University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Relationship Of Size To Current Expense Of Education In California Single-College Public Junior College Districts

(USC Thesis Other)

The Relationship Of Size To Current Expense Of Education In California Single-College Public Junior College Districts

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been
microfilmed exactly as received 6 8— 17,036
OSTROM, William Albert, 1918-
THE RELATIONSHIP OF SIZE TO CURRENT EXPENSE
OF EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA SINGLE-COLLEGE
PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICTS.
University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1968
Education, administration
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
THE RELATIONSHIP OF SIZE TO CURRENT EXPENSE
OF EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA SINGLE-COLLEGE
PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICTS
by
William Albert Ostrom
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
June 1968
This dissertation, written under the direction
of the Chairman of the candidate’s Guidance
Committee and approved by all members of the
Committee, has been presented to and accepted
by the Faculty of the School of Education in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Education.
JUKE, 1968
Dean
Guidance Committee
Chairman
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM
Background
Purpose of the Study
Delimitations
Limitations
Assumptions
! Hypotheses
i Definitions of Terms
I
| II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..............
! III. PROCEDURES .............................
1 Selection of the Study Population
; Collection of Data
j Treatment of Data
! IV. PRESENTATION OF DATA ...................
t
I The Study Population
Unit Costs in Actual Amounts
Expenditures as Percentages of the
Adjusted Current Expense of
Education
| Selected Expenditures as Percentages
of Teachers' Salaries
| Discussion
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Conclusions
Recommendations
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......... .........................
| APPENDIX A .......................................
; APPENDIX B .......................................
ii
Page |
iii
I
1
15
34
40
93
107
113
117
LIST OP TABLES
Table Page
1. Sizes of Colleges Included in the Study . . 42
2. Assessed Valuation per Unit of A.D.A. . . 43
3. Assignable Square Feet per Unit of A.D.A. . 45
4. Adjusted Current Expense of Education . . . 47
5. Expenditures for Administration........... 49
6. Expenditures for Instruction ............. 51
7. Expenditures for Health Services ......... 52
8. Expenditures for Operation of Plant .... 54
9. Expenditures for Maintenance of Plant . . . 55
10. Expenditures for Fixed Charges ........... 57
11. Expenditures for Transportation ........... 58
12. Expenditures for Teachers' Salaries .... 60
13* Expenditures for Classified Salaries of
Administration and Instruction ........ 63
14. Expenditures for Certificated Nonteaching
Salaries of Administration and
instruction......................... 64
15* Expenditures for All Nonteaching Salaries
of Administration and Instruction .... 65
16. Expenditures for Operation plus
Maintenance......................... 66
17. Expenditures for B o o k s ............... 69
18. Administrative Costs as Percentages of
Adjusted Current Expense of Education . . 70
19. Instruction Costs as Percentages of
Adjusted Current Expense of Education . , . 71
iii
Table Page
20. Health Service Costs as Percentages of
Adjusted Current Expense of Education . . 72
21. Costs of Operation as Percentages of
Adjusted Current Expense of Education . . 73
22. Maintenance Costs as Percentages of
Adjusted Current Expense of Education . . 7^
23. Fixed Charges as Percentages of
Adjusted Current Expense of Education . . 75
24. Transportation Costs as Percentages of
Adjusted Current Expense of Education . . 76
2 5. Teachers' Salaries as Percentages of
Adjusted Current Expense of Education . . 77
26. Classified Salaries of Administration and
Instruction as Percentages of Adjusted
Current Expense of Instruction ........ 78
2 7. salaries of Certificated Nonteaching
Personnel of Administration and Instruc
tion as Percentages of Adjusted Current
Expense of Education ................... 79
28. Salaries of All Nonteaching Personnel as
Percentages of Adjusted Current Expense
of Education........................... 80
29... Costs of Operation plus Maintenance as
Percentages of Adjusted Current Expense
of Education........................... 8l
30. Costs of Books as Percentages of Adjusted
Current Expense of Education .......... 82
31. Selected Mean Unit Expenditures as Per
centages of Mean Teachers' Salaries . . . 86
iv
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Background
Probably no other segment of public education is ex
panding at a more rapid rate than Is the junior college.
There appears to be little agreement, however, as to what
constitutes a reasonable minimum size, what is a fiscally
efficient size, or what should be the level of support for
junior colleges of various sizes.
Among documents relevant to state plans for junior
colleges in nineteen states, seven make no mention of min
imum or desirable size; two indicate establishment of in
stitutions in various regions of the states, with sizes in
one state ranging from fewer than 500 to 1 ,5 0 0 students,
and in the other from 148 to 1 6,8 9 1. In the other ten
I *
I states of the group, the recommended minimum sizes range
|
j from 200 to 1,000, with various periods of time to achieve
S such standards. Feasibility studies have been prepared
1
! which permit establishment of colleges of various sizes
i
j
I within these ranges.1
j
I information in this paragraph is the result of
the writer's unreported, informal survey of documents in
the ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior College Information at
the University of California at Los Angeles.
2
In California, too, there has been little agreement
concerning either a minimum or an optimum size for a publici
i
junior college. ’ The master plan contained a recommenda
tion that no new junior college be established without a
projected enrollment of at least 400 full-time students
within its first seven to ten years of operation. 2 In
1964, the coordinating council raised this recommended
minimum to 9 0 0, to be achieved by the second year of oper
ation. 3
The California Education Code now provides that a
new junior college district must have a potential resident
average daily attendance of 1,000; the State Department of
Education must make such projections for the second year of
operation.^ However, the code also provides that excep
tions may be made.^ As a result of such developments,
there are now in California some colleges which do not
meet even the i960 master plan minimum; for some the 1 ,0 0 0
minimum figure will not be reached in the foreseeable
future.
! p
Master Plan Survey Team, A Master Plan for Higher
I Education in California 1960-1975 (Sacramento: California
!State Department of Education, i9 6 0), p. 111.
i
! ^Coordinating Council for Higher Education, The
I Master Plan Five Years Later (Sacramento: Coordinating
I Council for Higher Education, 1 9 6 6), p. 1 6.
j ^California, Education Code (1 9 6 5), Sections 25431#
(25432.
! ^California, Education Code (1 9 6 5), Sections 25432.5#
! 25433.
3
Establishment of these small colleges has not been
accompanied by guarantee of financial support adequate to j
provide comprehensive, high quality programs. The Educa
tion Code provides that there shall be a minimum assessed
valuation of $1 5 0 ,0 0 0 for each projected unit of resident
average daily attendance, regardless of how many units are
expected. Representatives of small colleges have claimed
that special difficulties are inherent in the financing of
their institutions; it has been stated that a common set of
standards for support and for control of expenditures can-
| not be administered equitably for both large and small col-
! leges.
As a result of action initiated by a group of small
college administrators, the legislature approved for 1965-
67 special aid provisions for junior college districts
| with resident non-adult average daily attendance under
! 1,0 0 1. It is interesting to note that the "small college"
! administrators originally involved were presidents of in-
I stitutions with fewer than 750 total average daily attend-
; ance, but that the legislation established eligibility
i for this special support on the basis of the 1 ,0 0 1 figure,
with computations of eligibility and allowances based on
^Burear of Junior College Education, "Conference of
| Small Junior Colleges" (Sacramento: California State
| Department of Education, 1964), p. 1.
—
i
attention of resident non-adults. The legislature in |
1967 provided for continuation of this aid.? Meanwhile,
various restrictions, it has been stated, have interfered
t
with efficient operation of the small colleges (e.g., the :
Teachers' Salary Limitation prescribed in E.C. 17503)*
Another factor in the background of this study is the pro
jected elimination of the maximum tax rate for current
operation; this development will necessitate increased
awareness of relative costs of various functions.
When eight districts in the state have fewer than
900 total units of average daily attendance,' while three
others which also operate only one .college report over
9,000, with one at almost 12,000, questions may well be
1
asked concerning college size in relation to expenditures.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the
relationship between size and current expenditures ex
pressed as unit costs in California public junior col
lege districts which maintain a single college. Specif1-
• i cally, the study was designed to determine answers to
i
j
I the following questions:
1. What is the relationship between size and cur-
1
rent expense of education, expressed as a cost
1
— — - - ----- j ----------------------------- -—- — --------* -----
| ^California State Legislature, Regular Session,
I 1 9 6 7> Assembly Bill 272.
per unit of average daily attendance?
a. What is the relationship between size and
the unit costs of the major budget classi
fications?
(1) administration
(2) instruction
(3) health services
(4) operation of the college plant
(5) maintenance of the college plant _
(6) fixed charges
(7) transportation
b. What is the relationship between size and
the percentage of the current expense of
education represented in each of the above
categories?
What is the relationship between size and the
unit costs of the following selected specific
functions?
a. Teachers' salaries
b. salaries of classified personnel of admin
istration and instruction
c. salaries of nonteaching certificated person
nel of administration and instruction
d. salaries of all nonteaching personnel of
administration and instruction
e. books
f. operation plus maintenance.
3. What is the relationship between size and the
percentage of the current expense of education
represented In each of the categories of 2,
above?
4. What is the relationship between size and the
ratio of each category in la and 2 to the
amount expended for teachers' salaries?
Delimitations
Pour areas of delimitation of the study should be
1. The study is restricted to California junior
college districts which, during the 1 9 6 6 -6 7
school year,
a. were separate entities (i.e., high school
and unified districts maintaining junior
colleges are not'included),
b. were public junior college districts, and
c. maintained only one college, although
classes might be offered in locations other
than the main campus.
2. All districts meeting the above criteria are
included in the study.
3. The study is restricted to a consideration of
expenditures during the 1 9 6 6 -6 7 school year.
7
4. The study is restricted to consideration of the
elements described in "Purpose of the Study."
Limitations
In a consideration of this study, attention should
be directed to the following limitations:
1. Applicability of the results of the study to
other institutions may depend on factors which
are not included as elements in this study.
2. In the restrictions of the study to size and
selected fiscal matters, no consideration is
given to evaluation of program scope or quality.
Assumptions
Pour assumptions were inherent in this study:
1. The pattern of expenditures in the colleges
studied is typical of their expenditure patterns
in recent years.
2. The assignment of expenditures to categories has
been consistent with state law, administrative
regulations, and State Department of Education
directives.
3* The assignment of expenditures to categories has
been reported accurately.
4. The colleges in the study group are attempting
to use their available funds in the most effic
cient manner consistent with their educational
8
purposes.
Hypotheses
Three hypotheses basic to the study were tested in
the process of investigation of the previously stated
questions:
1. There is a negative linear relationship be
tween institutional size and the actual amounts
expended per unit of average daily attendance
in the major budget classifications.
2. There is a positive linear relationship between
institutional size and the portion of the cur-
i
rent expense of education which is expended for
instruction-related functions.
3* There is a positive linear relationship .between
institutional size and the portion of the cur-
| rent expense of education which is expended for
I
j teachers' salaries.
t
! Definitions of Terms
i Following are definitions of certain terms used in
this report. Definitions followed by an asterisk have
been adapted with little or no modification from those
■ 8
| stated in the accounting manual. Definitions of certain
; ^California State Department of Education, Califor-
! nia School Accounting Manual. 1964 edition, Bulletin of
I the California State Department of Education, Volume
i XXXIII, Number 2,, June, 1964 (Sacramento: California
| State Department of Education, 1964).
terms indicate a specialized use in this report. Such
i
usage is discussed in appropriate sections of the report, j
j
i
j
Adjusted Current Expense
of Education
This is the current expense of education, adjusted
for purposes of this study to include expenditures for
books from capital outlay classifications. In this study,
the adjusted current expense of education was the basic
I
i
j figure used for comparisons of total unit costs.
;Administration
! This budget category includes activities having as
|their purpose the regulation, direction, and control of
the school district as a whole.*
I Assignable Square Feet -
I This term refers to the floor area of any building
lor structure, except separate parking structures, as
signed or assignable to using agencies, having at least
j
la 6X6" ceiling, and enclosed on all sides.^
Average Daily Attendance
i This figure is used as the basis for. apportionment
of school funds in California and, for junior colleges,
^ B u r e a u 0f junior College Education, Handbook of
I Definitions, Publication No. 4, Revised (Sacramento:
I California State Department of Education, 1 9 6 6), p. B-2.
10
represents 1 /5 2 5 of all student hours of attendance dur- j
I
lng a school year. For specific purposes, distinctions
I
j
are made between attendance of residents and non-resi- j
dents, or of adults and "others"; and a district receives j
credit for the attendance of its residents who attend
other junior colleges. For this study, the average daily
attendance is the total reported as having attended
classes at the institution in question, without consider
ation of type or of source, and without the addition of
| credit for students who attended junior colleges in other
t
| districts.
I
I
| Budget
A budget is a proposed plan of expenditures and the
means of financing them. Budget form J-4l of the Cal
ifornia State Department of Education is designed to in
clude prior year expenditures.
i
Capital Outlay Expenditures
This budget category includes those expenditures
i
| which result in the acquisition of fixed assets, including
! costs of land, existing buildings, improvement of sites,
■ construction of buildings, additions of buildings, re-
’ modeling of buildings, or initial or additional equip-
s ment.* (The only such expenditures included in this
I study are those in budget class 1 2 6 1, books.)
Certificated Salaries
Salaries paid to personnel whose functions require
them to have credentials authorizing their services are
included under this heading.*
Classified Salaries
Tnese salaries are paid to personnel whose posi
tions do not require them to have state-issued creden
tials . *
Current Expense of Education
| This term refers to the current operating expense
i of a school district, including all those expenditures
charged to administration, instruction, health services,
transportation, operation of plantmaintenance of plant
and fixed charges.* (The only use of this term in the
| present study is as a basis for development of the term
