U TRECHT: UN PROCESO DE TRABAJO EN PLANTA MIRALLES

INTRODUCTION

This chapter will detail the research methodology used to answer the research questions in this study:

• History of Community College Funding in Texas (Research Question 1).

What funds has the State of Texas provided for community colleges from 1942 to 2006?

• History of Relationship between Revenue Sources (Research Question 2).

What has been the relationship between state appropriations, tuition and fees, and property tax revenue from 1942 to 2006?

• History of the Formula System (Research Questions 3a and 3b). How did

the community college formula system come into being in Texas? What has been the relationship between the full cost of community college instruction, the Coordinating Board’s recommendations, and the Legislative appropriations since the inception of the formula system?

To answer these important research questions, a two-phase research process will be detailed in this chapter. The research was similar in design to other dissertations that have focused on higher education policy. Modica (2006) sought to understand how five Texas community colleges coped with significant decreases in state funding. He examined historical records and documents to establish baseline information. Then, based on the archival research, interviews were conducted with key informants to the process. Kelly (2002) used a similar method in his study of the funding of Nevada community colleges. Andes (1991) researched the Independent Colleges and Universities of Texas, Inc., the organization that represents the interests of private

colleges and universities in Texas before the Texas Legislature. Similar to Dr. Andes’ research, this study was mainly descriptive in nature although it provides some interpretive analysis of the historical events associated with the funding of community colleges. As will be shown, part of the research method was an attempt to capture the interpretations of key individuals involved with community college funding.

Two general points about the research design need to be made before proceeding to the discussion of the two-phase research method. First, this study was an analysis of public policy. Fowler (2000) defines policy as "the outputs of the political system, usually in the form of rules, regulations, laws, ordinances, court decisions, administrative decisions, and other forms" (pg. 8). The outputs of the political system were the appropriations by the State of Texas to community colleges and the tuition and property tax revenue which result from the policies determined by each district’s governing board. The underlying premise of the policy analysis for this research was influenced by Gill and Saunders’ (1992) description of how to conduct policy analysis in higher education. Gill and Saunders suggest that policy analysis “requires an understanding of the issues, but, equally important, it requires an understanding of the higher education environment, including interrelationships of forces and structures within the environment. Policy analysis is not a discrete, self-contained activity. It is a process involving continuous review and evaluation of new information against existing information” (p. 225). Thus, this research design included a process whereby a variety of viewpoints on Texas community college funding were included in order that multiple perspectives could be considered in developing conclusions.

of control the researcher needs, and whether or not the focus is on contemporary events (see Figure 3-1). For example, experimental research would be the method of

Figure 3-1. Relevant Situations for Different Research Strategies

Strategy Research Question

Require control?

Contemporary focus?

Experiment how, why yes yes

Survey

who, what, where,

how many, how much no yes

Archival Analysis

who, what, where,

how many, how much no yes/no

History how, why no no

Case Study how, why no yes

Yin (p. 17, 1984)

choice if the researcher’s question is “how and why,” there is a high need for control, and the research topic is a contemporary event. As detailed in the preceding pages, the goal of this research was to bridge the gap between 1941 and the present time in our understanding of community college funding. Two basic questions needed to be answered: “what happened?” and, “why did it happen?” Using Yin’s typology, possible research methods can be pinpointed. This research did not require control nor did it have a contemporary focus. Archival Analysis and History are two strategies that can accommodate these parameters. Archival Analysis is an appropriate method for answering the “what happened?” question. The History strategy can answer the “why did it happen?” question. While this research was a policy analysis within the parameters of Gill and Saunders (1992), the Archival Analysis and History components described by Yin were included in the design as well.

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

A two-phase research process was used to conduct the policy analysis of community college funding in Texas. The first phase focused on documenting:

• the state appropriations (including both formula and non-formula funds) to community colleges from 1942 to 2006,

• the amount of property tax revenue each community college generated from 1942 to 2006,

• the amount of tuition and fee revenue each community college generated from 1942 to 2006,

• the number of students enrolled at each community college district from 1942 to 2006, and

• the number of contact hours generated by each community college district from 1942 to 2006.

