Donate
PPIC Logo Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

Search Results

Filters Sort by:
blog post

Bricks and Mortarboards: Capital Investment in Colleges

By Patrick Murphy, Kevin Cook, Radhika Mehlotra

California needs to rethink its higher education capital finance strategy—a key component in maintaining access for all students and producing an educated workforce.

Report

Measuring Institutional Costs at California’s Public Universities

By Patrick Murphy, Kevin Cook, Talib Jabbar

California has recently increased its investment in higher education after many years of reducing state support. At the same time, the state’s four-year public systems, the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU), are currently poised to raise tuition for the first time in several years. If the past is any indication, intense discussions lie ahead about the need for additional higher education resources.

We offer a constructive starting point for those discussions by introducing a straightforward and objective assessment of institutional costs. We rely on a measure that connects institutional costs to the number of degrees UC and CSU produce. This measure provides a clear understanding of trends in California’s institutional costs and allows comparisons with colleges and universities in other states. It also offers higher education institutions the opportunity to demonstrate progress toward their goals in an accessible, transparent way.

Applying this measure to California’s public four-year institutions, we find that:

  • Institutional costs per degree across UC and CSU fell significantly—17 percent—from 1987 to 2013. This is an important savings in a state that will need to amp up its number of college graduates to meet future economic demand.
  • At UC, the cost per degree fell 6 percent over the period—from $116,000 to $109,000. UC’s institutional costs in 2013 were lower than a comparison group that included both public and private institutions across the nation. But UC’s costs were higher than a national comparison group of public schools only.
  • At CSU, the cost fell 33 percent—from $67,000 to $45,000. CSU’s 2013 costs were lower than both types of comparison groups—one that included public schools only and one that included both public and private institutions.

We recommend that policymakers and higher education leaders use the cost per degree measure as a way to frame higher education finance discussions. It provides a consistent, reliable, and objective measure of institutional costs and performance. For the measure to be most effective, accurate data reporting will be essential. We also recommend the reintroduction of a state-level higher education authority to add validity to the process of gauging institutional performance. Using the measure within a larger framework of agreed-upon goals would go a long way toward improving higher education finance policy in California.

event

Building California’s Future

About the Program
California's future prosperity depends on its infrastructure to support long-term economic and population growth. Yet the state faces a multibillion-dollar backlog of deferred maintenance and modernization for road, school, and water projects. It also faces an affordable housing crisis. This event will examine the challenges—and explore innovative solutions—from a local perspective.

Report

Upgrading Technology Infrastructure in California’s Schools

By Patrick Murphy, Niu Gao

As California schools move into online testing and online learning, an adequate technology infrastructure is no longer an option, but a necessity. To fully benefit from digital learning, schools will require a comprehensive technology infrastructure that can support a range of administrative and instructional tools. An earlier PPIC report found that most schools need significant technology upgrades in order to accommodate online learning. What upgrades do schools need most, and how much will they cost? How can policymakers help ensure that all students have access to 21st-century learning tools?

This report describes findings based on new statewide data. First, schools need high-density wireless networks, increased bandwidth, and overall network infrastructure upgrades. The challenges are greater in large schools, mostly because of the high cost of wireless networks for large groups of users. Second, IT staffing continues to be an issue in most schools. Only a third of schools have staff onsite to support desktop and local network configuration.

To estimate the costs of upgrading technology infrastructure, we created two scenarios. Our baseline scenario—which includes minimum bandwidth for digital learning, one device for every two middle- and high-school students, and one IT staffer for every 300 computing devices—would cost an additional $1.5 billion over the next three years. Our target scenario—which involves additional bandwidth and one device to every middle- and high-school student—would cost significantly more: $3.8 billion. In either scenario, staffing costs are more than 60 percent of the total.

As the state explores ways to address these ongoing technology needs, we offer several recommendations. First, continue and maintain sustained funding for technology investment, particularly for staffing. Second, provide targeted technical assistance to address severe staffing problems. Third, to ensure that all students have full access to digital learning, take advantage of federal funding and explore innovative partnerships with private sector to cover the cost of home broadband access for students from lower-income families.

Report

Will California Run Out of College Graduates?

By Hans Johnson, Sarah Bohn, Marisol Cuellar Mejia

California’s higher education system is a critical driver of the state’s economic progress. As the state’s economy continues to change, will its workforce be ready for the jobs of tomorrow?

This report updates and extends projections of California’s workforce skills through 2030, focusing on the supply and demand for workers with a bachelor’s degree. We find that the state will fall about 1.1 million college graduates short of economic demand if current trends persist—a problem we call the workforce skills gap. Even the arrival of highly educated workers from elsewhere is unlikely to be large enough to fill this gap.

Today’s college graduates have better economic outcomes than those who do not hold a bachelor’s degree. Over time, college graduates have seen lower rates of unemployment and higher wages than other workers—even through the Great Recession—suggesting that college degrees have become increasingly valuable in California’s labor market.

The future workforce skills gap looms large. But California and its higher education institutions can take several practical steps to close it. The core of a new plan for higher education should include increasing access to the state’s four-year institutions, improving college completion rates, expanding transfer pathways from community colleges, and being smart about aid programs.

blog post

More Money, More Challenges for K-12 Schools

By Paul Warren

The 2015-16 budget agreement between the legislative leadership and governor provides substantial additional funding for the new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which allows the state to implement the formula more quickly.

Report

Are California’s Schools Ready for Online Testing and Learning?

By Niu Gao

In addition to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), California is implementing a new, online assessment system: the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP). Field tests were conducted last spring and the system is being rolled out this year, amid concerns about whether schools are technologically prepared. Using survey data from the California Educational Technology Professionals Association (CETPA), this report examines school districts’ technology infrastructure and assesses their readiness for online testing. Three findings emerge. First, school districts express confidence in the quantity and quality of their hardware and network capabilities but remain concerned about software and training of instructional and IT staff. Second, there is sizable variation in readiness across districts, linked mainly to student enrollment and district expenditure levels. Third, a clear majority of the state’s onetime CCSS Implementation Fund is going into non-technology spending such as instructional materials and teacher training. Regardless of their current readiness, districts will need targeted and ongoing support to upgrade and maintain their technology infrastructure. In the longer term, virtually all schools will need to upgrade their technology infrastructure in order to adopt and benefit from digital learning.

Report

Higher Education in California: Institutional Costs

By Hans Johnson, Patrick Murphy, Margaret Weston, Kevin Cook

Over the past 20 years, in-state tuition at both the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) has more than tripled. These tuition increases have led many to believe that spending in the state’s public higher education systems is out of control. However, a closer look reveals that institutional expenditures in the two systems—including faculty salaries and benefits, the largest budget category—have not increased significantly. Our evaluation of both revenues and expenditures shows that recent tuition increases have been driven by dramatic reductions in state subsidies to UC and CSU. In the past, General Fund contributions covered the majority of educational costs. Today, students (often with help from federal, state, institutional, and private grants) pay most of these costs through tuition and associated fees. Better budget data could help policymakers monitor costs and align higher education funding with state goals. But it is clear that tuition at California’s public universities has risen much more rapidly than the cost of providing higher education.

Search results are limited to 100 items. Please use the Refine Results tool if you are not finding what you are looking for.