I
! "adjusted current expense of education.")
I
| Expenditures for Books
Regardless of the source of funds or the budget ac
I count to which they are charged, in this report all ex-
I penditures for books are included under this heading.
! Fixed Charges
| These are expenditures of a generally recurrent
| nature, which are not readily allocable to other expend-
I iture accounts (e.g., retirement system contributions,
12
social security contributions, insurance premiums, and
rentals).*
Health Services
Health services include those activities in the
•field of physical and mental health which are not direct
instruction, consisting of medical, dental, psychiatric,
and nurse services.*
I
j
I Instruction
i This budget class includes all those activities
!which deal directly with the teaching of pupils, improving
l
i
!the quality of teaching, or aiding in the adjustment of
I pupils to the educational program.*
Junior College
I This term refers to a 2-year institution of higher
i
|education authorized by various sections of the Califor-
I
|nia Education Code to offer instruction including, but not
(beyond, the fourteenth grade, including transfer courses,
!
;vocational and technical education leading to employment,
land general or liberal arts courses.1^
j
I Maintenance of Plant
The term designates those activities required to re
pair or replace school property, implying maintenance at
j
'approximately its original condition of completeness and
i
; -^California, Education Code (1 9 6 5)t section 2 2 6 5 1.
13
efficiency.*
Operation of Plant __
Those housekeeping activities which are concerned
with keeping the physical plant open and ready for use
are included here.
Public Junior College District
This is a school district established under provi
sions of any of several sections of the California Educa
tion Code solely for the purpose of providing junior
college services.
Single-college Junior College
District
This is a public junior college district which pro
vides educational services through a single college serv
ing as the administrative unit.
Teachers 1 Salary Limitation
| This name is applied to the requirement that, un-
| less a waiver is granted by the State Department of Educa-
! tlon, a school district must spend for teachers' salaries
i at least a specified percentage of the current expense of
; education (less transportation and certain prescribed de-
| ductions). For junior colleges, the amount specified is
| fifty percent.11
■^California, Education Code (1963)* section 17503.'
1 4 1
1
Transportation |
Transportation includes those activities which have j
as their purpose the conveyance of pupils between home and j
school or on trips for curricular or cocurricular activi
ties.*
Unit
In this study, the term "unit" refers to a unit of
average daily attendance.
Unit Cost
j In this study, this term designates the cost of pro-
j
i viding a service for each unit (of average daily attend-
| ance) at a college.
CHAPTER II
i
i
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This is a study of unit costs in certain California
public junior colleges.
Unit costs in higher education are the general
ized quantifiable value'of the resources in
vested and expended, divided by a standard
identifiable measure of output such as a contact
| period, credit, major program, curriculum, or
| student. Units are based on registrars' rec-
j ords. Costs are based on budgets and financial
accounting records.^-
Unit cost studies in education are not new or un
common. For example, in 1925r deploring the fact that
institutional appropriations were frequently complicated
by inaccurate and unreliable per-student cost figures,
Stevens and Elliott denied the possibility of disregarding
|
per-student costs in the determination of financial pol
icies in higher education.2
I
! In his study of 1 9 6 6 -6 7 unit costs in the Wisconsin
j
I state universities, Witmer offered four types of justifi-
t
I cation for this type of study, stating that unit cost
1
Davis R. Witmer, Unit Cost Studies (Madison,
! Wisconsin: Boarc}, of Regents of State Universities, 1 9 6 7)>
!p. 1. ■ -
Edwin B. Stevens and Edward C. Elliott, Unit Costs
I of Higher Education (New York: The Macmillan Company,
I 1925)7 P."4.
1
! . . 15
- • l6~]
i
i
studies ;
j
1. provide information which can be related to
the goals of education in major policy form
ation,
2. provide a basis for the evaluation of efficiency
at various levels,
3. provide data use'ful to a study of alternatives,
and — ‘ •
4. are used in program planning and in the prepar-
! ation of budgets.3
i
| Not all of the literature about the use of unit cost
i studies is favorable toward their use. For example, Hull,
! discussing costs in higher education in general, expressed
| concern about use of quantitative measures in situations
| where quality should receive major attention. He consid-
! ered current quantitative measures of performance to be
!
j inaccurate and cautioned against the possibility that use
t •
j of such studies might imply that cost is the most import-
j ant aspect of the educational environment. The nature of
; cost-study data, he warned, may lead to faulty interpre-
! tations, establishment of unwarranted relationships, and
~ i i
abuses resulting from excessive eagerness to cut costs.
| ft
-'Witmer, op. cit., p. 3.
j ^L. E. Hull, "Pitfalls in the Use of Unit Cost
! Studies," The Journal of Higher Education, XXX (October.
i 1 9 6 1), P. 37i r r .-----
Williams states that probably the simplest, and cer-j
tainly the most misleading, method of computing educa
tional costs is to divide the total budget by the total
enrollment and thus to secure an average cost per student.|
He advocates caution in interpretation, with attention to
the many factors which may tend to increase or to decrease
costs.^
Whatever may be the criticisms of such studies, they
have long been a widely accepted means of investigating
expenditures at all levels of education. In their study
!
| of institutional costs at five universities and colleges
|
and at four normal schools during the period of 1921-23,
Stevens and Elliott reached five-conclusions which have
relevance for the present study:
1. Unit costs of instruction may be indicative of
means of promoting economy.
2. Unit costs will tend to be high where enroll-
|
ments are low.
i
3. Unit costs of the same kind of work in different
I institutions tend toward similar levels.
j
; 4. During a period of increasing enrollments about
the time of their study, unit costs had tended
to decrease.
! 5R0bert l . Williams, "Cost of Educating One College
I Student," Educational Record, XLII (October, 1961),
' 322-29.
' 18 “|
5* There was need for standardization of financial
accounting systems to facilitate interinstitu-
i
*
tional comparisons.
Witmer cites several conclusions from a 1954-55 j
study of higher education costs. Among them is a state
ment that unit costs change as the "student mix" changes.
Too, the report indicates that unit costs are lowest where
the numbers of curricula are lowest. Possibly the most
significant conclusions with respect to the present study
! are that
t
j 1. cost functions are curvilinear rather than lin-
!
| ear, forming an irregular curve pattern, and
2. teaching salaries do not appear to be related
to cost per student because other factors are
of greater weight.
The second of these conclusions leads to a statement that
it is possible to raise academic salaries and reduce unit
costs at the same time.^ It should be noted, of course,
that the study he cites was concerned with universities
and four-year colleges, where the emphasis on classroom
I ;
j teaching is commonly different from that in the junior
i
| college.
'
^Stevens and Elliott, op. olt., p. 129.
^Witmer, op. cit., pp. 12-14, citing William T.
Middlebrook and others, California and Western Conference
Cost and Statistical Study (Berkeley: University of
California, 1955)* PP* 31* 52.
19
A recent report prepared In Virginia, presenting
data from seven other states, concludes, "Small colleges
q
cost more to operate than the larger colleges." Based on
data from states which differ markedly in the nature of
their programs, in the types of communities involved, and
even in the time of the collection of the basic data, this
conclusion is open to question. It is, however, repre
sentative of a commonly stated belief that size, per se,
is a critical determinant of institutional costs.
| The common acceptance of unit cost figures may be
I
i
j illustrated by typical presentations of tabulated sum-
j maries of such data. Each year, a periodical dealing with-
school administration and business management presents re
sults of a national compilation of school costs.^ The
California State Department of Education has made unit
!
cost figures available for the entire range from kinder
garten through junior college. For the 1962-6 3, 1963-64,
and 1964-65 school years, the department's periodical
1
1
| publication presented summary data in tabular form
i
|
! ^Virginia Community College System, Office of
I Surveys and Evaluation, "Full-time Equivalent Operating
| Costs’ (Richmond, Virginia Community College System,
| 1 9 6 8), p. 1.
I ^ " T h e National Cost of Education Index," School
I Management, VIII-XI (January issue of each volume).
20
with little or no comment or interpretation.^ The junior
college portion of these tables indicated a slight ten
dency to increase the percentage of current expense of
education which is utilized for teachers' salaries, at the
expense of all the other categories, which decreased but
very little. Other than this characteristic, the tables
show no consistent directional trends in current expense
of education, the various budget classes and subclasses,
or percentages of current expense which were used for
particular types of costs. Data concerning selected
specific categories of expenditures are also available,
arranged by districts,'in another departmental publica
tion. ^ Studies directed primarily at matters of unit
« *
cost in junior colleges appear not to be common, although
costs do appear as considerations in a few studies in
which the major concern is with other matters.
Though only one was concerned at all with junior
| colleges, four dissertations may be cited as relevant to
| questions of costs and size in educational institutions
I in California.
| -^Edwin H. Harper and Dorothy Klrschman, "General
I Fund Expenditures of California School Districts — Fiscal
| Year 1 962-6 3," California Education. 1 (June, 1964) 2 3-2 5.
| Similar titles (year changed) in Volume II (February,
! 1 9 6 5) 63-64, and Volume III (March, 1 9 6 6) l4-17*
I
11
Henry W. Magnusen, Average Daily Attendance and
Selected Financial Statistics' 19o5-bb. (Sacramento,
California State Department of Education, n.d.).
21
A study of costs In small high schools in California
revealed a generally inverse relationship between cost and
size. The author concluded that, although there was such
ap inverse relationship, the major factor in determining
cost was the teacher-pupil ratio and that doubling the
average daily attendance would not appreciably increase
the [total] cost of operating the small schools included
in the study, all of which were smaller than any of the
1 9 6 6 -6 7 California junior colleges. Interpretation of this
j conclusion in a framework of unit costs would imply that
the increase in average daily attendance would reduce
1 P
such expenses per unit.
In a study of fourteen high schools to determine
the relationship of size to several factors, Brown re
ported that teachers' salaries were not necessarily re
lated to size and that the current expenses of education
I were higher in small high schools than in large, although
| they reached a low point somewhere between one thousand
| and three thousand a.d.a.1^
: 12Paul Nielsen, "The Application of a Formula of
! Necessity and Cost Factors in Operating Small High
! Schools in California" (Unpublished Ed. D. dissertation,
School of Education, University of Southern California,
I 1955), PP. 208-210.
' -^William E. Brown, "High School Size: Relation
ship to Selected Educational and Cost Factors" (Unpub
lished Ed. D. dissertation, School of Education,
University of Southern California, 1 9 5 6), p. 164.
1
22
Studying 1957-58 expenditures in California school
districts, including those offering junior college ser- I
vices, Dart found little relationship between average
daily attendance and tax rate, current expenses, and
certificated salaries of instruction. On the basis of his j
findings, he recommended that studies of financial matters I
should be by correlation and that the basis for grouping
of districts should be other than and in addition to size,
12 ±
as expressed by average daily attendance,
j In a ten-state study of 589 school districts with a
| range of 1,500 to 846,000 pupils, Hanson found that unit
| costs declined consistently with increasing size up to
enrollments of at least 20,000 pupils. He suggested con
sideration of an upper limit for district s i z e . 1 ^
; Doctoral studies which deal with California public
|
| junior colleges include three which have relevance to the
j
|present study of costs.
j ^Gerald E. Dart, "Relationships of Selected Var
iables to Current Costs per A.D.A. in California School
I Districts" (Unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, School of
'Education, University of Southern California, i9 6 0),
ipp. 2 0 8-2 1 2.
■^Nels W. Hanson, "Economy of Scale in Education:
I An Analysis of the Relationship between District Size and
I Unit Costs in the Public Schools" (Unpublished Ed. D.
:dlissertation, Stanford University, 1963) > abstracted by
the author in Dissertation Abstracts XXIV (April, 1964),
p. 4064.
23
Wolfson, studying the financial operation of Cal
ifornia public junior colleges in 1953-54, found that ex-
i
penditures varied more with type of district than with !
i
size; he noted a lack of relationship, generally, between 1
average daily attendance and current expenses per unit of
average daily attendance.
In a study of the 1963-64 costs of student personnel
services programs at three California public junior col-
i leges with average daily attendance from 1 ,5 0 0 to 4,500,
| Scheldt found small differences in the percentage of cur
rent expense directed to such services (ranging from 9.01
; percent to 10 percent), and dollar amounts from $55*83
i
| to $6 5 .7 4 per student. Within the student personnel ser
vices programs, he found notable variations in the distri-
17
! butions of funds among the various budget categories. 1
I
; Using as his unit the weekly student contact hour,
i
| Wells determined the cost of each day course offered at
' East Los Angeles College during the fall semester, 1964,
and then combined the findings by subject field and de-
: partment. Although he found a mean net cost of $1 7 .3 8 per
' -^Leo Wolfson, "Financing of California Public
Junior Colleges" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, School
I of Education, University of Southern California, 1955)>
I p. 230.
1
i ^omar H. Scheldt, "The Expense of Student Person-
i nel Services in Selected California Public Junior Col
leges" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, school of Edu
cation, University of California at Los Angeles, 1 9 6 6),
pp. 6 7-8 0, 8 6-9 8.
24 I
weekly student contact hour, he found a range of such ex- |
pense from $4.17 to $391.21. On the basis of his finding^j
i
he argued against the use of a single figure to express j
i
costs on an institutional basis; in particular, he used
his results to point out fallacies in the use of a flat
1 ff
rate for inter-district tuition charges.
The literature also reflects concern for methods of
t
financing junior colleges. Indeed, such concern appears
to be at least part of the motivation for most of the
studies cited in this review. Three indications of this
concern, as it exists in California, will be cited.
The Coordinating Council for Higher Education sees
as the principal advantages of the present finance plan
the assurance of an annual apportionment, the guarantee of
funds roughly equivalent to unit costs, and partial equal
ization. The council recognizes disadvantages inherent in
I the system and related to the numbers of types of dis-
i
| tricts offering junior college services, the difficulty
j in obtaining comparable data from diverse districts, and
i
| the variations in support which are based on the age of a
; student without regard to the type and cost of the class
he attends. The result, as the council sees the situation
•^John K. Wells, "A Study of the Net Expense of
I Selected Curricular Programs at East Los Angeles Col-
| lege" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, School of
! Education, University of California at Los Angeles,
! 1966), pp. 87-1 1 0.
25
is that a large percentage of average daily attendance is
supported at a rate which is applicable to ungraded
classes— though the attendance is earned in graded
classes, where unit costs are much higher. The program
