The My Turn “A financial warning for the commonwealth’s community colleges” [May 12] contains a number of major assumptions affecting the community colleges. There are at least three assumptions, stated or inferred, which need to be discussed in light of this column.
1.) A “centralized state control” model would/could mean a more secure environment for some community colleges. A centralized budget will reduce financial waste and bring programs and operating costs into alignment.
2.) Payroll and fringe benefits cannibalize gains from higher enrollments.
3.) There are far too many part-time students.
Let’s look at these assumptions starting with number three.
Across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts there are too many part-time students. Community college student bodies are generally made up of a diverse population in terms of age, marital status, number of dependents, income, work situations, etc. For many of these enrollees to attend full-time (taking at least four courses) is just not feasible when one considers at least income, cost and availability of childcare, transportation to and from classes (which may not be offered on the same day). Converting part-time to full-time is not a realistic course of action for many part-time students even with the benefit of some online courses. Again, generally it’s a different situation for any full-time, four-year college students who are younger and single in many cases with few outside family responsibilities.
Payroll and fringe benefit costs
It’s important to note at least through the early 2000s in the case of most of the community colleges the commonwealth’s funding level allowed all of the colleges’ full-time employees’ salaries to be funded by the state. Just as important, the associated fringe benefit costs were funded entirely by the state. In fact, in some cases portions of the cost of other expenses, e.g. utilities and the like, could also be funded by the states’s appropriation. That started to change as the state’s funding levels started to decrease and eventually the fringe costs were passed along to the colleges. With these additional costs being passed on to the colleges along with the lowering of the state’s appropriation, one method to decrease expenditures was to closely examine the number of administrative positions and academic programs. Technology and other system advancements did and will provide “relief” from many administrative tasks. Furthermore, administrative structures at community colleges need not mirror those at four-year institutions in terms of titles and the number of layers — the missions are not identical.
State control
A crude analogy might be the role of the federal government and the state in the “control” and the funding of community colleges. There is a great deal to be said about “local control.” For community colleges which are small, in many cases in rural locations and with levels of political influence not comparable to large urban settings, it can mean potentially lower funding levels from the state even if so-called “small college adjustment factors” are included.
Centralized functions such as program articulations, the transferability of similar/identical programs and courses, and the approval and funding of oversight of capital projects are areas where “centralization” makes sense.
Just for the record, there are an estimated 16 community college/higher education systems in the 50 states under “state control” with no local governing boards of trustees.
Richard Hillier (retired) served as a chief administrative officer/CFO for over three decades at four community colleges in Massachusetts (Greenfield Community College), New Jersey (Hudson County Community College), New York (Orange County Community College), and Oregon (Lane Community College.) He lives in South Deerfield.