A study of equity in a multi-institution community college system prior to and after implementing performance-based funding

152 Pages·1999·5.8 MB·English

by  Brown, Rhodella

ASTUDYOFEQUITYINAMULTI-INSTITUTION
COMMUNITYCOLLEGESYSTEMPRIORTOANDAFTER
IMPLEMENTINGPERFORMANCE-BASEDFUNDING
By
RHODELLABROWN
ADISSERTATIONPRESENTEDTOTHEGRADUATESCHOOL
OFTHEUNIVERSITYOFFLORIDAINPARTIALFULFILLMENT
OFTHEREQUIREMENTSFORTHEDEGREEOF
DOCTOROFEDUCATION
UNIVERSITYOFFLORIDA
1999
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
IwouldfirstliketothankDr.Honeymanforagreeingtobemychairandforall
thesupportandadvicethathegavemeoverthepast41/2yearsfromtheclassroomto
themonth-long-take-homequalifyingexamthroughthedefenseofthisdocument.
Iwouldliketothankmyhusband,Dennis,forallhisemotionalsupport,love,
devotion,andencouragementtofollowmydreamsandpursuemygoalsduringour32
yearsofmarriage.Idedicatethisdissertationtohimandtoourfourchildren.Jennifer,
Jereme,Jessica,andJaclyn,thankyouforstandingbymeandtellingmeto"goforth,"
givingmeinspirationwhenIneededitmost,unconditionallovewhenIwascranky,and
fortakingmetomovies,happyhours,andbringingmechocolates.Mylifewouldindeed
beemptywithoutmyhusbandandchildreninmylife.IthankJennifer,Jereme,and
JaclynformarryingmateswhomIcantrulylove.Ithankmysons-in-law,whohelped
mebuymyfirstcomputer(Angel),keptmycomputeraliveandwell(Charlie),andmy
daughter-in-law,Melissa,whocarriesmysecondgrandchild.Andfinally,Iwouldliketo
thankMeagan,myfirstgrandchild,fortakingmylovetoanewdimension,fillingme
withawe.
IwouldalsoliketothankacountlessnumberofotherpeoplesuchasShannon
andJodieNelsonandsonsandmytwobestfriends,AudreyStewardandSandie
Johnson,whomademelaughwhentheyvisited.Igivethankstothoseatworkwho
supportedmyprogramandgavemeencouragement:DeanNanceeBailey,Charlotte
Wright,MargaretOverbey,WalterSaviuk,LindaWaymire,PatGlassford,andother
ii
facultyandstaffmembers.And,lastbutnotleast,Ithankmysoulkeeperswhogathered
aroundme:Johanna,Susan,Connie,Carol,andMarge.
in
TABLEOFCONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
„
ABSTRACT
vj
CHAPTERS
INTRODUCTION
1 1
StatementoftheProblem 10
PurposeoftheStudy 12
OverviewofMethodology 13
LimitationsandDelimitationsoftheStudy 14
SignificanceoftheStudy 14
OverviewoftheStudy 15
OrganizationoftheStudy 16
2 LITERATUREREVIEW 17
Introduction 17
TheConceptofEquityinPublicSchools 17
PrinciplesofEquityinPublicSchoolFinance 21
MeasurementofEquityinPublicSchoolFinance 24
ConceptofEquityinHigherEducationandCommunityCollegeFinance 31
PrinciplesofEquityinHigherEducationandCommunityCollegeFinance 33
CommunityCollegesSourcesofRevenues 35
CommunityCollegeFundingMethodologies 38
FundingFormulas 39
Performance-BasedFunding 42
SourcesofRevenueforCommunityCollegesinFlorida 66
Florida’sFundingMethodology 68
Summary 71
3 RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY 73
Introduction 73
PopulationoftheStudy 74
Methodology 75
iv
4 ANALYSISOFDATA 84
Introduction 84
EquityBeforeandaftertheImplementationofPerformance-basedFunding 86
Usingthe1996-97FundingModelforProjections 96
Summary 103
5 CONCLUSIONS 106
Introduction 106
AImppplliiccaattiioonnssfoofrtPhueblSitactiPsotliiccaylMMeaakseurrsementstotheCommunityCollegeSetting . 1Il1l6
FutureStudies 118
APPENDIX RAWDATA 120
REFERENCES 129
BIOGRAPHICALSKETCH 143
v
AbstractofDissertationPresentedtotheGraduateSchool
oftheUniversityofFloridainPartialFulfillmentofthe
RequirementsfortheDegreeofDoctorofEducation
ASTUDYOFEQUITYINAMULTI-INSTITUTION
COMMUNITYCOLLEGESYSTEMPRIORTOANDAFTER
IMPLEMENTINGPERFORMANCE-BASEDFUNDING
By
RhodellaBrown
August1999
Chairman: DavidHoneyman
MajorDepartment: EducationalLeadership
Thepurposeofthisstudywastoextendtheconceptofhorizontalequityasit
relatedtopublicschoolequitystudiestoapubliccommunitycollegesystempriortoand
aftertheimplementationofperformance-basedfunding.