also fails to provide fully equalized educational oppor
tunity or costs.^ in quoting parts of James Watten-
berger*s list of characteristics of a sound plan for fi
nancing public junior colleges, the council states that
j the
i
I formula must recognize that small schools cost
j more than large schools, that certain adminis-
| trative and counseling services are essential,
| that some types of programs are more expensive
. . . [and] should encourage efficiency and
general improvement in the operation of the
| college. 20
The council also recognizes as one of the major issues af
fecting California public junior colleges, "How may the
necessarily higher-than-average unit costs in small junior
21
|colleges be better supported?"
A study completed under the direction of the Coor-
! dinating Council for'Higher Education analyzed the pattern
^Coordinating Council for Higher Education, A_
| Consideration of Issues Affecting California Public Junior
! Colleges, Report Number 101b (Sacramento: Coordinating
| Council for Higher Education, 1965)# P» 56.
20
Ibid., pp. 56-57# citing James Wattenbarger,
j Establishing Legal Bases for Community Colleges (wash-
I mgton: American Association or junior Colleges, 1 9 6 2).
! 21
Ibid., p. 5 8.
of state support for junior colleges from the aspects of
■
its historical development, its present provisions, j
sources of financial support, and the relationship of
pp i
state and local fiscal contributions. While this report;
indicates that size is not a significant determinant in
instructional cost, the study grouped all colleges in the
stajbe, regardless of type of district, single or multi
campus status, etc. Further, this report does not at
tempt an analysis of the components of the total unit
cost.2^ It should also be noted that the basis for com
parison of various factors was the credit hour of enroll
ment in some cases, the student contact hour in others,
and average daily attendance only in respect to the total
current expense. While five alternative plans are pre
sented for consideration, two (a percentage sharing plan
and complete state support through a program amount)
would recognize a need for two basic amounts with the
on
division of colleges at the 1,000 a.d.a. level.
The third source to be cited is the report of a
study which appears to have been conducted concurrently
22Charles Me Intyre et. al., Financing California's
Public Junior Colleges, Report to The Coordinating Coun-
cii for Higher Education Number 1029 (Sacramento: Co
ordinating Council for Higher Education, 1 9 6 7).
23Ibid., pp. 12-13.
2^Ibid., pp. 51-56.
27
I
J
with the one described above. In' a study authorized and |
supported by the Junior College Advisory Panel to the
j
California State Department of Education, Alkin also
traced the history of junior college finance in the state, j
presented guidelines for a sound program of support,
analyzed and evaluated the current program in terms of the
guidelines presented, and finally proposed six alterna
tive plans, only one of which actually takes into account
the variations in costs of educational programs which may
result from size or from any of a number of other fac
tors.
The preceding portion of this chapter has reviewed
examples of the literature relevant to the purposes of
this study. While each deals in some way with a phase of
this study (e.g. unit costs, institutional size, junior
college finance), only the Virginia study gives major con
sideration to size in relation to cost, and it certainly
does not present a controlled or comprehensive analy-
26
sis. Thus this study was designed to fill a void which
currently exists in the literature.
The final portion of this chapter will draw upon
three sources to provide a conceptual framework and
25]yiarvln C. Alkin, Financing Junior Colleges in
California: A Critical Analysis of the State Support
Program (Sacramento: California State Department of
Education, 1 9 6 6).
26
Virginia Community College System, op. cit.
28
guidelines on which the study may be based.
Johns and Morphet discuss ten principles of public
education finance which have a bearing on the present in
vestigation:
1. Education should be provided for all through
elementary school levels; for virtually all
through the high schools; for a large part of
the population through the junior college;
for the most competent through the senior col
leges and the universities.
2. In each state, provision should be made for an
adequate program designed insofar as possible
to meet the needs of each person.
3. There should be equality of opportunity for the
kind and quality of educational program which
will meet the needs of the individual and his
society.
4. Public schools and institutions of higher edu
cation should provide educational opportunities
for all who desire and can profit from them;
for others, there should be opportunities in
non-public institutions.
5. Public elementary ard secondary schools should
be entirely supported by funds derived directly
or indirectly from public taxation; public in
stitutions of higher education should be
29!
supported largely, if not entirely from such j
funds; public tax funds should not be used for I
|
the support of non-public institutions. !
6. Each state should provide through its constitu
tion or laws for adequate support of public edu
cational institutions, wherever located.
7. Each citizen in the state should contribute,
in accordance with his ability, to the support
of public schools and public institutions of
1
! higher education.
8. Resources of the nation should be used to pro
vide educational opportunities for citizens of
j
j the nation, regardless of their state or com
munity. —
9. The best possibilities for good educational in
stitutions exist when sufficient funds are
available each year to provide adequate oppor
tunities for a well-rounded education at ap-
i
| propriate levels for all who should be educated.
; 10. Plans of organization and administration are
| needed to assure optimum returns for all ex
penditures.^
i The first eight of these statements serve as a series
j of principles to support numbers 9 anc* 10, which lead
| ^Roe L. Jones and Edgar L. Morphet, Financing the
Public Schools (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1§60),
pp. 4-11.
30
logically into a recognition of need for research into the
nature of the use of funds.
In their discussion of the theoretical aspects of
educational finance, Mort, Reusser, and Polley include
three pertinent observations:
1. We have every right to expect a high relation
ship between expenditure level and quality of
schools.
2. Expenditure level is measured in terms of "so
I
| many dollars of presumably educationally ef-
| fective expenditure per some measure of amount
| of service to be supplied.1 1
| 3* The rough measure, expenditure per pupil,
j fulfills the conditions reasonably well.'2®
! Later, they point out two necessary refinements in the
J components of this measure:
|
1. All expenditures not customarily spread evenly
! over the years should be removed; capital outlay
and debt service are the typical items in this
i
| category, and it may be necessary to move from
capital to current expenditures such normally
recurrent items as expenditures for library
books.
Paul R. Mort, Walter C. Reusser, and John W.
Polley, Public School Finance (New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., 19b0), p. 107.
31
2. Current expenditures for sizable items that
presumably do not affect quality should be re
moved. (The authors cite transportation and
food services as examples.)29
The first of these suggestions, inclusion of expenses of
library books, has been incorporated into the design of
the study; the rationale for this decision is discussed in
Chapter IV of this report. As for the second suggestion,
food services costs were omitted; however, transportation
expenses were retained as representative.of a necessary
service and contribution to the provision of educational
opportunity in those districts where such expenses were
incurred.
In the report of his study of methods used in unit
cost studies in higher education, Harris indicated the
need for study of the relationship of size to unit costs
! in higher education, suggesting that.there should be at
tempts to determine the optimum size with respect to min
imum unit costs.30 Later in the same work, he suggests
that colleges are generally reluctant to estimate unit
| costs for their services and that variations in admin-
1
| istrative costs are indicative of an area for study.31
! 29Ibid., pp. 108-1 1 8.
3°Seymour E. Harris, Higher Education: Resources
and Finance (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1962), pp. 75-76.
i 31Ibid., pp. 511-5 2 0.
32
With respect to size, he states, "it is generally known
that costs per unit vary with size. In general, the
larger the size, the smaller the unit cost, but this is
likely to be true only up to a certain level.1,32 He does
not define that level.
This review of literature relevant to the topic
under consideration has had two purposes:
1. To present typical examples of the literature
available on the subject, thus indicating the
I
nature and scope of the research and writing in
this aspect of junior college education, and,
more important, providing a background which
*
places the present study in an appropriate
'perspective.
2. To provide a conceptual framework for the study.
For the first purpose, descriptions of unit cost
studies in higher education were accompanied by critical
comments abstracted from the literature. Typical mater
ials dealing with unit costs which are available in
| California and in the junior college field were noted.
| Examples of dissertations bearing on unit cost studies
I
; and/or junior college finance, with particular reference
I to California, were summarized. Finally, two studies
i
sponsored by California state agencies and dealing
«
32Ibid., p. 573.
33
specifically with junior college finance were examined.
Purpose 2 has been accomplished by a review of cer
tain principles of educational finance which are applic
able to any educational level, followed by consideration
of relationship between finance and educational quality,
with particular reference to unit costs. The final refer
ence deals with higher education's need for studies of the
relationship between unit costs and size.
The study has now been identified and has been
placed in a context. The procedures used in carrying out
the plan of the study are described in Chapter III.
CHAPTER III
PROCEDURES
Selection of the Study Population
In the 1 9 6 6 -6 7 school year, sixty-five school dis
tricts in California offered junior college services
through seventy-six public junior colleges. Three types
of district were represented: one high school district,
six unified school districts, and fifty^eight junior col
lege districts which functioned as separate legal en
titles, although some shared administrative personnel,
services and costs with other types of school districts.
Of the fifty-eight junior college districts, seven were
multicollege in nature and accounted for eighteen of the
colleges; fifty-one junior college districts each operated
one institution. It Is with these fifty-one public ju
nior colleges in single-college districts in California
that this study Is concerned.
Collection of Data
; A letter sent to the chief administrator at each of
| the fifty-one colleges to be included in the study re
quested "a copy of your adoption budget or any other sim-
arly organized document which provided information
34
35]
concerning your district's actual expenditures for 1 9 6 6-
1 9 6 7." The letter also requested four additional items of i
information: assessed valuation; average daily attend
ance of students in attendance at that college; valuation
of capital assets, exclusive of land and motor vehicles;
and the number of assignable square feet in the district's
facilities. A copy of this letter is in Appendix A. It
was expected that this request would be more favorably re
ceived than would a questionnaire of the length needed to
gather the desired information, and that it would there
fore bring a more satisfactory return than would a ques
tionnaire .
After four weeks, which included the Christmas holi
days, individual letters were sent to the fourteen admin
istrators who had not responded. A sample of such a let
ter is in Appendix A. Telephone follow-ups to the five
who did not respond to the second letter resulted in two
additional responses, making a total of forty-eight.
I Letters and telephone contacts were used to supplement
|
!
| incomplete or unclear information.
i
| Materials received in response to these requests
j varied from a minimum of pages 8 and 9 of the standard
J-41 budget form, through complete J-4l forms, financial
report forms J-2 6, and mimeographed documents containing
detailed information and explanations of various items,
to an elaborate 2-inch thick printed document.
. ^
j
Treatment of Data i
--------------------- I
The use of a method of determining a linear corre-
j
lation coefficient for each of the variables was con- '
sldered. However, plotting of the variables in bivariate ;
frequency distributions made it obvious that the straight
line was not a satisfactory descriptor of the relationship
between size and the actual amounts expended. (Typical
distributions of these data are shown in Appendix B.)
With respect to the percentage of adjusted current ex
pense of education which was used for the various cate
gories, it appeared that little value could accrue from
use of correlation coefficients: the differences among
the colleges— and, in some cases, the actual percentages
of the total adjusted current expense— were too small to
make such a figure of practical value. Except as indi
cated later in this chapter and in Chapter IV, therefore,
i
| correlational techniques were not employed.
I
The nature of the distributions lends itself to a
i descriptive presentation. Therefore, the forty-eight
colleges were arranged in order of size and divided into
three equal groups. For each of the expenditure classes
or groups of classes which were considered, the mean of
I each group was calculated, the high and low values were
identified, and the distribution was indicated on a
five-part scale. Thus, with the data for the three
j
i groups of colleges and the total group to constitute
; ' 37
rows, and with the distribution of values in a five-
column scale, the device used for data presentation is a
4 x 5 contingency table, supplemented by tabular presenta
tion of mean, high, and low values for each group and the
total population. Since the colleges comprised a popula
tion within the parameters described in Chapter I, and
since no sampling techniques were employed in the selec
tion of the colleges to be studied, tests of significance
were not employed in this study.
Expenditures of the colleges were studied from three
aspects:
1. The actual dollar amounts expended, thus
providing Information about the cost of pro
viding a service to one unit of average daily
attendance in the small, medium, and large
colleges of this population;
2. The percentage of the total expense per unit
of average daily attendance represented by each
class of expenditures or combination thereof,
thus giving an indication of fiscal efficiency,
with the more "efficient" schools tending to
spend more than the less efficient on matters
directly related to the instructional process;
and
3. A comparison of the amount spent for teachers'
salaries and amounts in selected expenditure
- - - - - - 3 8 -
categories.
In addition, while the calculation of correlation
coefficients was deemed inappropriate for consideration of
the actual amounts expended, in the areas of hypotheses 2
and 3 (percentage of adjusted current expense of education
used for instruction and teachers1 salaries) the distribu
tion made such techniques feasible. These hypotheses were
therefore tested by computation of product-moment correla
tion coefficients.
The steps in the treatment of the data thus in
cluded
1. tabulation of the actual expenditures from
the documents supplied by the colleges,
2. translation of the actual expenditures to costs
per unit of average daily attendance,
3. combining selected categories for additional
study,
4. calculations of means for the total population
and for the three groups of colleges,
5. calculations of percentages as appropriate,
6. calculation of two product-moment correlation
coefficients as tests of hypotheses 2 and 3»
(It will be noted in the discussion of the find
ings from the data that certain rank order cor
relations were also computed; these were
39
incidental to the main purpose of the study
and were not a part of the original planning.)
Values resulting from these operations were com
piled in tabular form and are presented in Chapter IV.
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF DATA
The Study Population
There were fifty-one districts which met the cri
teria for inclusion in this study: California public
junior college districts which offered services in 1 9 6 6 -6 7
