Approximately half of the U.S. population currently lives in suburban locales, one-fourth in big cities, and another fourth in small towns and rural areas. Hodgkinson (2003) indicates that the U.S. population is undergoing an increasing migration into rural areas. This relocation holds many challenging and ominous implications for urban and rural higher education as colleges and universities struggle to meet the divergent needs of shifting demographics. Public community colleges are especially impacted by these changes in student populations.

Honeyman and Sullivan (2006) identified three critical issues faced by administrators of community colleges: (1) continuation of open access policies; (2) establishment of an accrediting body for community colleges; and (3) formation of partnerships with vocational colleges. Minority students are most likely to be impacted by loss of open access. The California Postsecondary Education Commission (2006), likewise, identified three major issues currently affecting California community colleges in rural and remote areas: (1) diverse student needs; (2) rural community colleges receiving less funding and more legislative funding cuts than their urban counterparts; and (3) restrictive administrative policies that limit rural community colleges from expanding their programs.

Substantial shifts in demographics may further complicate the problems faced by public rural community colleges. The demise of open access, a cornerstone in community college education, may loom eminently near. Pennington, Williams, and Karvonen (2006) identified a host of problems brought on by changes in student demographics. Funding, grants, and technology were particularly highlighted. Waller, Flannery, Adams, Bowen, Norvell, Sherman, et.al. (2007) identified inequities in ad valorem tax revenue between metropolitan and non-metropolitan public community colleges in the Lone Star State.

Bolman and Deal (1995) and Lyson (2002) emphatically discussed the importance of educational institutions to the well-being of rural communities. Public community colleges often serve as the educational fulcrum upon which much of the local economy depends. They provide a skilled workforce to meet local need. Without their efforts many critical employment fields would not be assessable to rural communities. Access to meaningful employment for minority populations residing in rural areas is clearly linked with access to higher education opportunity and services.

McHewitt (1993) found significant differences in graduation rates among Virginia Community College institutions with age, race, and gender related to successful completion of an award (i.e., certificate, diploma, or associate degree). The researcher also found that students who initially enrolled full-time were five times more likely to graduate than part-time students.

Fischer (2007) indicated that minority student enrollment in higher education has increased significantly over the last 30 years. African-American student enrollment increased by 14.9%, and Hispanic/Latino enrollment increased by 25.4%. The numbers of international students also increased with over a half million enrolled in American higher education institutions and over 80,000 of these enrolled in community colleges during the 2005 to 2006 academic year (Chen, 2007).

Beekhoven, De Jong, and Van Hout (2004) studied 520 university students in the Netherlands to determine if ethnicity (Dutch versus non-Dutch) affected perception of personal problems and “study progress.” Minority (non-Dutch) students felt that they were not as integrated as their Dutch counterparts. They perceived themselves to have more personal problems. The researchers found that minority students faced more challenges than those in the majority and were more likely to drop out of school. Fischer (2007) found that lack of “formal academic ties” as well as “informal social ties” with both professors and other students were strongly associated with attrition rates.

Cole, Matheson, and Anisman (2007) studied 273 students at a predominantly White Canadian university to determine if negative stereotypes of minorities would affect academic performance. Even though minority students had similar expectations of academic success at the beginning of the school year, they exhibited higher levels of anxiety and depression at the end of the school year. Conversely, students who had higher levels of anxiety and depression at the end of the school year had poorer grades.

In a study of 4,655 individuals enrolled in higher education, 349 of whom were enrolled part-time, Stratton, O’Toole, and Wetzel (2007) found that “racial and ethnic characteristics had a greater impact on those initially enrolled part-time” (p. 453) versus full-time. In other words, if an individual was a minority and enrolled part-time, the chances of dropping out increased. The Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (2005) compiled a progress report of Washington community and technical colleges. They found that although minority students had “equitable” access to community colleges, the dropout rate was higher for these students and most of them were not as “college ready” as their majority counterparts.

Current federal definitions for degree of urbanization were utilized in this study. “City” refers to populations from inside an urbanized area and inside a principle city greater than or equal to 100,000. The classification of “suburban” refers to populations inside an urbanized area but outside a principle city. “Town” is described as a territory inside an urban cluster but outside an urbanized area. “Rural” refers to an area outside an urbanized area (IPEDS, 2007).

