Page 32 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 32 of 137 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
24
CCC. By the late 1950’s, foundation funding per ADA had been increased several
times to $424, a trend that would continue until the funding mechanism was changed
entirely by Proposition 13. By the mid 1970s, a cap was placed on the amount of
funding per ADA. Any growth beyond 5% was not funded; however, local districts
were allowed to increase local taxes to compensate for any shortfalls.
Significant changes to CC funding occurred in 1978 with the passage of
Proposition 13. The ballot proposition was overwhelmingly passed by Californians
with the specific intent of limiting local property taxes, in an act of “tax payer revolt”
(Principles for Community College Finance, 1983). Among the many provisions of
Proposition 13, was a limit on ad-valorem property tax limit of 1%. The proposition
compounded that already difficult budget approval mechanism, which required a two-thirds
majority in both the state senate and state assembly in regards to any tax
increases. The result was also debilitating for the overall state funded operations,
which culminated in an agreed budget deal. Today it is not uncommon for the State of
California to be operating without a budget agreement for several weeks after the July
1 start of each fiscal year.
The proposition entailed multiple outcomes. First was the elimination of
funding inequities due to varying property tax collection per district. Second was a
shift of financial authority from local district control to state control (California
Budget Project, 1997). Prior to the passage of Proposition 13, CCC received about
55% of their revenues from local property taxes, but the proposition significantly
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 32 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 24 CCC. By the late 1950’s, foundation funding per ADA had been increased several times to $424, a trend that would continue until the funding mechanism was changed entirely by Proposition 13. By the mid 1970s, a cap was placed on the amount of funding per ADA. Any growth beyond 5% was not funded; however, local districts were allowed to increase local taxes to compensate for any shortfalls. Significant changes to CC funding occurred in 1978 with the passage of Proposition 13. The ballot proposition was overwhelmingly passed by Californians with the specific intent of limiting local property taxes, in an act of “tax payer revolt” (Principles for Community College Finance, 1983). Among the many provisions of Proposition 13, was a limit on ad-valorem property tax limit of 1%. The proposition compounded that already difficult budget approval mechanism, which required a two-thirds majority in both the state senate and state assembly in regards to any tax increases. The result was also debilitating for the overall state funded operations, which culminated in an agreed budget deal. Today it is not uncommon for the State of California to be operating without a budget agreement for several weeks after the July 1 start of each fiscal year. The proposition entailed multiple outcomes. First was the elimination of funding inequities due to varying property tax collection per district. Second was a shift of financial authority from local district control to state control (California Budget Project, 1997). Prior to the passage of Proposition 13, CCC received about 55% of their revenues from local property taxes, but the proposition significantly |