Horizontalequityaccordingtoeducationalfinancewasthe"equaltreatmentof
equals"andwasoneoftheobjectivessoughtincommunitycollegefunding.Thedegree
ofhorizontalequitywasanalyzedonFlorida'sfundingformulaforthe28public
communitycollegesusingstatisticalmeasuresrange,restrictedrange,federalrangeratio,
coefficientofvariation,McLooneindex,theGinicoefficient,andtheLorenzecurve.The
variableusedwas"totalrevenueperfull-timeequivalentstudent"wheretotalrevenue
wasthesumofthestate'sgeneralrevenueallocation,lotteryproceeds,andstudenttuition
andfees.Thedegreeofequitywasanalyzedtheyearpriortoandafterthe
vi
implementationofperformance-basedfundingtoexamineiftheperformance-based
allocationmadeadifferenceinhorizontalequity.
Theresultsofalldataanalyzedaccordingtothestatisticalmeasuresindicatedthat
thedegreeofequitywasbetterpriortotheimplementationofperformance-based
funding.Thedegreeofequityforthefundingformuladecreasedslightlywhenthe
performance-basedallocationwasaddedtothefundingformula.Thefundingmodelwas
usedtoprojectwhatwouldhappentohorizontalequitywhentheperformanceallocation
was6%,12%,25%,50%and75%oftotalrevenue.Resultsoftheprojectionsindicated
thatthedegreeofequitygreatlydecreasedwhentheperformance-basedallocation
reached25%orhigheroftotalrevenue.
Thereweretwoconclusions.Thefirstconclusionwasbasedontheapplicability
ofthesixstatisticalmeasurementsprevalenttopublicschoolequitystudiesextendedto
communitycollegeequitystudies.Thesixstatisticalmeasurementsusedinthestudy
weresensitivetochangesinper-studentrevenueandtherefore,applicabletocommunity
collegeequitystudies.Thesecondconclusionincludedrecommendationsbasedonthe
resultsofthestudythatindicatedthefundingformulaforthe28publiccommunity
collegesinthestateofFloridawasmoreequitablepriortotheimplementationof
performance-basedfundingthatafteritsimplementation.
Vll
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION
Communitycollegesremainanintegralpartofhighereducation.Therewere1300
publictwo-yearinstitutionsdescribedascommunity,technical,ortwo-yearbranch
collegesin1995(Vaughan,1995).These1300publicinstitutionsservedover5.7million
studentsincluding50%ofallfirst-timecollegestudentsand45%ofallminoritystudents
(Vaughan,1995),Byreachingsuchmassesofpeople,communitycollegesweretheonly
systeminhighereducationthatembodiedthephilosophyofThomasJefferson,namely,
thateducationbeaccessibletolargesegmentsofpeoplemakingthemproductivecitizens
(Boone,1997;Vaughan,1995;Witt,Wattenbarger,Gollattscheck,&Suppiger,1994).
Communitycollegesequippedavastnumberofstudentswithappliedskillsandacademic
learningthatwereessentialtomaintainingcareersorobtainingajob(Carnevale&
Desrochers,1997)ortransferringtouniversities(Grubb,1996).
