Page 14 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 14 of 137 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
6 on forms provided by the Chancellor’s Office (Budgeting and Accounting Manual, 2000). Various accounts compose the financial standing of the community college. Hundreds of accounts, divided along instructional and non-instructional activities compose the expense of education. These costs are further subdivided among the different disciplines, such as humanities, math and social science. Beyond the cost of instruction, administrative support, operation and maintenance of plant, planning and policy making, as well as several ancillary and auxiliary functions consist of some of the additional fiscal costs. Each of these categories of costs is further divided by specific type of activity along with its appropriate account. These accounts are arranged by “Object Code” in the accounting mechanism of the community colleges. The methods of accounting for all districts within the state are standardized according to the Budget and Accounting Manual provided by the Chancellor’s office. Analyzing the costs of instruction at the community colleges can occur in various forms, such as total expenditure of instruction by college, expenditures per head count of students, or by FTES. This study derives costs based FTES, which is widely used in the funding process. A review of the literature on community college costs is presented in Chapter 2. Statement of the Problem Institutions in higher education face increased pressure to contain and manage human and fiscal resources more efficiently and effectively (Brewer & Sumner, 2006). Accountability in costs has reached a level that the House Education Committee of the
Object Description
Title | Finance in the California community college: Comparative analysis and benchmarking of instructional expenditures |
Author | Karamian, Martin |
Author email | martinsfsu@netzero.com; karamim@piercecollege.edu |
Degree | Doctor of Education |
Document type | Dissertation |
Degree program | Education (Leadership) |
School | Rossier School of Education |
Date defended/completed | 2011-03-17 |
Date submitted | 2011 |
Restricted until | Unrestricted |
Date published | 2011-04-26 |
Advisor (committee chair) | Picus, Lawrence O. |
Advisor (committee member) |
Melguizo, Tatiana Vega, William |
Abstract | The goals of this empirical study of community colleges are to 1) create a benchmark for per student instructional expenditures; and 2) account for variations in instructional expenditures among a peer group of community colleges in Southern California. The peer group sample included 22 single campus community college districts in the Los Angeles area. Using data for three fiscal years a refined mean benchmark value for instructional expenditures of $2,676.71 per full-time equivalent student (FTES) was estimated with a standard deviation of $326.54. Using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, 11 variables were correlated with instructional costs per FTES. The largest and only statistically significant determinant included the number of part-time instructors (-0.424). While other variables were correlated, none were statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval. The results from the sample suggest that larger colleges have lower instructional costs per FTES despite higher faculty pay. Expanding credit student enrollment within the funding growth limits set by the State, along with additional part-time instruction within the limits set by the State will likely result in lower instructional costs per FTES and an economy of scale effect. The effect of increased institutional size on quality of education was not assessed. |
Keyword | finance; California; community college; comparative analysis; benchmarking; instructional expenditures; economics; higher education; spending; instruction; education; economy of scale |
Geographic subject (state) | California |
Geographic subject (country) | USA |
Coverage date | 1990/2010 |
Language | English |
Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
Type | texts |
Legacy record ID | usctheses-m3775 |
Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
Rights | Karamian, Martin |
Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
Filename | etd-Karamian-4454 |
Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume23/etd-Karamian-4454.pdf |
Description
Title | Page 14 |
Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
Full text | 6 on forms provided by the Chancellor’s Office (Budgeting and Accounting Manual, 2000). Various accounts compose the financial standing of the community college. Hundreds of accounts, divided along instructional and non-instructional activities compose the expense of education. These costs are further subdivided among the different disciplines, such as humanities, math and social science. Beyond the cost of instruction, administrative support, operation and maintenance of plant, planning and policy making, as well as several ancillary and auxiliary functions consist of some of the additional fiscal costs. Each of these categories of costs is further divided by specific type of activity along with its appropriate account. These accounts are arranged by “Object Code” in the accounting mechanism of the community colleges. The methods of accounting for all districts within the state are standardized according to the Budget and Accounting Manual provided by the Chancellor’s office. Analyzing the costs of instruction at the community colleges can occur in various forms, such as total expenditure of instruction by college, expenditures per head count of students, or by FTES. This study derives costs based FTES, which is widely used in the funding process. A review of the literature on community college costs is presented in Chapter 2. Statement of the Problem Institutions in higher education face increased pressure to contain and manage human and fiscal resources more efficiently and effectively (Brewer & Sumner, 2006). Accountability in costs has reached a level that the House Education Committee of the |