through a single college. Through the original contact
and follow-up methods described in Chapter III, usable in-
i formation was obtained from forty-eight districts, or
94.12 percent of the population. These forty-eight in
stitutions thus constitute the group for which data are
reported.
I These colleges, constituting a total population
which meets some rather broad criteria, represent a broad
I spectrum: size (fewer than 500 to almost 12,000 a.d.a.);
|
i location (northern, central, southern, desert, mountain,
coastal, valley areas); community (urban, suburban, re-
I mote, residential, agricultural, industrial); admlnlstra-
i
i tion (separation or sharing with another district).
i
| The colleges reported average daily attendance
1 which ranged from 449 to 11,931* The ratio of the size
!
i of the smallest to that of the largest was thus 1: 2 6. 6 .
41
For purposes of presentation and analysis of data, the
colleges were arranged in order of size and divided Into
three groups of sixteen. In Group 1, the smallest col
leges, seven had an average dally attendance of less than
9 0 0, and five had an average daily attendance of more than
1,500. The colleges in Group 2, the middle range, are
relatively homogeneous in size, with a range of only
| slightly more than 1 ,5 0 0 a.d.a. units in the group of six
teen institutions. Group 3, with the largest colleges,
shows greater diversity, with a differential of more than
1
!
i 8,000 a.d.a. units at the extremes. Table 1 shows data
! concerning sizes of the colleges.
The wealth of the districts, as measured by assessed
valuation, shows an even greater disparity, with the greatr-
est assessed valuation $1,462,280,007) being 66.1 times
the smallest ($22,139,640). According to this measure,
the wealthiest district is the second largest; the poorest
ranks fourth from the bottom of the list in average daily
attendance. The picture changes when the assessed valua
tion per unit of A.D.A. is the base: although the fourth
i
| smallest college is still the poorest, with an assessed
I
| valuation of $3 2,0 0 0, a district which is only two higher
1 in the size category now ranks first in wealth with an
assessed valuation per unit of $329,000. The Institution
which ranked first in gross assessed valuation is now
| thirteenth, with a figure of $137,000* Table 2 shows
TABLE 1
SIZES OF COLLEGES INCLUDED IN THE STUDY
Group
Units of Average Attendance Selected Sizes
¥a-2,7l40 2,T1 +l-5,OUO 5, Ola-7,3^0 7,3la-9,6U0 9,614-1-11, Smallest Largest Mean
1 16 0 0 0 0 kk9 2,088
1,187
2 k 12 0 0 0
2,351
3,876 3,112
3 0 5 7
2 2
3,907 11,931
6,560
Total 20 17 7 2 2 ¥49
11,931 3,620
■ p -
rc>
TABLE 2
ASSESSED VALUATION PER UNIT OF A.D.A.
Group
Assessed Valuation per Unit Selected Valuations
$31,000-
$90,000
$ 91,000-
$150,000
S °
o o
o o
«
H o
i r \ H
H CM
■ea-ca
l
■ € 6 - € f l -
* \ *
O O
o o
o o
1
$271,000-
$330,000 Low High Mean
1 k k
3
1 $32,000 $329,000 $157,000
2
7
8 1 0 0 35,700 157,000 91,300
3 5
10 1 0 0 J+ 7,500 179,000 107,000
Total 16 22 6
3
1 $32,000 $329,000 $118,000
U)
44
the distribution of assessed valuation per unit, with the
range and mean for each group. For the first time in
i
i
this report, a pattern is evident which will recur in the j
tables which follow: a wide range of values in the Group |
1 colleges; a narrower range in each of the other groups;
the largest mean in Group 1, followed by Group 3> with
the smallest mean in Group 2.
The wide range and greatest mean which are charac'fe
teristic of Group 1 are evident in Table 3> which com
pares the groups in relation to assignable square feet.
Omission of four colleges in Group 2 and one in Group 1
! (see footnote to Table 3) tends to invalidate these data
for comparative purposes.
A fourth element of background information concern-
! ing the districts was to have been the valuation of their
capital assets, exclusive of land and vehicles. Six of
j the respondents Indicated that such information was not
! available; three qualified their responses as very rough
| estimates; two others qualified their responses by indi-
| eating omission of certain items; and those districts
i
| which rent facilities are not directly comparable with
j
i those owning their land and buildings. Therefore, this
' phase of the information was not included.
TABLE 3
ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FEET PER UNIT OF A.D.A.
i
Group
'
Assignable Square Feet per Unit Selected Values
11-1+0 1 + 1-70 71-100 101-130 131-160 Low High Mean
*
1
3
6 1 + 1 1 11 156
65
*
2 1 + 6 2 0 0 16 87 5^
3
2 12 2 0 0
35
8 1+ 5b
Total
9
2 1 * - 8 1 1 11 156 58
Three colleges rent their facilities and reported no assignable square feet; one college rents
facilities and reported only a small portion of the space used; one college was unable to report a
meaningful figure. These five institutions were not included in Table 3*
-tr
U1
Unit Costs in Actual Amounts
46
Adjusted Current Expense of
Education i
For comparison of total expenditures per unit, the j
"adjusted current expense of education" is used. In this
study, the term consists of the "current expense of edu
cation" as defined in the accounting manual,^ augmented
by expenditures for books charged to budget class 1 2 6 1,
a capital outlay entry. Variations in methods of report
ing expenditures for books, described on page 6 7, neces
sitate the inclusion of this class of expenditures. Sim
ilarly, while there is sometimes a question about includ
ing transportation costs in unit cost studies, it was de
cided that deletion of this portion of a district’s total
costs would cause a misleading picture; transportation
costs are therefore reported as a part of the adjusted
current expense of education.
The distribution of adjusted current expenses of edu
cation is presented in Table 4. Not only do Group 1 col
leges extend over a greater range than do those in either
i
| of the other groups, but both the high and the low col-
1
| leges of the entire population are in one group. While
I
i the mean in Group 1 is highest, it may be seen that
I
| there is considerable overlapping among the groups; the
•^California State Department of Education, op. cit., i
pp. 24-25.
TABLE ^
ADJUSTED CURRENT EXPENSE OF EDUCATION
Group
Amount Expended per Unit
TTiri -h flnc-f-.Q
$561-$695 $696-$830
$831-$965
$966-$1,100 $1,101-$1,235 Low High Mean
1
3 7
1 k 1
$569
$1,220 $829
2 'll
5
0 0 0 5.88 722
655
3 9 7
0 0 0 628
759 697
Total
23
1 1
$569
$1,220 $727
- f = -
48
mean of Group 2 is the lowest. j
|
The adjusted current expense of education consists j
i
of expenditures in seven major categories (administration,
instruction, health services, operation of plant, main- j
tenance of plant, fixed charges, and transportation)
plus capital outlay expenditures for books.
Administration
A pat/tern similar to that noted in the adjusted
current expense of education may be seen in the expend
itures for administration. The small colleges show a
greater range and a higher mean cost than do the others:
j
| more than double that in either of the other groups.
Again, there is overlap in the distributions, though not
as pronounced as for the total expenditures. Table 5
summarizes this phase of the data.
Instruction
Encompassing salaries of many of the classified
I personnel and of the certificated personnel who are not
]
i
• j assigned to district functions, certain expenditures for
books, and a category of "other" expenses (clerical sup-
| plies, instructional materials and supplies, etc.), this
budget class includes close to three-fourths of the ad-
i
j
justed current expense- in most of the colleges. As might
therefore be expected, the pattern is similar to that of
j the total expense. The smaller colleges again provide !
TA.BIE 5
EXPENDITURES FOR ADMINISTRATION
Group
Expenditures per Unit Selected Unit Costs
$ll-$34 $35-$58 $59-$82 $83-$l06 $107-$131
Low HiRh Mean
1 4 6 4 1 1 $23 $130
$55
2
13 3
0 0 0 14
43
26
3
14 2 0 0 0
17
41
27
Total
31
11 4 1 1 $14 $129 $36
50
both extremes, with a fairly even distribution throughout
the range; colleges in the other groups tend to cluster
toward the lower end of the scale, with the majority of
the middle group showing expenditures of less than $500 j
per unit, and most of the larger colleges exceeding this 1
amount. Data for this category are shown in Table 6 .
Health Services
This phase of junior college operation accounts for
j
| a minor part of the total adjusted current expense. Five
i
i
colleges record no expenditures for health services; the
maximum expenditure per unit was $9.26, in a Group 1 col-.
|
j lege. In half of the colleges, amounts spent on certifi-
j
j cated salaries of health services appear to approximate
the salary of at least one full-time nurse; twenty col
leges, however, report no expenditures for certificated
salaries of health services. Here, too, there is consld-
| 1 1
! erable overlap; and, although the actual amounts expended :
1
! do not vary greatly, the small colleges again have the
i
i
I largest mean, followed by the group of large colleges and
I
| then the middle group. These data are presented in
j
| Table 7.
I Operation of Plant
j The by now familiar pattern of high cost in the
I • *
| smallest colleges, followed by the largest and the middle
| group, with no clear progression from one group to the j
TABLE 6
EXPENDITURES FOR INSTRUCTION
Group
Expenditures per Unit Selected Unit Costs
$lt21-$500 $501-$580 $581-$660 $661-$740 $jkl-$820 Low High Mean
1 k
5 3
2 2 $1 4 -2 5
$809 $589
2 10 6 0 0 0 1 4 -3 2 580 1 4 - 9 1 4-
3 2
13 1 0 0
k39
581 529
Total 16 2k t 2 2 $1 4 -2 5 $809 $537
ui
H
TABLE 7
EXPENDITURES FOR HEALTH SERVICES
Group
Expenditures per Unit Selected Unit Costs
$0-$l
$2-$3 $ M 5 $6-$7
$8-$9 Low High. Mean
1
9
2 2 2 1 $0.00 $9.26
$2.39
2 8 6 2 0 0 0.00
l 4 -. 7^
I.7I4-
3 k 12 0 0 0
0.73 3-35
1.92
Total 21 20 k 2 1 $0.00 $9.26 $2.02
53
next, is again in evidence in these expenses of housekeep- j
ing and operation. Table 8 presents these data. |
i
I
The four Group 1 colleges with expenditures greater !
than in any of Groups 2 and 3 are all in areas where temp- j
eratures are extreme and there is considerable dust and
I
sand; three are in the desert. By adding to costs of
operation in these small colleges, such conditions may
tend to give a false picture of the effect of size.
Maintenance
One Group 1 college expended on maintenance more
than twice the amount at any other college in the study.
Since inclusion of this institution in the left-hand
i
portion of Table 9 would have distorted the rest of the
distribution, it has therefore been omitted from the dis
play; however, it was included in the calculation of the
Group 1 mean, and it shows as the "high" entry. It is
noteworthy that exclusion of this one college would lower
the Group 1 mean to a point only thirteen cents above that
i
| of Group 2. It may be seen in Table 9 that, with the ex-
1
ception of the one extreme case, there is considerable
similarity in the distributions in the three groups.
i
j Fixed Charges
i
| Like the preceding category, with the exception of
j two (in this instance) extreme cases, differences among
the groups are less obvious than in the other major budget i
TABLE 8
EXPENDITURES FOR OPERATION OF PLANT
V
Group
Expenditures per Unit Selected Unit Costs
$21-$50 $51-$80 $81-$110 $in-$ii*o $ll*l-$170 Low High . Mean
1 1 * 6 2
3
1 $30 $168 $77
2
5
11 ' 0 0 0
25 73 55
3 3
12 1 0 o: 1*0 8 1* 62
Total 12 29 3 3
l $25 $168
$65
VJl
-tr
TABLE 9
EXPENDITURES FOR MAINTENANCE OF PLANT
Group
Expenditures per Unit Selected Unit Costs
$6-$13 $llf-$21 $22-$29 $30-$37 $38-$lf5
Low High Mean
*
1 i f 1 I f
3 3
$ 8 $102 $29
2 6
3
2 I f l
7 lf 5 22
3 3 1 +
5
I f 0 11
33
2k
Total
13 •
8 11 11 I f $ 7 $102 $25
One Group 1 college expensed $102.23.
ui
VJI
I
56
classes; the extreme cases in Groups 1 and 2 have the
effect of distorting their respective means by approxi
mately four dollars. Table 10 provides data for this
budget class.
Transportation
As before, small colleges exhibit a greater range
and a considerably higher mean than do the others, while
Qroups 2 and 3 are quite similar, with means which are
approximately half the size of the mean of Group 1. Five
!
I colleges report no transportation expenses: two are in
Group 1, two are in Group 2, and the fifth is in Group 3»
I The extremes and means are shown with the tabular distri
bution in Table 11.
The foregoing presentations show generally that the
I
range in per-unit expenditures among the sixteen small
colleges is greater than among the other thirty-two; that,
for each major budget class, the high and low cases may
| well be in Group 1; that mean expenditures are highest
| among the smallest colleges; but that, with the exception
| of fixed charges, the lowest mean expenditure is not in
I the group of largest colleges.
j
I
; Specific Combinations and
I Categories
Individual variations observed in placement of
I items in the general budget classifications suggest a
i
i ............................. . ................. ..
TABLE 10
EXPENDITURES FOR FIXED CHARGES
Group
Expenditures per Unit Selected Unit Costs
$21-$1*0 $l*l-$60 $6l-$8o $81-$100 $101-$120 Low High Mean
1 6
7
2 0 1 $25 $113 $51
2 11 2 2 0 1 29 102 kk
3
8
7
1 0 0
33 71
1*2
Total
25
16
5
0 2 $25 $113
$1*6
VJI
—3
TABLE 11
EXPENDITURES FOR TRANSPORTATION
Group
Expenditures per Unit Selected Unit Costs
$0-$ll $12-$23 $2^-$35 $3 6 -^ 7 $l* 8-$59
Low Higji Mean
1 11 3
0 l 1 $0.00
$55 $13
2
13
2 1 0 0 0.00 2k 6
3 13 3
0 0 0 0.00
19
6
Total
37
8 1 1 1 $0.00
$55
$ 8
v j i
00
59
need for description of certain specific types and combin
ations of expenditures: teachers' salaries, total non
teaching salaries of administration and instruction,
classified salaries of administration and instruction,
certificated nonteaching salaries of administration and
instruction, combined expenditures of operation and main
tenance, and expenditures for books.
Teachers1 salaries.— Teachers' salaries represent
the largest single expenditure at each of the colleges;
this fact is not unexpected, in view of the "Teachers'
Salary Limitation," which prescribes that, in the absence
of an exemption granted by the California state Depart
ment of Education, at least fifty percenfc of the current
expenses of education must be expended on teachers'
2
salaries. Indeed, at twenty-one of the colleges in this
study teachers' salaries exceeded fifty percent of even
i
! the adjusted current expense of education which was com
puted for this study.
i
| As shown in Table 12, the distribution of teachers'
salaries is characterized by a wide range in Group 1,
| which includes both the largest and the smallest unit
|
; expenditure for this purpose; a maximum expenditure which
i
| is more than double the smallest amount; a lower mean
j _ _ _ _ _ — — _ _ _ _ . . . — — _ _ _
i
^California. Education Code (1 9 6 5), section 17503.
TABIE 12
EXPENDITURES FOR TEACHERS' SALARIES
Group
Expenditures per Unit Selected Unit Costs
$271-$335 $336-$l+00 $1+01-$U65 $l+66-$530
$531-$595
Low Hi*
Mean
1
3
8 1
3
1 $296
$571
$398
2
9 7
0 0 0 278 366 326
3 5
10 1 0 0 31^ *H3
360
Total
17 25
2
3
1 $278
$571
$361
in the mid-group than in Group 3; and, also in Group 2 a
tendency to cluster in a narrower range than in Group 3*
I
Salaries of nonteaching personnel in administration j
and instruction.— The budget documents exhibit considerable'
i
variation in placement of expenses for personnel in. these
i
areas. For example, although all colleges showed some ex- ;
penditure for certificated salaries of administration, the j
range per unit was from $2.45 to $45.80; an even greater
range was in classified salaries of administration, and
one institution in Group 3 showed no expenditures in this
class. Within the major budget class of instruction,
two Group 1 colleges listed no expenditures for "Princi
pals' Salaries," a budget classification which at most
colleges includes at least a portion of the salaries of
presidents, vice-presidents, and deans. Assignment of the 1
duties of business manager to certificated or classified
personnel is yet another type of variation. Since such
differences in practice do exist, these salaries, which
constitute a substantial portion of the adjusted current
expense of education, are presented in an arrangement
which differs from the pattern of the usual budgetary
i
i classes: expenditures for classified salaries of admin
istration and instruction, expenditures for certificated
nonteaching salaries of administration and instruction,
and expenditures for all nonteaching salaries of
. . . . 62
administration and instruction (a combination of the other
two groups). Tables 13> 14, and 15 illustrate patterns
similar in general to those in the earlier tables; in
Groups 2 and 3, the clustering or concentration of col
leges is different for certificated and classified per
sonnel, and the differences appear to be self-compensating
when the data are combined in Table 15.
Operations plus maintenance.— Combining of expenses
in these two major classes gives a picture of the unit
costs involved in keeping the college plant in good re