Both primary and secondary documents related to Texas community college funding were examined. The primary sources included The General Appropriations Act of the Texas Legislature since 1939, the formula documents of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, and the historical records of the Texas Association of Community Colleges (TACC). The secondary sources included: community college histories (both published and unpublished) and government documents published by the Texas Legislature, the Legislative Budget Board, the Texas Comptroller, and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB). The goal of the first phase was to generate a comprehensive database with revenue data (state appropriation, tuition/fee, and property tax), enrollment data (headcount and contact hours), and formula data (cost study,

Upon completion of the first-phase of this research, the database was incomplete. The General Appropriation Act for each biennium was located and all funds made to community colleges were documented. However, funds to specific colleges from 1942 to 1955 were not provided in the bill; only the total amount appropriated to all colleges was given. The collection of other revenue data was not as comprehensive as the appropriation amounts. Tuition and Fee revenue was identified for the following time periods: FY 1965, FY 1975, FY 1979 to FY 2005. Two different types of property tax data were located: actual and projected. The actual property tax revenue data found in government records covered the following time span: FY 1975, FY 1979 to FY 2005. The projected property tax data was generated from the annual property tax survey conducted by the Texas Association of Community Colleges. Fall enrollment records were located from 1953 to 1964 (source: TACC archives), 1973 to 1976 (sources: TACC archives and THECB records), and 1981 to 2006 (source: THECB records). One of the problems encountered was the availability of historical formula data at the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB). THECB staff members were helpful in assisting the researcher in locating historical files, but, as noted in Appendix F, files are only kept for ten years.

In an effort to fill in the gaps in the database, a revenue spreadsheet and an enrollment spreadsheet were prepared for each of the Texas community college districts (see Appendix G for an example). The rationale for using two spreadsheets (rather than one) was that individuals in different divisions of the colleges would most likely provide the missing revenue and enrollment information. For example, staff in the business office would probably complete the revenue spreadsheet while staff from the institutional research office or the registrar’s office would probably complete the enrollment spreadsheet. The two spreadsheets were customized for each college and contained the

data gleaned from the archival research. Staff at each institution were asked to review the archival revenue and enrollment data with the records at the college district. If the archival numbers were accurate, no further information was needed. If the archival numbers were inaccurate or nonexistent, the institution was asked to provide that information. For example in Figure 3-2, the state appropriations for a community college Figure 3-2. Sample of Revenue Worksheet

district were provided. For FY 1992, the institution was asked to verify the formula appropriation amount ($38.4 million) and that special item funds were provided for a New Library and an Agribusiness Center. In addition, each institution was asked to provide information on group health insurance funds appropriated by the state and any other state contracts/grants the college received. Similar spreadsheets were provided for

1990-1999

FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93

Formula Appropriation per FY 39,167,566 39,117,566 38,458,201 38,458,201 Formula Funds Received

Group Health Insurance per FY Other State Contracts/Grants

Additional Appropriated Funds FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93

New Library 350,000 350,000 311,500 311,500

Agribusiness Center 111,250 111,250

Additions/Corrections to Additional Appropriated Funds:

enrollment or revenue data. Nine districts completed both surveys although not all of them had complete historical data. As will be discussed later, one of the issues with the development of the formula system was a lack of comprehensive and consistent record keeping at the institutions. Many colleges were unable to provide historical data. Due to the low response rate, the use of this data was limited to examples of specific colleges or a group of colleges rather than completely filling the gaps in the archival search.

The second phase of the research attempted to assess “why” the historical record appeared the way it did. For this second phase, key individuals with knowledge of community college funding in Texas were contacted for open-ended interviews with the researcher. The pool of potential interviewees was limited to the individuals who had had key roles in the formulation of state policy for community college funding in the past. Initially, 13 individuals were identified who met this criterion. The number of interviewees was expected to increase as the interviewees reported additional individuals who should be consulted. The pool of interviewees grew to 18 and included current and former community college presidents, Texas Association of Community Colleges staff, Coordinating Board officials, other governmental officials, and others who were familiar with the Legislature and community college funding.

