Page 33 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 33 of 137 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
25
decreased that amount to less than a third, and in some districts to less than a fifth of
total revenue received. In effect, the passage of Proposition 13 shifted the majority of
CCC revenues from local property tax collection to an apportionment of state general
funds, along with a cap on growth funding (California Budget Project, 1997). By
1983, adjustments in the new formula included a differing level of funding for credit
versus non-credit courses, with non-credit courses receiving about half the funding of
credit courses. In the following year, the first general student fees were introduced.
These included a $5 fee for each unit for students enrolled in less than six units and
$50 in total for students enrolled in 6 or more units. The fees had no affect on the
general state apportionment.
The most drastic change to the funding of CCC since Proposition 13 was the
result of yet another voter approved ballot measure. Proposition 98 in 1988 was
sponsored by the California Teachers Association, the California PTA, and the
Association of California School Administrators. The narrowly passed measure
established a minimum funding level for the K-14 system, which includes K-12
system and the community colleges. The proposition guaranteed funding based on one
of three “tests” (California Budget Project, 1997). The first test guarantees schools
40% the state General Fund revenues. In the second test, the proposition requires that
schools receive at least as much as they received the prior year from state and local
sources with the addition of adjustments in enrollment growth and inflation. Test 2 is
used in years in which percentage growth in state per capita personal income is less
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 33 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 25 decreased that amount to less than a third, and in some districts to less than a fifth of total revenue received. In effect, the passage of Proposition 13 shifted the majority of CCC revenues from local property tax collection to an apportionment of state general funds, along with a cap on growth funding (California Budget Project, 1997). By 1983, adjustments in the new formula included a differing level of funding for credit versus non-credit courses, with non-credit courses receiving about half the funding of credit courses. In the following year, the first general student fees were introduced. These included a $5 fee for each unit for students enrolled in less than six units and $50 in total for students enrolled in 6 or more units. The fees had no affect on the general state apportionment. The most drastic change to the funding of CCC since Proposition 13 was the result of yet another voter approved ballot measure. Proposition 98 in 1988 was sponsored by the California Teachers Association, the California PTA, and the Association of California School Administrators. The narrowly passed measure established a minimum funding level for the K-14 system, which includes K-12 system and the community colleges. The proposition guaranteed funding based on one of three “tests” (California Budget Project, 1997). The first test guarantees schools 40% the state General Fund revenues. In the second test, the proposition requires that schools receive at least as much as they received the prior year from state and local sources with the addition of adjustments in enrollment growth and inflation. Test 2 is used in years in which percentage growth in state per capita personal income is less |