pair and in condition appropriate for the educational
program. The Group 1 institution which shows the highest
combined costs in these combined areas ranked highest in
maintenance expenditures and fifth in costs of operation.
Of the colleges in its group, it is the fifth largest. •
Table 16 shows the nature of the distribution.
Of the five colleges with the lowest figure in this
classification, the lowest cost institution rents its fa
cilities and spends more than forty-six of the other col
leges in the fixed charges category; the next lowest also
rents, and its fixed charges expenditures are more than
double the mean for all colleges; the third from the bot
tom rents publicly owned facilities, apparently with
little effect on the fixed charges; next is an institu
tion which reported having only eleven assignable square
TABLE 13
EXPENDITURES FOR CLASSIFIED SALARIES OF ADMINISTRATION AND INSTRUCTION
I
1
Group
Expenditures per Unit Selected Unit Costs
$31-$51
$52-$72
$73-$93 $94-$ll4 $115-$135 Low Hipfc Mean
1 2 4 6 1
3 $35
$132 $84
2 1
5
10 0 0
51 93 74
3
1
5 9
1 0 k8 101
77
Total 4 14
25
2
3 $35
$132 $78
!
I
ON
U)
TABLE ik
EXPENDITURES FOR CERTIFICATED NONTEACHING SALARIES
OF ADMINISTRATION AND INSTRUCTION
Group
Expenditures per Unit Selected Unit Costs
$ l j - 6-$70 $71-$95 $96-$120 $121-$11f5 $lU6-$170 Low High Mean
1 I f
5 3
2 2 $52 $161f
$99
2
7
6
3
0 0
53 96 75
3 3
12 1 0 0 k6 110 78
Total Ik
23 7
2 2 $1f6 $!6 1f $8*f
TABLE 15
EXPENDITURES FOR ALL NONTEACHING SALARIES
OF ADMINISTRATION AND INSTRUCTION
Group
Expenditures per Unit Selected Unit Costs
$90-$122 $123-$155 $156-$l88 $189-$221 $222-$251 * - Low High Mean
1 1 k k
3
h $ 90 $2i t -5 $182
2 2
7 7
0 0
113
187 lb9
3
0
7
8 1 0 123 198
155
Total
3
18
19
k k $ 90 $2^5 $162
i
I
TABLE 16
EXPENDITURES FOR OPERATION PLUS MAINTENANCE
Group
Expenditures per Unit Selected Unit Costs
$36-$TO '$71-$105 $106-$1^0
$ll+l-$175
$176-$210• Low High Mean
1 k
5 3
2 2 $1+2 $208
$107
2 6
9
1 0 0 38 106
77
3
k 12 0 0 0
59 105 87
Total Ik 26 k 2 2 $38 $208 $ 90
o\
G\
feet per unit, less than one-fifth of the mean number, a
factor which presumably results in lower upkeep costs per
•unit; the fifth institution also rents, accompanying this
process with higher than normal fixed charges. This type
of relationship is observable only in these five extreme
cases.
Books.— Expenditures for books may be classified
under any of five headings: budget class 2 3 0, textbooks;
budget class 240, other books; budget class 126l in the
general fund, books; budget class 1261 in the special re
serve fund, books; and budget class 1 2 6l in the building
fund, books. The first item, included in current expense
of education, is usually small: in only two cases.in the
present study does the gross amount exceed one thousand
dollars, and there is no amount charged to the account.of
thirty-four colleges. Class 240 expenditures are also cur
rent expenses, and the stat,e obviously expects that sub
stantial portions of the library collection in established
colleges will be charged to this account. "‘Books1 bud
geted under Class 1261 represent the recording of the
original purchase of books for a new school library or
for a material accession, involving an expansion of the
library."3 Class 1261 in the general fund is a capital
^California State Department of Education,
"[Budget] Form No. J-41," Special Instructions for Page 9*
............................................................ m
outlay charge, and no capital outlay Items are counted In
computing the district's compliance with the Teachers'
Salary Limitation; similarly, special reserve funds, which
may be built from receipts from state building funds,
"seat" taxes collected as a part of the charges to other
districts or counties for education of nonresident stu
dents, and transfers from the general fund, are for capi
tal outlay purposes and the 126l classification is one
subdivision of this fund; building funds, derived from
! sale of bonds for capital outlay purposes, also include a
j 1261 category. While twenty-nine of the colleges made the
I bulk of their expenditures from one of the 126l classes,
j fifteen made no such expenditures. Accordingly, in order
to provide a common base for the study, all book expend
itures were included in the "adjusted Current Expense of
Education." Table 17 shows the relevant information.
Expenditures as Percentages of the Adjusted
Current Expense of Education
A second major purpose of the study was the investi-
(
gation of the relationship between size and the percentage
of the adjusted current expense of education which is rep-
| resented by each of the budget classifications' and combi-
i
j nations of classes for which unit costs were computed.
I
Tables 18 through 30, which present the data for this
phase of the study, are generally self-explanatory; the
j comments which follow are intended to emphasize certain
TABLE IT
EXPENDITURES FOR BOOKS
Group
Expenditures per Unit Selected Unit Costs
$2-$7
$$-$13 $ll*-$19 $20-$25 $26-$31
Low High Mean
*
1 6 k 2 1 2 $1* $36 $1^
2 11 k 1 0 0
3 19 7
3 13
2 0 0 1 2 26 6
*
Total 30 10
3
1
3
$2 $36
$ 9
At one Group 1 college, unit costs for books were $36* 02.
CJY
VO
TABLE 18
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AS PERCENTAGES OF
ADJUSTED CURRENT EXPENSE OF EDUCATION
Group
Percent of A.C.E.E. Selected Percentages
ltf-3.5$
3.6$-6.0$ 6.1$-8.5$ 8.6$-10.0$ 10.1$-12.15$ Low High Mean
1 1 6
7 . 0
2 2.98$ 12.1$
6.57$
2
5
10 1 0 0 2.2 8 6 .0 7 k.00
3 5
11 0 0 0
2.35
5.38 3.92
Total 11
27
8 0 2 2.28$ 12.1$
4.83$
1
I
TABLE 19
INSTRUCTION COSTS AS PERCENTAGES OF ADJUSTED CURRENT EXPENSE OF EDUCATION
Group
Percent of A.C.E.E. Selected Percentages
58$-62$ ezi-e% 68$-72$
73#-77$
78#-82$ Low High Mean
1 1 2 k 8 1 6 0. 1$ 78.
71.7$
2 0 0
3
8
5 70.9
8 1 .8
75-3
3
0 0 2
9 5 69.9 80.7 .
•
00
Total 1 2
9 25
11
60.3$
8 1. 8$
7^.3$
-J
H
i
TABLE 20
HEALTH SERVICE COSTS AS PERCENTAGES OF
ADJUSTED CURRENT EXPENSES OF EDUCATION
Group
Percent of A.C.E.E. Selected Percentages
0.00#-0.17# ,o.i8#-o;35# 0.36#-0.53# 0.5^-0.71# 0 .72^-0 . 89^ Low High Mean
1
9
1 2 2 2 0 . 00#
0.77#
0 .26#
2 6
5 3 2 0 0.00 0.67 0 .2 6
3
2 i . 10 3 0 0 o.oi* 0 M 0.27
Total 18 16 8 k 2 0.00#
0 . 77#
0 .26#
i
-5
ro
TABLE 21
COSTS OF OPERATION AS PERCENTAGES OF ADJUSTED
CURRENT EXPENSE OF EDUCATION
Percent of A .C .E .E. Selected Percentages
3.1^-5.556 5. 656-8.036 8.156-10.556 10.6i-13.Oi 13.156-15.556 Low Hipfc Mean
1 1
5 5
k 1 5.765& 13.856
8.9756
2 3 3 7 3
0 3.69 H.9 B.b9
3 0 b 10 1 1
5.85 13 A 9-9^
Total k 12 22 8
2 1
3.6956 13.856 8.8056
" 4
UJ
TABLE 22
MAINTENANCE COSTS AS PERCENTAGES OF ADJUSTED CURRENT
EXPENSE OF EDUCATION
Group
Percent of A.C.E.E. Selected Percentages
156-256 3 i-H
%-($>
T& -856 956-IO5 6 Low High. Mean
1 k 10 1 0 1 I.I8 3 6 9.5236 3.^036
2
7 k k 1 0
1.07 7.16 3-33
3
2
13
1 0 0 1 .7 0 5.10 3.U8
Total 12
27
6 1 1
1.0736 9.52$ 3.3356
TABLE 23
FIXED CHARGES AS PERCENTAGES OF ADJUSTED CURRENT EXPENSE
OF EDUCATION
Group
Percent of A .C .E .E. Selected Percentages
3$-5$
6$-8$
9$-11$
. 12$-0A$
15$-17$
Low High . Mean
1 8
7
0 0 1
^•39$
15.6$ 6.15$
2
7
6 1 1 1
^•3^ 15.1 6 . 76
3
8
7
1 0 0 k. 9b
10.5 5.99
Total
23
20 2 1 2 k.3k$ 1 5. 6$ 6 . 30$
VJl
TABLE 2k
TRANSPORTATION COSTS AS PERCENTAGES OF ADJUSTED CURRENT EXPENSES
OF EDUCATION
Group
Percent of A .C .E .E. Selected Percentages
0#-l.l# 1.2#-2.3# 2.U#-3-5#
3.6%-h.% 4.8#-5.9#
Low High Mean
1 10 2 2 l 1 0.00# 5.0 6# 1 . 52#
2 11
3
1 l 0 0.00 3.90
0.99
3
12 2 2 0 0 0.00
2.79 0.83
Total
33 7 5
2 i 0.00# 5.0 6# 1.11#
T
- 4
CJ\
TABLE 25
TEACHERS' SALARIES AS PERCENTAGES OF ADJUSTED CURRENT EXPENSE
OF EDUCATION
Group
Percent of A .C .E .E. Selected Percentage5
k3$-b6$> • V7$-50$ 51$-5H 55$-58$ 59$-6 2$ Low High Mean
1 6 6 3 0
1
1*2.9$ 6 0. 1# 1*8.5$
2 2
7 7 0 0 ^5-3 5^-5 1*9-7
3
0 6 6 k\ 0
V7.5
5 6 .8 5 1 .6
Total 8
19
16 ^
•
1 1*2.9 6 0 .1 50.0
-<1
TABLE 26
CLASSIFIED SALARIES OF ADMINISTRATION AND INSTRUCTION AS PERCENTAGES
OF ADJUSTED CURRENT EXPENSE OF EDUCATION
Percent, of A.C.E.E.______________________________Selected Percentages
Group
5$-7$
8$-10$ 11$-13$ llt-$-l6$
17$-19$
Low High Mean
1 k
5
1 + 2 1 5.61*$
17.3$
10.2$
2 0
5
10 1 0 8.1*8
ll*.3 11.3
3
1
5 9
1 0
7.05 ll*.3 11.0
Total
5 15 23
1 * 1 5.61*$
17.3$
10.8$
- < ]
00
TABLE 27
SALARIES OF CERTIFICATED NONTEACHING PERSONNEL AS PERCENTAGES
OF ADJUSTED CURRENT EXPENSE OF EDUCATION
[
1
Group
Percent of A .C .E .E. Selected Percentages
7$-8$ ' 9#-10# 11#-12#
13#-lU# : 15#-16# Low High Mean
1
3
2 2
5
k 6.68#
15.^
11.8#
2 1
5
k
5
1
8.37
1 5 .0 ll.it-
3
1
5 7 3
0 6.51
Ik.k 11.1
Total
5
12
13 13 5 6.51# 15 M> 11.5#
— ' I
VO
TABLE 28
SALARIES OF ALL NONTEACHING PERSONNEL' AS PERCENTAGES OF
ADJUSTED CURRENT EXPENSE OF EDUCATION
Group Percent of A .C .E .E. Selected Percentages
l6$-l8# 19#-21# 22#-2H
25#-27# 28$-30# Low Hiffc Mean
1 1 4 - 2 6
3
1
15-9$ 25.1#
22.0$
2 0
7
6 2 1 1 8 .7
29.3
22.7
3
1
5 9
1 0 1 8 .1 2 6 .1 22.1
Total
5
llf 21 6 2
15.9# 29.3# 22.3$
j
TABLE 29
COSTS OF OPERATION PLUS MAINTENANCE AS PERCENTAGES OF
ADJUSTED CURRENT EXPENSE OF EDUCATION
Group
■1 -
Percent of A •C *E «E • Selected Percentages
5$-8$ 9$-11$
12$-ll*$
15$-17$
18$-20$ Low High Mean
1
3 3 7
2 1 7-2$ 19 A$ 12.1*$
2
3
2
9
2 0 5-6 17-1* 11.8
3
0
5
10 1 0
8.7 16.7
12.1*
Total 6 10 26
5
1
-------1 ---------
5-6$ 19.1*$
12.2$
I
TABLE 30
COSTS OF BOOKS AS PERCENTAGES OF ADJUSTED CURRENT EXPENSE
OF EDUCATION
Group
Percent of A.C.E.E. Selected Percentages
0.26$-0.95$ 0.96$-1.65$ 1.66$-2.35$ 2, •36$-3.Q5$ 3.06$-3.75$
Low High Mean
1
5
b b 0
3
0. 68$
3.70$ 1. 6^$
2 6
9
0 0 1 0.^6 3*10 1.09
3
12
3
0 0 1
0.35 3.73 0.92
Total
23
16 b 0
5 0.35 $ 3.73$
1. 22$
i
83
selected features and trends. It Is In this area, also,
that two of the hypotheses of this study are to be applied.
Differences among the means of the groups are not so
pronounced as in the presentation of actual unit costs.
In general, differences between means are small and seem
to occur in no set pattern. The largest differences in
mean percentages are in administration and instruction
(Tables 18 and 19), with evidence that the group of small
colleges has expenditures in administration which tend to
detract from the amounts available for instruction and
instruction-related functions. In both categories, dif
ferences between the means of Groups 2 and 3 are small.
Hypotheses 2 and 3f stated in Chapter I, were con
cerned with the relationship of size to the percentage of
the adjusted current expense of education used for the
classifications of instruction and teachers' salaries.
In addition to the treatment given to all data in this
study, for these two classifications Pearson product-
moment coefficients of correlation were computed: The
j
| coefficient for size and percentage of total cost used for
| Instruction was +.44; the corresponding coefficient be-
|
; tween size and teachers' salaries was +.48.
Health services show little differences among the
j groupsj in addition, they constitute an almost negligible
i
j portion of the adjusted current expense of education.
84
While differences were noted in the earlier discussion of
costs of operation, of maintenance, and of a combination j
of these functions, these differences are not so readily
apparent in a consideration of these factors as percent
ages of the total expense of education; nor is there an i
i
observable pattern of differences among the three groups
(Tables 21, 22, and 29). Similar comments may be made
about fixed charges (Table 23). Transportation (Table 24),|
. averaging about one percent of the total adjusted expense !
of education, shows a consistent pattern from one group to
another, though the mean of the small colleges is about
fifty percent larger than either of the others. Tables
2 6, 2 7, and 2 8, showing data concerning salaries of non
teaching personnel in administration and Instruction, are
self-explanatory, and little difference is to be noted
among the groups. While books in the large schools ac
count for a mean which is less than that of either of the
|
other groups, it should be noted that this group also has
the college with the highest percentage of total expense
i devoted to expenditures for books; this percentage, how-
| ever, is less than four, and the mean for all colleges is
|
! only 1.22 percent.
I
I Selected Expenditures as Percentages
of Teachers1 Salaries
With the exception of instruction, of which they are :
a part, teachers' salaries comprise the one budget
85
category which accounts for more of the total expense than
any other single type of expenditure. j
Table 31 indicates the percentage of teachers1 sal- j
i
j
ary expenditures which corresponds to the amount spent in ■
each of eleven expenditure groups. These entries thus
provide an indication of a ratio between teacher salaries
and other types of expenditures. No consistent patterns
are observable; and, with the exception of a tendency of
Group 1 to expend more on noninstructional functions than
the other groups, no group tends to hold a constant rela
tive position.
i
Discussion
The forty-eight colleges for which data were ob
tained were similar in the characteristics established as
criteria for inclusion in this study; in other respects,
they presented a varied picture. This diversity is re
flected in the pattern of expenditures shown in the in
formation which they submitted.
| Great variation was noted in the total unit cost,
identified for this study as the adjusted current expense
| of education, which is the current expense of education
J as defined in the accounting manual, augmented by the
amounts expended for capital outlay for books. The use
of this term arose as a result of the variations in prac
tices of accounting for book purchases. Since all four
86
TABLE 31
SELECTED MEAN UNIT EXPENDITURES EXPRESSED AS
PERCENTAGES OF THE MEAN AMOUNT EXPENDED
FOR TEACHERS' SALARIES
Expenditures
Group
•
1 2
3
Total
Administration 13-996 8.07# 7.63# IO.I9 6
Instruction
Not incl. Teachers'
Salaries 1 + 8 .1
51.5 1+7-0 1+8.7
Health Services 0 .6 0
0.53 0.53
O .56
Operation of Plant
19.5
1 7 .0
17.3
1 8 .0
Maintenance of Plant 7.1+0 6 .6 6 6 .8 1 6 .9 8
Fixed Charges 1 2 .7
13.5
1 1 .6 1 2 .6
Transportation 3.16
1.95
1 .6 0 2 .2 8
Classified Salaries of
Administration and Instruc
tion 21.0 2 2 .8 2 1. 1 + 21 . ’7
Certificated Nonteaching
Salaries of Administration
and Instruction
2U .8 23.1 2 1 .6 2 3 .2
Total Nonteaching Salaries
of Administration and
Instruction 1+5.8
*+5.9
1+3.0 1 + 1 + .9
Books
3.1+9
2 .1 8
1 .7 6 2 .5 2
87
of the accounts available to the districts were used, with
various combinations represented, a common basis for con
sideration of a total unit cost had to be developed; need j
j
for a term which clarified the fact that transportation |
was included in this cost was also a factor in the selec
tion of the term.
Comparisons of the means of the total unit cost and
of the instructional costs, constituting roughly three-
fourths of the total, make it clear that such costs do not ;
vary consistently with the size of the colleges: in both
categories, the highest mean is in the group of small col
leges, while the middle group is the low-cost one. That
size is not necessarily a concomitant of amounts expended
is demonstrated by the added fact that, in each category,
the group of small colleges contained the extreme cases at |
both ends of the range. These data and the lack of linear
ity in the distribution of adjusted current expenditures
in relation to size suggest that there might well be a
point of diminishing returns; that is, economy of opera
tion may be somewhat generally related to size throughout
only part of the range, and increasing the size of an in
stitution may not necessarily bring about economy, if such
| economy is defined as lower unit costs.
I The largest contributor to intergroup differentials ;
in costs is instruction, with Group 1 showing a mean
which exceeds that of Group 2 by ninety-five dollars. j
88
In turn, approximately seventy-two dollars of this differ
ential may be found in the teachers' salary category.
Approximately half of the total cost differential between
the highest and the lowest groups is thus in the areas
directly related to instruction, the primary purpose of
any college; and efforts to offer a diversified program,
as well as schedule flexibility, tend to create cost prob
lems which relate to class and institutional size and are
of considerable concern to the small college.
Another area showing a substantial difference between
the small colleges and the other two groups is administra
tive costs. The mean unit cost for small colleges was
more than double that of either of the other groups. Such
a difference can be accounted for in the need for person
nel to perform certain necessary services, regardless of
institutional size. For example, a complete accounting
record must be maintained, and certain services are re
quired by the governing board; administrative services are
| needed for both the day and extended-day programs; in the
small college it is possible that a rather sharp increase
in students would not necessitate added help in several
