Page 30 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 30 of 137 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
22
each state uses its own method of calculating FTES. The most common method of
calculating FTES, used by 37 states including California, entails 30 annual credit
hours (or units) of instruction. The remaining states vary their calculation by altering
how instructional contact hours are determined.
There are several examples of funding systems for community colleges outside
of California. Some of these community colleges receive the bulk of their funding
from local taxes, while others rely heavily on state tax collections. Arizona relies
heavily on local tax funds, which support over half of the CC budget (Community
College Central, 2007). Colorado has replaced the traditional appropriations to its
colleges and universities by creating the College Opportunity Trust Fund, which
provides stipends to eligible undergraduate students. Florida uses a Resource
Allocation Funding Model that calculates the level of funding needed for each
community college. Examples of factors used in the calculation include direct
instruction, academic support, and student services. The state of Illinois uses a funding
formula that analyzes the cost of various instructional programs and disciplines. Local
taxes provide approximately 40% of funding, followed by tuition, which provides
33%, and the state, which provides the remaining funding amount. Washington does
not use a funding formula, but instead determines appropriations based on the previous
year’s base, plus new initiatives, as well as enrollment growth, with the addition of
salary plus benefit increases. The bulk of funding for Washington community colleges
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 30 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 22 each state uses its own method of calculating FTES. The most common method of calculating FTES, used by 37 states including California, entails 30 annual credit hours (or units) of instruction. The remaining states vary their calculation by altering how instructional contact hours are determined. There are several examples of funding systems for community colleges outside of California. Some of these community colleges receive the bulk of their funding from local taxes, while others rely heavily on state tax collections. Arizona relies heavily on local tax funds, which support over half of the CC budget (Community College Central, 2007). Colorado has replaced the traditional appropriations to its colleges and universities by creating the College Opportunity Trust Fund, which provides stipends to eligible undergraduate students. Florida uses a Resource Allocation Funding Model that calculates the level of funding needed for each community college. Examples of factors used in the calculation include direct instruction, academic support, and student services. The state of Illinois uses a funding formula that analyzes the cost of various instructional programs and disciplines. Local taxes provide approximately 40% of funding, followed by tuition, which provides 33%, and the state, which provides the remaining funding amount. Washington does not use a funding formula, but instead determines appropriations based on the previous year’s base, plus new initiatives, as well as enrollment growth, with the addition of salary plus benefit increases. The bulk of funding for Washington community colleges |
