislature's flexibility
in setting priorities and shifting resources.
It is difficult to talk about priorities in Texas because priorities change from session to session. In the 1995 legislative session, K-12 education was a key focus as the Legislature undertook a sweeping change of the education code. In the previous session, corrections received the most attention. The change in priorities is seen by those we spoke with as somewhat cyclical. But according to one political staff member, higher education is always a priority with the Legislature, even if it is not overtly stated.
The traditional emphasis on access to higher education in Texas
is becoming more and more problematic with the increasing diversity
of the youth population. Projections of enrollment growth over
the next decade show that if minority participation in higher
education remains at the same level that it is today, the state
can expect an increase of 100,000 to 250,000 students. If minority
participation rates were to increase to the same level as participation
rates for Anglos today, the growth would be about 400,000 students,
a 50 percent increase.
During the state's recession in the mid-1980s, the Legislature,
in recognizing the role of higher education in economic development,
began to consider access to state colleges and universities as
a key component in improving the state's long-term economic performance.
According to a community college representative, work-force training
and addressing the literacy problem in the state are now key priorities
for higher education-in order to enhance economic development.
Several university administrators pointed to the need to improve
the preparation of students coming out of high schools if the
state is to maintain its commitment to access. According to a
university president, the number of high school dropouts and the
poor test scores coming from high school students must be addressed
if the state is going to compete on a national and international
level. Several administrators indicated that they are working
with local schools in partnership activities to improve the preparation
of high school students.
Enhancing the participation of minority students in higher education will also be critical to the continued economic development of the state and each of its regions. Currently, nearly 23 percent of the state's Hispanic students and 20 percent of African-American students fail to finish high school.
[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]
[ HOME | REPORTS | CROSSTALK | RESOURCES | ORDER ]