Page 50 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 50 of 137 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
42
Cost Analysis
When implementing policies in schools, various resources such as teachers,
facilities, and equipment are utilized. When these resources are used, they are not
available for other uses. This cost is known as the opportunity costs (McEwan &
McEwan, 2003). Since community colleges use resources to provide students with
various services, it is critical to understand how resources are used in providing
services such as instruction. A simple approach to cost analysis is the ingredients
method (Levin & McEwan, 2001). The ingredients method involves identify all of the
ingredients that comprise the program or policy. Common policy and program
ingredients consist of personnel, facilities, equipment and material, and a
miscellaneous category. Within personnel ingredients, costs include teachers,
instructional aids, administrative support, janitorial services and so on (Levin &
McEwan, 2001). Some of these personnel positions may require certain qualifications,
such as instructors at a community college. In addition to personnel costs, facilities
costs include classroom, office space, equipment and material, furnishings,
instructional equipment, computers, office supplies and so on. These costs are
normally estimated on an annual basis. Actual values for ingredients can usually be
obtained from expenditure data (Levin & McEwan, 2001); districts in the CCC system
provide such data based on methodology described in the Budgeting and Accounting
Manual.
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 50 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 42 Cost Analysis When implementing policies in schools, various resources such as teachers, facilities, and equipment are utilized. When these resources are used, they are not available for other uses. This cost is known as the opportunity costs (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Since community colleges use resources to provide students with various services, it is critical to understand how resources are used in providing services such as instruction. A simple approach to cost analysis is the ingredients method (Levin & McEwan, 2001). The ingredients method involves identify all of the ingredients that comprise the program or policy. Common policy and program ingredients consist of personnel, facilities, equipment and material, and a miscellaneous category. Within personnel ingredients, costs include teachers, instructional aids, administrative support, janitorial services and so on (Levin & McEwan, 2001). Some of these personnel positions may require certain qualifications, such as instructors at a community college. In addition to personnel costs, facilities costs include classroom, office space, equipment and material, furnishings, instructional equipment, computers, office supplies and so on. These costs are normally estimated on an annual basis. Actual values for ingredients can usually be obtained from expenditure data (Levin & McEwan, 2001); districts in the CCC system provide such data based on methodology described in the Budgeting and Accounting Manual. |
