Return to search

Perceptions of Decision-Makers of the Future Role of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board in the Funding Process for Public Senior Colleges and Universities

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.

Identiferoai:union.ndltd.org:unt.edu/info:ark/67531/metadc331376
Date12 1900
CreatorsNewcomer, Julia D.
ContributorsMiller, William A., Pettit, John D., Kingery, Dwane, Carrell, John, Curry, John F.
PublisherUniversity of North Texas
Source SetsUniversity of North Texas
LanguageEnglish
Detected LanguageEnglish
TypeThesis or Dissertation
Formatvii, 199 leaves, Text
CoverageUnited States - Texas
RightsPublic, Newcomer, Julia D., Copyright, Copyright is held by the author, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved.

Page generated in 0.0024 seconds