Purpose

The researchers examined student gender and ethnicity in public two-year, degree-granting community colleges by the four major degree of urbanization classifications of city, suburban, town, and rural. The following four research questions were explored:

1. What is the gender distribution at public two-year, degree-granting community colleges by the four major degree of urbanization classifications of city, suburban, town, and rural?

2. What is the ethnicity distribution at public two-year, degree-granting community colleges by the four major degree of urbanization classifications of city, suburban, town, and rural?

3. What differences in gender distribution exists between and among public two-year, degree-granting community colleges by the four major degree of urbanization classifications of city, suburban, town, and rural?

4. What differences in the distribution of ethnicity exists between and among public two-year, degree-granting community colleges by the four major degree of urbanization classifications of city, suburban, town, and rural?

Methodology

The analysis utilized national data extracted from the Integrated Post-Secondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The data include the limitations traditionally associated with institutional self-reporting and estimation of enrollment patterns. The most current information available at the time of the study was for the 2005 academic year (AY 2005). Extracted data correspond to the public 2-year sector and degree granting status. The study was delimited to the primary degrees of urbanization provided through the IPEDS data cutting tool. Sub-degrees were combined into the primary urbanization degrees of city, suburban, town, and rural.

“City” was defined as within an urbanized area and a principal city. “Suburban” was within an urbanized area but outside a principal city. “Town” was outside an urbanized area but containing an urbanized cluster. “Rural” was defined by default as outside an urbanized area without an urbanized cluster. Although data for American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands are generally included in the IPEDS extractions, they were omitted from this study. (IPEDS, 2007)

The data set provided institutional reports of AY 2005 headcounts by the classifications of total enrollment, male, female, white non-Hispanic, black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, Native American or Native Alaskan, ethnicity unknown, and non-resident alien. The percentages of each demographic were calculated by the following formulas:

1. Percentage Male = Male Headcount / Total Headcount;

2. Percentage White non-Hispanic = White non-Hispanic Headcount / Total Headcount;

3. Percentage Black non-Hispanic = Black non-Hispanic Headcount / Total Headcount;

4. Percentage Hispanic = Hispanic Headcount/Total Headcount;

5. Percentage Asian/Pacific Islander = Asian/Pacific Islander Headcount / Total Headcount;

6. Percentage Native American/Alaskan = Native American/Alaskan Headcount/ Total Headcount;

7. Percentage Unknown Ethnicity = Unknown Ethnicity Headcount/ Total Headcount; AND

8. Percentage Non-Resident Alien = Non-Resident Alien Headcount / Total Headcount.

Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was utilized to obtain descriptive statistics and to conduct multiple-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine differences between and among the several variables. The statistical testing utilized a significance level of 0.05. Post hoc analyses were conducted where required to address the third and fourth research questions. The post hoc analyses utilized the Dunnett T3 and did not assume homogeneity of variances.

Findings

Descriptive analysis of gender and ethnicity is provided in Appendix 1. Gender and ethnicity categories are subdivided into classifications of city, suburban, town, rural, and total. Analyses indicated that public two-year, degree granting institutions are composed of 59.3% female and 40.7% male enrollment. Rural institutions posted the highest percentage of female enrollment at 60.5% followed by 59.5% in their town counterparts. Suburban colleges indicated the lowest percentage of female enrollment at 58.1%, only slightly higher than the 58.7% female enrollment of city colleges. Though national demographics for public two-year, degree-granting colleges were predominantly female, rural institutions provided higher percentages of females while suburban colleges enrolled the highest percentages of males.

The study provided student demographics for the 1,043 public two-year, degree-granting colleges as follows: 64.8% white non-Hispanic, 13.6% black non-Hispanic, 9.3% Hispanic, 3.9% Asian/Pacific Islander, 3.0% Native American/Native Alaskan, 4.6% ethnicity unknown, and 0.8% non-resident alien. City colleges provided the lowest white non-Hispanic enrollment at 55.5% and the highest black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and non-resident alien enrollments of 16.3%, 14.2%, and 1.3%. Suburban colleges followed suit with demographics of 60.8% white non-Hispanic, 12.8% black non-Hispanic, 11.9% Hispanic, 6.3% Asian/Pacific Islander, 0.7% Native American/Native Alaskan, 6.2% unknown, and 1.2% non-resident alien.