Communitycolleges,labeledas“peoples’colleges”(Boone,1997),weredeeply
rootedincommunitiesthroughmissionstatements.Programsofferedwerecomprehensive
andincludedtransferprograms,skilledtraining,workforcepreparedness,cultural
enrichment,andlife-longlearning(Boone,1997;Vaughan,1995).Theseprogramswere
costlyrequiringcollegestobeprudentinfiscalmanagement.However,nomatterhow
prudent,ifresourceswerenotavailable,collegeswouldhavefinancialproblems.Sincethe
beginningofthe1990s,collegesacrossthenationcompetedfordecliningstateresources,
1
2
therebydoingmorewithfewerdollars(Campbell,Leverty,&Sayles,1996,Leslie&
Fretwell,1996;Vaughan,1995).Anumberoffactorscontributedtothedeclineinfunding
(Campbelletal.,1996;Leslie&Fretwell,1996;Honeyman&Bruhn,1996;Waggaman,
1991).Theeconomicrecessionintheearlypartofthe1990sresultedinfewertaxdollars
forgeneralrevenuetothestates.Mistrustineducationbythepublicandstatelegislators
resultedindecliningstatesupportforhighereducation.Competitionforstaterevenuesby
otherpublicagencies,suchashealthcareandlawenforcement,reducedstateandfederal
revenuesallocatedtoeducation.(Alfred,1996;Honeyman&Bruhn,1996;Leslie&
Fretwell,1996;St.John,1994).Declineinfundingalongwithrisingcostsineducation
(needfortechnologyandincreaseinadministrativestaff)andfluctuatingstudent
enrollmentgavemorechallengestofinancialstability(Honeyman&Bruhn,1996;
Waggaman,1991).
Fundingforpublichighereducationcamefromfederal,state,andlocalsources,
tuitionandfees,grantsandgifts,andsalesandservices(Honeyman&Bruhn,1996).
Duringtheexpansionyearsofhighereducation,between1950and1970,over90%ofthe
stateappropriationscamefromstatetaxrevenues(Wallace,1993).Bytheearly1980s,
however, educationwasnolongerdeemedatoppriorityinfunding. Educationplaced
21stamong25governmentalagenciesresultinginadecreaseinstatesupportforhigher
education(Wallace,1993).From1978to1991,statesupportdecreased7.8%(Wallace,
1993).Federalfundingforhighereducationfarednobetter.Thefederalgovernment
provided15%ofhighereducationrevenuesin1980but12%in1993(Finn&Manno,
1996;Honeyman&Bruhn,1996).Meanwhile,tuitionandfeesincreasedfrom8.4%inthe
early1980sto10%in1991(Wallace,1993). By1993,40%ofallrevenuesforhigher
3
educationcamefromfederal,state,andlocalsourcesand26.5%camefromtuitionand
fees(Honeyman&Bruhn,1996).InCalifornia,statefundingforhighereducation
decreased18.1%fromtheyear1990to1995whileMinnesota’sandFlorida’sstate
fundingdecreased13.6%(UniversityofPennsylvania, 1996)
Aspartofthehighereducationsystem,communitycollegesalsohaddecreasesin
funding.In1988,74%ofcommunitycollegefundingwasappropriatedfromfederal,state,
andlocalsourceswhile22%wasfromtuitionandfees(Honeyman,Williamson,&
Wattenbarger,1991).However,bytheearlypartofthe1990s,69%ofthefundingcame
fromfederal,state,andlocalsourceswhile20%camefromtuitionandfees(Cohen&
Brawer,1996).
Communitycollegesreceivedthelargestamountoffundingfromthestate.Onthe
nationalaverage,50%offundingcamefromthestate,21%fromlocalgovernment,4%
fromthefederalgovernment,and20%fromtuitionandfees(Vaughan,1995).The
amountfromlocalgovernmentvariedfromstatetostatewithsomestatesreceivingno
fundingfromlocalsources,suchasAlabama,Georgia,andIndiana(Honeymanetal.,
1991),whereasArizona,Kansas,Oregon,andWisconsinreceivedfundingfromlocal
sources(Honeymanetal.,1991;Vaughan,1995).
Sincethe1960s,stateslegislatorssoughtwaystoadequatelysupporthigher
educationandequitablydistributestaterevenuestohighereducationinstitutions.The
questforanequitableandyetadequateamountoffundingwasaresultoftheremarkable
increaseofinterestineducationinlate1940sand1950sasaresultoftheG.I.Bill
(Boone,1997;Vaughan,1995).Thespurtofinterestineducationculminatedinlarge
enrollmentsatuniversities,colleges,andtechnicalcollegesdemandingavarietyof