The problem with which this investigation is concerned is that of providing research on the development of the Coordinating Board, Texas College and University System, and to describe the manner in which it presently functions.

This study compares the perceptions of presidents and academic and fiscal vice presidents of Texas public senior colleges and universities and with those of (appointed) members of the Texas Coordinating Board. A survey instrument was developed, based upon appropriate coordinating board functions discussed in the literature review, A five-point scale was used to measure intensity or agreement or disagreement. Responses were subjected to one way analysis of variance to determine differences between administrators and board members. Differences significant at the .05 level are reported. Administrators and board members differed significantly on all statements related to centralized control versus internal autonomy. Board members endorsed a greater variety of roles and a higher level of activity for the board than did administrators, although members were not expansionistic. Administrators indicated diverse opinions regarding the board's role. Responses related to formula funding were similar. Board members believed that requests to the legislature for higher education funding needs should be presented in terms of a statewide system; administrators indicated uncertainty. Both agreed on the increasing importance of long-range planning in formula development, but administrators were unsure whether such planning would help provide stability and realistic expectations in funding. Both groups endorsed a greater role for the board in collecting, interpreting, and disseminating information regarding higher education institutions. Neither subgroup offered an opinion regarding subjection of higher education budget requests to the criteria used for other state agencies. Board members and administrators disagreed as to whether private business standards were appropriate for higher education institutions. The relationship between funding recommended by the board and appropriations passed by the legislature was not considered appropriate for evaluating board success. State appropriations for higher education were seen as an investment in the state's economic future. Administrators did not believe college and university faculties understood the board s role in funding; board members were undecided.

The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the relationship of participation and involvement in an undergraduate student success program to academic success and persistence among students in three programs sponsored by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB): the G-Force Collegiate Work-Study Mentorship Program, the Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) for Higher Education (AHE) program, and the THECB work-study program. The sample was identified using data from the THECB during the 2009-2013 academic years. Compared to THECB work-study students, significantly more AHE and G-Force students persisted toward graduation while engaged in the program (p < .001). ANOVA indicated that AHE students had a higher average GPA compared to G-Force and THECB work-study students, controlled for gender, race/ethnicity, pre-program GPA, and length of time in the position. Regression analyses found no statistically significant relationship between program associations and persistence towards graduation or GPA. Results suggest that although participation in a peer leadership programs such as AHE and G-Force encourage greater academic achievement and persistence, there is no direct relation to the achievement of these outcome variables. Implications of the study suggest the need for a deeper analysis into elements of peer leadership programs that contribute to student success, an expanded analysis of outcomes across a wider range of demographic variables, and an exploration of peer leadership programs across campuses for comparison of persistence and GPA outcomes.