Page 51 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 51 of 137 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
43
McEwan and McEwan (2003) provide two key concepts in valuating
educational costs: cost-feasible vs. cost-effective. Cost-feasibility refers to
affordability of a specific intervention program given specific resources. Cost-effective
refers an analysis with three main points. First, cost-effectiveness is
fundamentally comparative. It is used to compare two or more organizations,
programs or interventions relative to each other. The second point is that the
comparables must have similar objectives and outcome measures in order to conduct
valid peer analysis. The third point is that the term “cost-effective” is not synonymous
with “low-cost” or “cheap”. The lowest cost program for example may not necessarily
be the most cost-effective. McEwan and McEwan also highlight the importance of
analyzing the distribution of costs. They maintain that it is helpful to divide costs by
the number of students served in order to arrive at a per-student cost. Revenues for the
CCC are also determined by the total number of students as calculated by FTES.
Instructional Cost Analysis.
In 1997, the U.S. Congress created a National Commission on the Cost of
Higher Education. The commission was charged with the responsibility for developing
recommendations that would guide and inform public policy with respect to cost
containment and cost effectiveness (Seybert & Rossol, 2010). One response to the
commission was the creation of The Kansas Study of Community College on
Instructional Costs and Productivity (the Kansas Study). The goal of the study was to
provide reliable, valid national data on community college instructional productivity.
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 51 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 43 McEwan and McEwan (2003) provide two key concepts in valuating educational costs: cost-feasible vs. cost-effective. Cost-feasibility refers to affordability of a specific intervention program given specific resources. Cost-effective refers an analysis with three main points. First, cost-effectiveness is fundamentally comparative. It is used to compare two or more organizations, programs or interventions relative to each other. The second point is that the comparables must have similar objectives and outcome measures in order to conduct valid peer analysis. The third point is that the term “cost-effective” is not synonymous with “low-cost” or “cheap”. The lowest cost program for example may not necessarily be the most cost-effective. McEwan and McEwan also highlight the importance of analyzing the distribution of costs. They maintain that it is helpful to divide costs by the number of students served in order to arrive at a per-student cost. Revenues for the CCC are also determined by the total number of students as calculated by FTES. Instructional Cost Analysis. In 1997, the U.S. Congress created a National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education. The commission was charged with the responsibility for developing recommendations that would guide and inform public policy with respect to cost containment and cost effectiveness (Seybert & Rossol, 2010). One response to the commission was the creation of The Kansas Study of Community College on Instructional Costs and Productivity (the Kansas Study). The goal of the study was to provide reliable, valid national data on community college instructional productivity. |
