Page 117 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 117 of 137 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
109
and responsible for their own educational attainment, community colleges may need to
provided a higher level of student support to enhance student success.
Finally, costs related to non-instructional activities were not within the scope
of this study. These costs include student support (counseling, admissions, etc) and
facilities (maintenance, capital expenditures, etc). Combined, these three factors will
provide an overall, macro-view of district expenditures. The instructional benchmark
in this study can be combined with a benchmark for both student support services as
well as facilities and maintenance costs. These three benchmarks can be combined to
create an overall cost benchmark. These three benchmarks will also enhance the
analysis of resource allocation in terms of percentage of expenditures within the three
areas.
Conclusions
This study identified the following three main conclusions:
• Increasing PT instruction leads to costs saving in terms of $ per FTES.
• Increasing PT instruction coincides with higher PT instructor pay, and to a
limited degree higher FT pay.
• Increased PT instruction and its related higher PT instructor pay also
coincide with a higher student to faculty ratio: cost of higher pay is offset
by the higher level of enrollment (particularly with Credit enrollment).
• Larger colleges (in terms of enrollment and faculty) spend less on
instruction in terms of $ per FTES resulting in economies of scale.
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 117 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 109 and responsible for their own educational attainment, community colleges may need to provided a higher level of student support to enhance student success. Finally, costs related to non-instructional activities were not within the scope of this study. These costs include student support (counseling, admissions, etc) and facilities (maintenance, capital expenditures, etc). Combined, these three factors will provide an overall, macro-view of district expenditures. The instructional benchmark in this study can be combined with a benchmark for both student support services as well as facilities and maintenance costs. These three benchmarks can be combined to create an overall cost benchmark. These three benchmarks will also enhance the analysis of resource allocation in terms of percentage of expenditures within the three areas. Conclusions This study identified the following three main conclusions: • Increasing PT instruction leads to costs saving in terms of $ per FTES. • Increasing PT instruction coincides with higher PT instructor pay, and to a limited degree higher FT pay. • Increased PT instruction and its related higher PT instructor pay also coincide with a higher student to faculty ratio: cost of higher pay is offset by the higher level of enrollment (particularly with Credit enrollment). • Larger colleges (in terms of enrollment and faculty) spend less on instruction in terms of $ per FTES resulting in economies of scale. |
