Concluding Observations

The structure of higher education in Texas is heavily influenced by the political process. The structure tends to encourage local pride and local ownership of the institutions. As a result, there is resistance to changes that are perceived as decreasing the status of any institution in the current structure. Texans resist grouping along regional lines or by institutional types because this potentially lessens the power and prestige of one or more of the institutions.

The Coordinating Board is generally regarded by those we interviewed as a necessary evil. The coordination function is sometimes viewed as a form of excessive bureaucratic intrusion, but it is generally believed to be effectively performed. For instance, the board helps to minimize duplication of programs and provides a statewide perspective in this state heavily dominated by local interests. The board is seen as being effective or ineffective depending on the willingness of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker, and Legislature to let them be effective.

The board acts as an intermediary, according to its staff members, in areas where institutions and the board can reach consensus. Institutions negotiate with the Legislature directly concerning those areas where consensus is not reached-such as areas of special interest. The structure creates few limits on legislative intervention, and direct contact between institutions and the Legislature is considered healthy in this environment.

The structure also allows for individual leadership. In the mid-1980s, when the state was undergoing a fiscal crisis, the leadership of the Lieutenant Governor and one or two prominent university board members helped convince the Legislature that higher education was crucial for future economic development, and subsequently that it should provide stable support for higher education. This required a central, united front on the part of higher education, something the structure does not appear to encourage. Under strong leadership and in a time of fiscal crisis, however, this was able to work.

Several people attributed the success and longevity of the Coordinating Board to the leadership of the current commissioner. While the board could act in a much more regulatory way, the commissioner has kept it from doing so, perhaps because he recognizes that this approach would not be appreciated by the Legislature.

The Texas system of higher education is characterized by ongoing tensions between the Coordinating Board and the institutions, and between the Coordinating Board and the Legislature. While there is a stronger dislike for the Coordinating Board than we saw in some of the other study states, this board plays a very important role in balancing the public and professional interests in Texas.

 

[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]


[ HOME | REPORTS | CROSSTALK | RESOURCES | ORDER ]