administrative capacities; such increase would then divide
I the cost over more units of average daily attendance, thus
i
i
! making a lower unit cost for such services. Similarly, in
!
j the case of nonteaching personnel of administration and
l
| instruction, it may be that the higher costs in some
89
colleges reflect ohly the need for having someone in a
specific position (e.g., dean of student personnel ser
vices) regardless of the size of the college; it is prob
able that substantial increases in student body size
would result only in reducing the per unit cost of the
services of such a person.
Differences in costs of operation and maintenance
are probably related to similar conditions: all class
rooms need certain daily attention; classroom lights must
be operative for ten or for forty students; certain main
tenance is needed for exterior walls, regardless of the
numbers of students who walk by them. Related to these
operational and maintenance costs is the generally larger
number of assignable square feet per unit in the smaller
colleges, with attendant housekeeping and maintenance
costs.
The preceding discussion has focused on differences
between the group of small colleges and the other two
i
t
\ groups considered as a whole. It is true that, in all
| seven of the major budget categories of the adjusted cur-
i
j rent expense of education, the mean of the small schools
I
|
! is highest; it is also true that, in five of these major
| components, the group of medium sized colleges had the
j
lowest per unit expenditure; too, within the groups the
distribution is not according to size; this statement is
j confirmed by a procedure extraneous to the planned part
90
of the study in which Spearman rank order correlation co
efficients were computed between size and adjusted current
expense of education in each of the groups: In Group 1,
R= -.25; in Group 2, R= -.23; in Group 3* R= +.22. All of
these correlations are far below any reasonable signifi
cance level for sixteen pairs of values.^- The overlap of
values from one group to another also tends to deny the
relationship of size to expense, other than within the
limits previously indicated in this discussion.
In general, with the pattern of expenditures that has!
been presented, it would be surprising to find great varia
tions among the groups with respect to the percentages of
adjusted current expense assigned to each of the categor
ies. In general, there is agreement in this characteris
tic; with the exception of instruction and its major con
tributor, teachers' salaries, the distribution among the
cells of the tables does not vary greatly; the means, in
general, are quite similar, with the small colleges show
ing some tendency to spend a higher percentage than the
others on administration and other noninstructional fac
tors, with corresponding decreases in instruction and
teachers' salaries.
i It is with respect to these two large cost functions
|________________________________________________________________________
4
A. L. O'Toole, Elementary Practical Statistics
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964), p. 254.
91
that hypotheses 2 and 3 were tested. The relationship was
found to be linear, and in each case the correlation co
efficient was in what is commonly accepted as the "moder
ate" range. With coefficients of this magnitude, and
with a limited range of percentage points between the low
and high colleges— especially when the group means are
compared— there may be question as to the usefulness of
these measures.
In summary, then, the data presented in this chapter
| have shown that, as a group, colleges in the lowest third
! according to their size spend more per unit than do the
J other two-thirds of the population studied; though the
! range of unit costs in most types of expenditures tends
| to be greater among the small colleges than among the
j others, all groups exhibit considerable spread from high-
| est to lowest, with much obvious overlap among groups;
j and where differences did occur between the middle and
i
the large group, lower costs tended to be characteristic
of the middle group.
The amounts of funds expended constitute one princi-
i
i
| pal aspect of the expenditures of these colleges. The
j
' other is in the form of a question: Given a specified
j amount per unit, which has been determined to be neces-
i
sary for carrying out an educational program, how did the
j colleges distribute their funds among the various expend-
I :
I iture classes? Whatever the total available amount,
92
the distribution' of expenditures among the various ac- '
counts, when viewed as a percent of the whole, is remark
ably consistent in the entire study population.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Plan of the Study
This study was an investigation of unit costs during i
the 1 9 6 6 -6 7 school year in a specific segment of the Cal
ifornia public junior college districts: those which of
fered their educational services through the agency of a
1 !
! single college.- Unified or high school districts provid
ing junior college services were not included; also elim
inated were those junior college districts operating two
or more colleges.
The purpose of the study was to examine the relation
ship between institutional size and three types of expend
itures: the total current expense of education; the ex-
- penditures in the seven major budget classifications of
administration, instruction, health services, operation,
1
maintenance, fixed charges, and transportation; and the
expenditures in certain combinations of budgetary classes
| or subclasses (teachers' salaries, classified and certif
icated nonteaching salaries of administration and in
struction, combined expenses of operation and maintenance,!
94
and expenditures for books). These expenditures were •
studied in three aspects: actual amounts expended, the
percentage of the total current expense of education used
in these expenditures, and a comparison of these amounts
with the amount expended on teachers1 salaries. The "unit"
in the Investigation was the unit of average daily attend- !
I
ance, and "unit cost" was thus the cost of providing a ;
particular service or performing a particular function,
prorated among all units of average daily attendance. The
term "adjusted current expense of education," used as the
indicator of the total unit expense, included the seven
major expenditure categories listed above, plus capital
outlay expenditures for books.
| A review of related literature provided background
as well as Indications that this $rea was in need of
study. It also provided some direction and a conceptual
framework for the study.
i
| Procedures
j
! ' The president of each of “ the fifty-one colleges meet-
i
| ing the criteria for inclusion' in the study was sent a
| letter requesting records of his college•s .expenditures
: for 1966-6 7. Responses to this letter and to follow-up
| procedures numbered forty-eignt, or 94.12 percent of the
| possible number. Tnese forty-eight colleges were deslg-
i j
! nated tne study population, and no sampling procedures ;
95
were employed.
Information from the colleges was converted to "unit
costs," expenditures per unit of average daily attendance.
Since the nature of the distributions of data concerning
actual expenditures, as shown in bivariate frequency dis- .
tributions, precluded the use of linear correlation meth- i
ods to produce meaningful coefficients, the colleges were
arranged in order of size and divided into three groups,
each including sixteen colleges. Appropriate means and
percentages were calculated; distributions of the var
iables for each group and the total population were pre
sented in tabular form; the means and ranges of each group
and of the total population were presented. A similar
method was employed for presenting data concerning percent
ages. Means for the three groups and the total population
were calculated in the presentation of eleven expenditure
classifications, expressed as percentages of teachers'
i
salary expenditures. In addition, product-moment correla-
l
|tion coefficients were computed for size and percentage of
i
jadjusted current expense which was expended on instruction;
I and for size and percentage of adjusted current expense
which was used for teachers' salaries.
I Findings
| With respect to the actual amounts spent per unit of
i '
|average daily attendance, five patterns appeared:
96
1. The smallest colleges showed a greater range of
expenditures than did either of the other two
groups; in four of the major classes and In the
adjusted current expense of education, the
small college group provided both the low and
the high extremes.
2. In all expenditure classes studied, the mean
expenditure for the group of small colleges
was higher than that of either of the other
groups.
3. Only in the categories of fixed charges, trans
portation, and books were the means of the group
of the largest colleges below that of the
middle group. In all other categories, includ
ing adjusted current expense of education, the
order of means, from highest to lowest, was
Group 1 (small colleges), Group 3 (large col
leges, and Group 2 (middle size range).
4. Regardless of which group had the lowest or the
middle mean, the difference between the highest
mean (always in the small colleges) and the sec
ond place was always greater than between the
middle and the lowest mean. In all but three
of the categories (adjusted current expense,
maintenance, and teachers' salaries), the ratio
of these differences exceeded 2 : 1.
97
5. The distribution in the total population was
characterized by considerable overlap among the
three groups.
With respect to the percentages of adjusted current
expense of education represented by the various budget
categories, the differences in“means of the groups became
far less apparent, with differences between high and low
groups in each expenditure class tending to be less than
one percentage point. Pour exceptions to this trend were
noted: administration, in which the small college mean was
6 .5 7 percent, while the large colleges spent 3*92 percent
of their adjusted current expense of education in this
|
function; instruction, with 71*7 percent of the small
group's adjusted current expense comparing with a mean of
75*8 percent among the largest schools; teachers' salar
ies, in which the small colleges' 48.5 percent is con
trasted with 51*6 percent in the largest institutions;
and classified salaries of administration and instruction,
with the small group using 1 0 .2 percent of its total in
this way, while the middle group used 1 1 .3 percent of its
i current expense for this purpose. As in the actual ex-
i
| penditures, the variance in Group 1 tended to be greater
! than in either of the others.
I
i
! Conclusions
I -----------------------
| The conclusions for this study will be presented in
98
two parts: those related to the hypotheses stated In
Chapter I, and general conclusions derived from the find
ings as described in Chapter IV. j
i
Conclusions Related to the Hypotheses
With respect to the hypotheses stated in Chapter I,
the following conclusions are justified:
Hypothesis 1.— There is a negative linear relation
ship between institutional size and the actual amounts
expended per unit of average daily attendance in the major
budget classifications.
The relationship was found to be nonlinear, and the
hypothesis is rejected.
Hypothesis 2.— There is a positive linear relation
ship between Institutional size and the portion of the cur
rent expense of education which is expended for instruc
tion-related functions.
Since the relationship is linear and positive, the
I hypothesis is accepted.
i
j
| Hypothesis 3.— There is a positive linear relationship
j
! between Institutional size and the portion of the current
| expense of education which is expended for teachers * sal
aries .
Since the relationship is linear and positive, the
i hypothesis is accepted.
I *
i . . . . . ... .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . i
99
General Conclusions Derived
from the Findings
With respect to the stated purposes of this study,
the following conclusions concerning unit costs In single-
college California public junior colleges are justified:
i
Conclusion 1.— The relationship between size and ad- j
justed current expense of education is nonlinear, with the |
smallest colleges incurring the highest mean costs and the i
lowest mean costs to be found in the colleges of medium
size.
Figure 1 (Appendix B) shows graphically the distribu-;
tion of the adjusted current expense of education. The
clustering of colleges of medium size at the lower end of
the expenditure scale is apparent. As shown in Table 4,
the mean of the Group 2 colleges is lower than that of
either the largest or the smallest group, while the mean
of the smallest colleges exceeds that of the large in
stitutions by almost twelve percent.
j Conclusion 2.— The relationship between size and ex-
|
j penditures in the various budget classifications tends to
| parallel that of the adjusted current expense of educa-
; tion.
| In all categories of expenditure studied, the mean
of the small college exceeded that of the other two
I ' ;
groups, just as in the current expense of education. In
100
only two of the seven major categories (fixed charges and
transportation), and In only one of the specific categor
ies and combinations (books), did the mean of the middle
group exceed that of the largest colleges. Two of the
typically nonlinear patterns are shown in Figures 2 and
3 in Appendix B, while Tables 4 through 17 present rele
vant data.
Conclusion 3.— With respect to actual amounts ex
pended, the smallest colleges vary more in their expend
iture patterns than do colleges of medium or large size.
While considerable overlap among groups was observed
in each of the categories studied, in four of the seven
major budget classifications, as well as in the total ad
justed current expense of education, the small colleges
provided both the high and the low extremes for the total
study population; even in the other three categories, in
which a Group 2 college showed the lowest expenditure
(administration, operation, and maintenance), a Group 1
college reported the highest, and the Group 1 colleges
showed the greatest range. While the variance was not
calculated for the groups, inspection of the tables pre-
| sented in Chapter IV shows that, in most categories,
i
I Group 1 colleges are distributed throughout the entire
j
j range much more evenly than are the others.
I
I
Conclusion 4>--Small colleges are more likely than
101
others to spend a smaller portion of their available
funds on teachers' salaries or on other direct costs of
instruction.
j
Although the mean percentage of the adjusted current j
expense of education which was expended on instruction
differed but little among the groups, with less than one
percentage point separating groups 2 and 3, in Group 1
the mean was lower than in either of the others; Table 19 ;
indicates that the distribution of colleges in Group 1
tended toward the lower end of the scale to a degree not
i ;
| found in the other groups.
i
While differences in percentages expended on teach-
| ers1 salaries are also small, the trend in both the distri
butions and the means is clear.
Conclusion 3.— There is a moderate positive relation
ship between size and the portion of the adjusted current
j expense of education which is used for direct instruc-
I
| tional costs; the larger college.tends to be able to dir-
! ect a larger share of its funds to such purposes.
j
A corollary to Conclusion 4 and to Hypothesis 1, this
j
| conclusion is supported by the results of the procedures
! employed as a test of Hypothesis 1, which produced a cor-
i
i relation coefficient of +.44.
| :
I Conclusion 6 .— There is a moderate positive relation-
11
| ship between size and the portion of the adjusted current j
102
expense of education expended on teachers' salaries; the
larger college tends to be able to direct a larger share
of its funds to this purpose.
A corollary to Conclusion 4 and to Hypothesis 2, this j
i
conclusion is supported by the results of the procedures
employed as a test of Hypothesis 2, which produced a cor
relation coefficient of +.48.
Conclusion 7.— While colleges vary greatly in the
amounts of their expenditures, the distribution of funds
within their budgets, expressed as percentages of the total,
amount, is similar among most of the colleges, regardless
of size.
In all three groups, among the seven major budget cat
egories the one receiving the highest percentage of total
funds was instruction, followed in order by operation,
fixed charges, administration, maintenance, transportation,
and health services. In five categories, differences be
tween means of the high and low groups were less than one
percentage point. Exceptions were in instruction, where
the corresponding difference was approximately four percent
age points, and in administration, with a difference of
| approximately three points. The lower percentage of the
