Page 37 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 37 of 137 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
29
based on test 3, they are required to make up the difference in subsequent years to
match funding that would have resulted under test 2 (EdSource, 2010). Once the CCC
funding is determined by the state, the funds are channeled to the California
Community College Chancellor’s office, which allocates the funds to the 72
community college districts. Some of these districts may contain several campuses,
but the majority are single campus districts.
Based on data provided by the California Community College Chancellor’s
Office, when measured against other community colleges in the United States, the
CCC ranks 45th in FTES funding out of the 50 states (Murphy, 2004). In the 2000-
2001 academic year, California received $4,882 per FTES. The national average
revenue for public two-year colleges is 23% higher than the revenue in California, at
approximately $9,810 per FTES. Previous research suggests that the CCC have fallen
short in regard to resources and resource management (Murphy, 2004). While
legislation has set the CCC proportion of Proposition 98 funding at 10.9%, in practice,
funding has been well below 10.9% for community colleges. In recent years, the share
of the CCC has fluctuated from 9.4% to 10.3% of total Proposition 98 resources
(Murphy, 2004). In the 2001-2002 fiscal year for example, the level of funding for the
CCC was $456 million below the 10.9% proportion (EdSource, 2010). The decrease in
CCC systems funding share has been a benefit to the K-12 system; as the share of
CCC has decreased, the share of the K-12 system has increased, reflecting the
apparent fiscal priorities of state lawmakers (Murphy, 2004); for 2001-2002 fiscal
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 37 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 29 based on test 3, they are required to make up the difference in subsequent years to match funding that would have resulted under test 2 (EdSource, 2010). Once the CCC funding is determined by the state, the funds are channeled to the California Community College Chancellor’s office, which allocates the funds to the 72 community college districts. Some of these districts may contain several campuses, but the majority are single campus districts. Based on data provided by the California Community College Chancellor’s Office, when measured against other community colleges in the United States, the CCC ranks 45th in FTES funding out of the 50 states (Murphy, 2004). In the 2000- 2001 academic year, California received $4,882 per FTES. The national average revenue for public two-year colleges is 23% higher than the revenue in California, at approximately $9,810 per FTES. Previous research suggests that the CCC have fallen short in regard to resources and resource management (Murphy, 2004). While legislation has set the CCC proportion of Proposition 98 funding at 10.9%, in practice, funding has been well below 10.9% for community colleges. In recent years, the share of the CCC has fluctuated from 9.4% to 10.3% of total Proposition 98 resources (Murphy, 2004). In the 2001-2002 fiscal year for example, the level of funding for the CCC was $456 million below the 10.9% proportion (EdSource, 2010). The decrease in CCC systems funding share has been a benefit to the K-12 system; as the share of CCC has decreased, the share of the K-12 system has increased, reflecting the apparent fiscal priorities of state lawmakers (Murphy, 2004); for 2001-2002 fiscal |