The following procedures were utilized during the interviews. Each potential participant was first contacted by either telephone or email and asked if he/she would like to participate. If the potential participant did not agree to participate, the researcher made no additional contact with the individual. If the potential participant agreed to participate, a date, time, and method (either in person or on the phone) for the interview were set. Prior to the interview, each participant was mailed a packet with a brief

Figure 3-3. Interview Questions

1. Looking back on your experience with the State of Texas and community colleges, what were the key events in the development of community college funding from your perspective as (position of interviewee)?

2. Why, in your opinion, does the State of Texas fund community colleges (currently at $1.6 billion per biennium)?

3. Current law indicates that the state should appropriate “an amount sufficient to supplement local funds for the proper support, maintenance, operation, and improvement of public junior colleges of Texas” (Texas

Education Code §130.003). What do you think “sufficient to supplement” means?

4. In many Texas Association of Community College (TACC) publications, a phrase similar to the following is offered: “Providing for community colleges has been a shared responsibility between the state (through formula funds) and local revenue sources (tuition and fees and ad valorem tax revenue).”

-What is your reaction to this statement?

-What is your understanding of the agreement between the state and the community colleges regarding the funding of community colleges?

-What do you base this understanding on? 5. Formula funding:

-When was the funding formula developed? -How was the funding formula developed? -Why was the funding formula developed?

6. What insight can you provide about the history of tuition and fees at Texas community colleges?

7. What insight can you provide about the history of property tax valuation and tax rates at Texas community colleges?

8. What other insight can you provide on community college funding in Texas?

cover letter, a consent form, a list of the questions the interviewee would be asked, and two pages of preliminary data results from the first-phase of the research; a sample packet is provided in Appendix H. The open-ended questions asked of each interviewee are listed in Figure 3-3. Each interview was digitally recorded and lasted between 30 and 90 minutes. Prior to conducting the interviews, the researcher pre-tested the interview protocol with two individuals who had current knowledge of community college funding. For the interviews, a total of 18 individuals were contacted. Four people declined

and August of 2007. One of the interviewees declined the request to have the interview recorded, but did allow the researcher to take extensive notes. Two interviews were not recorded due to equipment malfunction. Detailed notes were compiled during both interviews and one of the two respondents provided written responses to the questions.

The notion that policy analysis “is a process involving continuous review and evaluation of new information against existing information” (Gill and Saunders, 1992, p. 225) was utilized while conducting the interviews. After each interview, the researcher reviewed each recording and transcribed the respondent’s exact words on each interview question (see next chapter). The basic protocol shown in Figure 3-3 was used in all interviews. The main goal of the interviews was to answer the question “why were community colleges funded by the Legislature?” The respondents also supplied substantial information on “what happened.” Additional questions were added to the basic protocol to verify information gleaned from early interviews. For example, two interviewees referred to federal funds that were provided to community colleges for technical/vocational education through the Texas Education Agency. The researcher prepared a one-page summary of that information (see Appendix I) and asked subsequent interviewees whether or not the description of events was accurate. In essence, the researcher continually reviewed and evaluated the messages emanating from the interviews in terms of the historical record that had already been established through the first phase of the research. The interviews were crucial to understanding the historical events associated with community college funding in Texas.

As mentioned previously, this study was primarily descriptive—a record of what happened since the first state appropriation to community colleges was the end product. To answer the research questions and to summarize the findings, numerous tables and

Figure 3-4. State Appropriation/Contact Hour, 1994-95 to 2004-05

Source: TACC (2003b)

figures showing raw numbers, changes over time, and the relationships between the revenue and enrollment variables were developed and will be provided in the next chapter. One of the challenges of this research was to find a way to compare the state appropriations over time. A comparison method used by the Texas Association of Community Colleges (TACC) for state appropriations was used (see Figure 3-4). By dividing the total appropriation dollars by the number of base year contact hours, a

biennial ratios were calculated. For state appropriations prior to the inception of the formula system, appropriations per full-time-student (the basis of the state’s

appropriation at that time) was used for longitudinal comparisons.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has provided detailed information on the data methods used in this study. A two-phase process was employed. The first phase utilized archival research to collect community college funding data from 1942 to 2006. Open-ended interviews, the second phase of the study, were conducted to verify the historic information gathered and to understand more completely why certain events occurred. The next chapter provides the results of this study.