I
| total which is devoted to instruction in the small col-
j
leges seems to be a result of higher administrative costs.
Conclusion 8 .— With respect to economy, there may be
| a point of diminishing returns in college growth; it may
103
be that a college can be too large for fiscal efficiency.
While there are Individual exceptions within each
group and within each budget class, the general trend
is for small, colleges to spend more per unit in total cur
rent expenses, as well as in the components of such ex
penses. While the middle group spent less than did the
group of small colleges, the trend changed in the group of
large colleges; it should, however, be noted that the
means of the large colleges tended to be closer to the
middle group than to the small one. This conclusion vali
dates what has been found in other studies of unit
| costs; 1 such results indicate that there may be a point—
or perhaps a range— in college size below which costs tend
to decrease as size increases, but above which costs tend
to increase throughout the entire budget.
Conclusion 9.— While size is a contributing factor to
cost of operating a college, it is not necessarily the
primary determinant of such costs.
This study has not shown a linear relationship be-
i
tween size and adjusted current expense of education.
While the tendency toward high costs in the sma^l colleges
is clear, and while a relationship has been found between
i
size and the percentages of total costs which were ex
pended on instruction and teachers' salaries, the variance
1Harris, op. cit., and Hanson, op. cit.
ior
within the groups and within the total population suggests
the existence of other factors which singly or in combina
tion may exert at least as much influence as size upon
total expenditures per unit. j
Recommendations
Prom the results of this study, the following recom
mendations have been developed:
Recommendation 1.— If research in junior college fi
nancial matters is to be most effective, greater uniform
ity in expenditure classification practices should be
developed.
Throughout this dissertation, variations in account
ing practices have been noted. Such variations make inter-:
institutional comparisons difficult, reduce precision, and j
impair efforts to improve the structure of junior college
finance.
Recommendation 2.— Program budgeting and accounting,
more suitable than the line-i-tem budget for detailed
study and accounting purposes, should be standard practices
in California junior colleges.
With data processing equipment and systems available
to almost every junior college in the state, adoption of
such processes becomes quite practical. Use of such a
system would facilitate detailed study of a college or of
105
a group of colleges; by cutting across the present broad
categories, such accounting would allocate proportional
shares of costs to the programs where such costs are in
curred; it would facilitate study of specific program
costs, including those programs which, by virtue of fed
eral or other supplemental support, may increase the over
all costs of education but which are not obvious in the
j
present system.
/
Recommendation 3.— Studies such as that reported by
Wells and cited in Chapter II should be considered at all
colleges, and in particular at those with unit costs or
expenditure patterns which differ markedly from others in
a particular size group.
Such studies, which are in effect applications of
program budgeting and accounting procedures, would dis
close variations in costs of courses, curricula, and ser
vices within an institution and could provide valuable in-
| formation as bases for decision making.
j
| Recommendation 4.— Management studies are recom-
! mended as an aid to development of more efficient means of
! utilizing available resources.
! Variations among colleges suggest that such studies
i
j could serve a useful purpose in developing more effective
i .
administrative organization, operating procedures, person-
i nel assignments, purchasing practices and general
106
operating efficiency.
Recommendation 5.— State finance programs, presently
based primarily on size, with some consideration of dis
trict wealth per unit of size, should be based on thorough
studies of the variations In unit costs; such programs !
should be based on identification and consideration of
factors other than size which contribute to higher than
normal unit costs.
This study is but one of several which have consid
ered phases of the entire problem of junior college fi
nance in California. What appears to be needed is a study
which is both comprehensive and in depth. Such a study,
designed to determine the nature of the entire program of
junior college expenditures and at the same time to iden
tify the factors which cause institutions to differ mark
edly in their unit costs, would prove invaluable as a
basis for policy determination concerning junior college
finance.
I
I
i
1
i
i
i
BIBLIOGRAPHY
i
107
108
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alkin, Marvin C. Financing Junior Colleges in California,
a Critical Analysis of the State Support Program.
Sacramento: California State Department of Education, i
1 9 6 6.
______ and Hendrix, Vernon L. Input-Output Relationships
in a Sample of California Public Junior Colleges. ;
Los Angeles: U.C.L.A. Center for the Study of Evalua- j
tion of Instructional Programs, 1 9 6 6.
Brown, William E. "High School Size: Relationship to
Selected Educational and Cost Factors." Unpublished
! Ed.D. dissertation, School of Education, University
of Southern California, 1956.
Bureau of Junior College Administration and Finance.
"State Support for California Junior Colleges."
Release No. 30. Sacramento: California state Depart
ment of Education, 1 9 6 6. (Mimeographed.)
Bureau of Junior College Education. "Conference of Small
Junior Colleges." (Sacramento: California State De
partment of Education, 1964. (Mimeographed.)
________. Handbook of Definitions, Publication No. 4,
^ Revised. Sacramento: California State Department of
Education, 1 9 6 6.
Bureau of Junior College General Education. "Directory of
California Public Junior Colleges 1966-1 9 6 7." Sacra
mento: California State Department of Education, 1966.
(Mimeographed.)
________ . The Junior College Story. Sacramento: Cal
ifornia state Department of Education, 1 9 6 6.
California. Education Code. 1965*
!
California State Department of Education. California
School Accounting Manual, 1964 Edition. Bulletin of
the California State Department of Education, Volume
XXXIII, Number 2, June, 1964. Sacramento: Cal
ifornia State Department of Education, 1964.
109
Coordinating Council for Higher Education. A Considera
tion of Issues Affecting Public Junior Colleges.
Sacramento: Coordinating Council for Higher Educa
tion, 1 9 6 5.
i
________ . The Master Plan Five Years Later. Sacramento: |
Coordinating Council for Higher Education, 1 9 6 6. !
1
Dart, Gerald E. "Relationships of Selected Variables to
Current Costs per A.D.A. in California School Dis
tricts." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, School of
Education, University of Southern California, i9 6 0.
Dilley, Prank B. "Program Budgeting in the University
Setting." The Educational Record, XLVII (Fall, 1966),
474-89.
Hanson, Nels W. "Economy of Scale in Education: An
Analysis of the Relationship between District Size
and Unit Costs in the Public Schools." Unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1 9 6 3.
I Harper, Edwin H. and Kirschman, Dorothy. "General Fund
Expenditures of California School Districts— Fiscal
Year 1962-6 3." California Education, I (June, 1964),
2 3-2 5. :
________ . "General Fund Expenditures of California
School Districts1 — Fiscal Year 1963-64." California
Education, II (February, 1 9 6 5)* 63-64.
________. "General Fund Expenditures of California
School Districts— Fiscal Year 1964-65." California
Education, III (March, 1 9 6 6), 14-17.
Harris, Seymour E. Higher Education: Resources and
Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1 9 6 2.
Hull, L. E. "Pitfalls in the Use of Unit Cost Studies."
Journal of Higher Education, XXXII (October, 1 9 6 1),
371 ff.
I Johns, Roe L., and Morphet, Edgar L. Financing the
! Public Schools. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Ha11,
I960.
Magnusen, Henry W. Average Daily Attendance and Selected
Financial Statistics 19b5-fc>6. Sacramento: Cal-
ifornia State Department of Education, n.d.
110
Master Plan Survey Team. A Master Plan for Higher Educa
tion in California 1960-1975. Sacramento: Call-
fornla State Department of Education, i9 6 0.
McIntyre, Charles, et. al. Financing California's Public
Junior Colleges, Report to the Coordinating Council
for Higher Education Number IO2 9. Sacramento:
California Coordinating Council for Higher Education,
1967. j
i
Mort, Paul R., Reusser, Walter C., and Pollfey, John W. I
Public School Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., I960.
Nielsen, Paul. "The Application of a Formula of Necessity j
and Cost Factors in Operating Small High Schools in I
California." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, School
of Education, University of Southern California, 1955*
0‘Toole, A. L. Elementary Practical Statistics. New
York: The Macmillan Company, 1964.
Page, Frank L. "Financial Support of the Student Activity
Program in California Public Junior Colleges." Unpub- I
lished Ed.D. dissertation, School of Education, Uni
versity of Southern California, 1955.
Peterson, Basil H. "Critical Problems and Needs of Cali
fornia Junior Colleges." Modesto: California Junior
College Association, 1 9 6 5.
Scheldt, Omar H. "The Expense of Student Personnel Ser
vices in Selected California Public Junior Colleges." !
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, School of Education,
University of California at Los Angeles, 1 9 6 6.
School Management. Volumes VIII-XI. (January issue of
each volume contains analysis of nationwide study of
school costs.)
; Stevens, Edwin B. and Elliott, Edward C. Unit Costs of
! Higher Education. New York: The Macmillan Company,
1925.
Tyndall, D. Gordon, and Barnes, Grant A. "Unit Costs of
Instruction in Higher Education." Journal of Experi
mental Education, XXXI (December, 1 9 6 2), 114-llb.
m i
Virginia Community College System, Office of Surveys and
Evaluation. "Full-time Equivalent Operating Costs."
Richmond: Virginia Community College System, 1 9 6 8.
(Mimeographed.)
Wells, John K. "A Study of the Net Expense of Selected
Curricular Programs at East Los Angeles College."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, School of Education,
University of California at Los Angeles, 1 9 6 6.
Williams, Robert L. "Cost of Educating One College Stu
dent." The Educational Record, XLI (October, 1 9 6 1),
322-29.
Witmer, David R. Unit Cost Studies. Madison, Wisconsin:
Board of Regents of State Universities, 1967*
(Mimeographed.)
Wolfson, Lfeo. "Financing of California Public Junior
Colleges," Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, School of
Education, University of Southern California, 1955*
APPENDICES
I
112
APPENDIX A
LETTERS
I
113
Ilk
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
December ll+, 1967
Dear President:
Financing our junior colleges may well be the most crucial problem
facing us as we attempt to serve the students who come to our doors.
I hope that a doctoral study which I am undertaking at the University
of Southern California will help point the way toward solution of the
problem: it will deal with the relationship of size to various as
pects of the expenditure programs of single-college California junior
college districts.
Dr. Leslie E. Wilbur, Associate Professor of Education, is the chair
man of my committee. I have consulted with the C.J.C.A. Committee on
Research and Development and with Dr. Lloyd Messersmith before making
the request contained in this letter.
In order to proceed with this study, I need your help, in the form of
a statement of the expenditures of your district for the 1966-1967
year. The design of the study is such that, rather than asking you
to complete a questionnaire, I am requesting a copy of your adoption
budget for 1967-1968, or any other similarly organized document which
provides information concerning your district's actual expenditures
for 1966- 1967. A document which provides detail through such budget
classifications as 213, 620, 790* 126l, etc. will be thoroughly sat
isfactory for this purpose. (These classifications are but examples.)
In addition, ,1 should appreciate your providing the following four
items of information for your district.
a. assessed valuation for 1966-1967______ _____________________
I b. the ADA of students in attendance at
{ your college in 1966-1967 _____________________
| c. valuation of capital assets, exclusive
i of land and motor vehicles, September 1,
1966 _____________________
d. total assignable square feet in your
facilities, September 1, 1966
115
For your convenience, a mailing label and postage have been enclosed
with this letter. A copy of the results will be sent to you.
I appreciate your assistance in making this research possible.
Sincerely,
j
i
William A. Ostrom
675 South Ardmore Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90005
675 South Ardmore Avenue
Los Angeles, California
January 11, 1968
In December, I sent the enclosed communication to fifty-one
California junior college presidents. It appears that your
copy may have gone astray in the Christmas mails: while the
response has been excellent, I still need information about
College of to complete the collection of data.
Will you help me to make this research complete by sending
me two types of information? Specifically, I need
1. the four items on the enclosed sheet, and
2. a copy of pages 8 and 9 of your final J-lfl
budget form’ for I967-I 968, which will pro
vide the information I need for 1966- 1967.
I shall appreciate the assistance which you can give me by
an early reply. A stamped, addressed envelope is enclosed
for your convenience.
Sincerely,
William A. Ostrom
APPENDIX B
CHARTS
117
COMPARISON OF SIZE AND ADJUSTED
CURRENT EXPENSE OF EDUCATION
A .D .A.
11,801-12,too X - ■
11,201-11,800
10,601-11,200 X
10,001-10,600
9 ,to i-io ,o o o X
8,801- 9*too
.8,201- 8,800 X
7,601- 8,200
7,001- 7*600 X
6 ,t o i- 7*000 XX
5,801- 6 ,too
5,201- 5*800 x xxx
k,6oi- 5*200
X X
k,ooi- k,6oo
X X
3 ,t o i- ^,000
X XXX X XX X
2,801- 3*too
X X XX X
2,201- 2,800
X X XX
1,601- 2,200
X X XX
1,001- 1,600
X X X
t o i- 1,000 X X X xx
o o o
ON CO [ —
UN VO VO
o
in
c-
&
o o
on t*-
GO co
< & ■
i i i
H H H
in on on
in in no no
- c e -
i i
^ A
NO P-
I I I
H H H
in on on
o o o o
H in on on
ON ON ON O
H
I
£
o
H
I I I
H H H
in on on
C- t- CO CO ON ON ON o
H
I
P i
O O
LA ON
r - |
I
£
o
• V
rH
I
H
LA
r —1
H H H
Adjusted Current Expense of Education per Unit
FIGURE 1
1,191- 1>230
COMPARISON OF SIZE AND
INSTRUCTIONAL COSTS
A .D .A.
11,801-12,i*oo
11,201-11,800
10,601-11,200
10,001-10,600
9,1*01-10,000
8,801- 9,^00
8,201- 8,800
7,601- 8,200
7.001- 7,6oo
6 ,t o i- 7,000
5,801- 6,1*00
5,201- 5,800
I*,601- 5,200
i*,ooi- i*,6oo
3,1*01- i*,ooo
2,801- 3,1*00
2,201- 2,800
1,601- 2,200
1.001- 1,600
. 1 *01- 1,000
X
X X
XX XX X
X XX X
X X X
X
X X
z___
XX
XX X
XX
x xx
L T \ O L T \ O L P v O O L f \ O L T \ Q L T \ O
W l A t - O W l A N O W l A t - O W l A
l f t l A l A l A U ) y ) U ) V O t— t- t—
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
H V O H V O H V O H V O H V O H V O H M D
oc\JLfNt-owinc— o cvj lt\ c— o cvj
IA IA IA IA VD VO VO VO C— t—
Instructional Costs per Unit
FIGURE 2
751- 775
776- 800
801- 825
A «D .A •
COMPARISON OF SIZE AND EXPENDITURES
FOR TEACHERS1 SALARIES
120'
11,801-12,lK)0
11,201-11,800
10,601-11,200
10,001-10,600
9 ,to i-io ,o o o
8.801- 9,.too
8,201- 8,800
7.601- 8,200
7.001- 7,600
6,toi- 7,ooo
5.801- 6 ,too
5,20;.- 5,800
4.601- 5,200
4.001- 4,6oo
3,4oi- 4,ooo
2.801- 3,4oo
2,201- 2,800
1.601- 2,200
1.001- 1,600
4o i- 1,000
X
X X
X XXX
x x
x x
xx xx xx x x
x x x
x x x x
x x
x x x
_________X XX
XX
X X
8 8 8
0 o
00 o _
CM 00 CO CO CO
■ C / 3 -
1 I I I I I I
H H H r - j H H H
VO OO O W J A O CO
CM CM CO CO CO CO CO
- C / 3 -
8
- = t
i
- = t
o
3
I
5l
It
& 8
o o o o
o c m 3 vo
IA LCi 1A tn
I I I
H H H
O W 4
IA IA IA
Teachers' Salaries per Unit
FIGURE 3 !
i
I
561- 580
121
COMPARISON OF SIZE AND EXPENDITURES
FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
A.D.A.
11,801-12,1*00
11,201-11,800
10,601-11,200
10,001-10,600
9,1+01-10,000
8,801- 9,1*00
8,201- 8,800
7,601- 8,200
7.001- 7,600
6,1+01- 7,000
5.801- 6,i+oo
5.201- 5,600
i*,6oi- 5,200
i+,ooi- i+,6oo
3,i+oi- i+,ooo
2.801- 3,1+00
2.201- 2,800
1,601- 2,200
1.001- i,6 o o
1 + 01- 1,000
X
X
X XX X
XX X
X
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x x
X X XX
XX XX
X X
X X
X
X__________
X
X X X
o o
ITS VO
Y .
H rH
CO j-
-#3-
o o o o
c — CO o\ o
H
I I
r-1 H
Lf\ VO
I I
CO
o o
H C\!
H H
I t
H rH
0\ O
H
O O
on
H rH
I
rH
3
o o
LTV VO
H H
I I
H H
CO -4"
rH H
P O
C — 0 0
rH rH
I I I
H rH rH
LTV VO b-
H rH H
Operation and Maintenance Costs per Unit
FIGURE 1 +
181- 190
191- 200
201- 210