Town and rural colleges tracked closely together in all ethnicity categories. Town institutions indicated the highest percentage of white non-Hispanic enrollments at 73.6% and the lowest black enrollments at 10.9%. For town colleges, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American/Native Alaskan, unknown, and non-resident alien enrollments were 6.3%, 2.1%, 3.1%, 3.5%, and 0.5% respectively. Rural colleges posted the highest Native American/Native Alaskan enrollments at 6.2% and lowest Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and non-resident alien enrollments at 5.1%, 1.8%, and 0.4%. Black non-Hispanic and unknown enrollments were 13.7% and 3.5%.

The wide ranges in gender and ethnicity percentages warranted further analysis. Results of the multiple-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) are provided in Appendix 2. Significant differences between public two-year, degree granting colleges were identified in regard to gender and all classifications of ethnicity. Significance was 1.5% for gender. Significance levels for ethnicity were 0.1% for white non-Hispanic, 0.2% for black non-Hispanic, 0.1% for Hispanic, 0.1% for Asian/Pacific Islander, 0.1% for Native American/Native Alaskan, 0.1% for unknown, and 0.1% for non-resident alien. All significance levels fell well below the 5.0% threshold.

Post hoc analysis is provided in Appendix 3 and utilized a significance level of 5.0%. Suburban and rural public two-year, degree granting institutions differed in student gender. Suburban institutions indicated a higher percentage of male enrollments than their rural counterparts. The rural colleges posted greater percentages of female enrollments.

Examination of student ethnicity indicated that town and rural colleges enrolled higher percentages of white non-Hispanic students than their sister institutions in city and suburban areas. City colleges served higher percentages of black enrollments than their town counterparts. City and suburban institutions were closely linked and indicated higher percentages of Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, unknown, and non-resident alien enrollments than town and rural colleges. Rural institutions posted higher percentages of Native American/Native Alaskan enrollments than city and suburban colleges.

Perhaps the most startling demographic differences occur in the percentages of Hispanic enrollments in city and suburban colleges when compared to town and rural institutions. The former enrollments more than doubled the latter.

Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Research

Community college enrollments clearly differ in gender and ethnicity when examined in light of degrees of urbanization. Colleges with higher degrees of urbanization track closely together in contrast to those with lesser degrees of urbanization. Questions arise as to why urbanized colleges have greater percentages of Hispanic and black students than non-urbanized counterparts. Why does the percentage of Hispanic enrollment in city and suburban colleges more than double that in town and rural institutions? What issues are driving these enrollment trends? Do population demographics differ so widely between urban and rural areas that such has affected college enrollments? Are other issues causing the enrollment percentages to diverge? Do urbanized institutions more adequately meet the needs of Hispanic students? Do non-urbanized institutions lack the educational resources required to adequately serve their Hispanic populations? The questions are endless.

Given disparities in minority enrollments, policy and decision makers must recognize the importance of public community colleges in providing minority access to higher education. Failure to address access will only serve to further exclude already excluded segments of the population. Additional research is called for to more adequately examine issues related to minority enrollments in higher education. The following national studies of public two-year, degree-granting colleges are suggested.

1. Population demographics should be examined in relation to degrees of urbanization. Do differences in population ethnicities exist between and among the four major classifications of urbanization? How closely do college student ethnicities parallel the demographics of their service areas?
2. Faculty demographics should be reviewed in regard to the degree of urbanization of public two-year, degree granting colleges. Do differences exist in regard to faculty demographics by degree or urbanization? Do faculty demographics track or diverge from student demographics? Are adequate faculty role models provided to attract and retain minority students?
3. Primary revenue streams of student tuition, ad valorem property taxes, and state funding should be examined in relation to student ethnicity and institutional degree of urbanization. Do differences exist between and among primary revenue streams in light of student demographics and the institutional degree of urbanization?
4. Student enrollment patterns should be examined by ethnicity and by the degree of institutional urbanization. Are minority students more likely to enroll on a part-time or full-time basis? Do these enrollment patterns differ between and among the four major classifications of urbanization?

Additional areas of research are also suggested in regard to all two-year degree granting institutions whether public or not. Questions arise as to the status of the private educational sector. The following studies are suggested.

1. Student demographics of gender and ethnicity should be examined for public as well as private institutions. Do differences exist between and among public, private-not-for-profit, and private-for-profit two-year degree granting colleges? Do private-not-for-profit colleges experience shifts in student demographics based on the institutional degree of urbanization? Do student demographics at private-for-profit institutions parallel their public and private-not-for-profit counterparts based on the institutional degree of urbanization?

2. Faculty demographics should be reviewed against the degree of urbanization of the indicated classifications of institutions. Do differences exist in faculty demographics by degree or urbanization? Are adequate role models provided? Do faculty demographics track or diverge from student demographics?

3. Student enrollment patterns should be examined in light of gender, ethnicity, and degree of urbanization for private-not-for-profit and private-for-profit two-year, degree-granting colleges. Do these demographics differ from those of public institutions?

REFERENCES

Beekhoven, S., De Jong, U., & Van Hout, H. (2004). The dynamics of ethnic identity and student life. Higher Education in Europe, 26(1), 47 – 65.

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1995). Leading with soul: An uncommon journey of spirit. Berkeley, CA: Jossey-Bass.

California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2006). Challenges and solutions regarding community college service in rural and remote areas: A progress report. Commission Report 06, 15.

Chen, D. (2007). Dissertation research on international education at American community colleges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton.

Cole, B., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2007). The moderating role of ethnic identity and social support on relations between well-being and academic performance. Journal of Applied Sociology, 37(3), 592 – 615.

Fischer, M. J. (2007). Settling into campus life: Differences by race/ethnicity in college involvement and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 125 – 161.

Honeyman, D. S. & Sullivan, M. D. (2006). Recreating America’s community colleges: Critical policy issues facing America’s community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30, 177 – 82.

Hodgkinson, H. (2003). Leaving too many children behind. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Leadership. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from http://www.iel.org/pubs/manychildren.pdf.

Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System (IPEDS) (2007). New urban-centric locale codes. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from http://www.nces.ed.gov/ccd/Rural_Locales.asp#defs

Lyson, T. (2002). What does a school mean to a community? Assessing the social and economic benefits of schools to rural villages in New York. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

McHewitt, E. (1993). Graduation rate differences within the VCCS, August 1993. Richmond, VA: Virginia State Department of Community Colleges.

Pennington, K. Williams, M., & Karvonen, M.(2006). Challenges facing rural community colleges: Issues and problems today and over the past 30 years. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30(8), 641 – 655.

Stratton, L.S., O’Toole, D. M., & Wetzel, J. N. (2007). Are the factors affecting dropout

behavior related to initial enrollment intensity for college undergraduates? Research in Higher Education, 48(4), 453 – 485.

Waller, R., Flannery, J., Adams, K., Bowen, S., Norvell, K., Sherman, S., Watt, J., & Waller, S. (2007). Texas community college funding: Non-metropolitan and metropolitan ad valorem tax rates and revenue. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31(7), 563-573.

Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (2005). Access and success for system goals for people of color in Washington community and technical colleges: Progress report. Retrieved December 7, 2007 from http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/college/d_studentsofcolor.aspx

Appendix 1

Demographic Percentage of Enrollment for Public Two-Year, Degree-Granting Community Colleges

Appendix 1 Continued

Demographic Percentage of Enrollment for Public Two-Year, Degree-Granting Community Colleges

Appendix 2

ANOVA for Demographic Percentage of Enrollment for Public Two-Year, Degree-Granting Community Colleges

Appendix 3

Post Hoc Analysis for Demographic Percentage of Enrollment for Public Two-Year, Degree-Granting Community Colleges

Appendix 3 Continued

Post Hoc Analysis for Demographic Percentage of Enrollment for Public Two-Year, Degree-Granting Community Colleges

Appendix 3 Continued

Post Hoc Analysis for Demographic Percentage of Enrollment for Public Two-Year, Degree-Granting Community Colleges