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A Historical Analysis Of Vocational Education: Land-Grant Colleges To California Junior Colleges, 1862-1940

PDF

Programs For Professional Preparation Of Instructors For California Public Junior Colleges

PDF

The Image Of Higher Education In American Novels, 1920-1966

PDF

The Impact Of Selected Colleges On Students' Values

PDF

Faculty Views Of The California Public Junior College

PDF

Factors In The Selection Of State School Board Members And The Chief State School Officer

PDF

Criteria For Directing Junior College Instruction

PDF

Dropout - Stayin Personality Differentials And College Environments

PDF

The Selection, Training And Evaluation Of School Bus Drivers In California

PDF

The Potential Of The Junior College In The Developing Nations Of The World

PDF

Biology In California Public Junior Colleges

PDF

Objectives Of Higher Education As Reflected In The Inaugural Addresses Ofselected College And University Presidents

PDF

A Study Of Undergraduate Education In Selected Seventh-Day Adventist Colleges

PDF

The Pre-Calculus Mathematics Curriculum In California Community Colleges

PDF

A Study Of Management Functions Common To The Administration Of Commercial Businesses And Institutions Of Higher Education

PDF

Supervised Field Experience And Internship Programs In Educational Administration And Supervision In The California State Colleges

PDF

Functions Of Trustees Of United Presbyterian Colleges

PDF

Grievance Procedures And Disciplinary Actions In Classified Personnel Administration In California Public Schools

PDF

An Analysis Of Critical Issues In Higher Education In Denmark

PDF

The Administrative Implications Of Federal Projects On School Personnel Practices

Asset Metadata

Creator Ostrom, William Albert (author)

Core Title The Relationship Of Size To Current Expense Of Education In California Single-College Public Junior College Districts

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Wilbur, Leslie (committee chair), Muelder, Wallace R. (committee member), Pullias, Earl Vivon (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-630157

Unique identifier UC11361128

Identifier 6817036.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-630157 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6817036.pdf

Dmrecord 630157

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ostrom, William Albert

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA